Besides motion sensing, both the PS3 and Wii controlers use Bluetooth. I can't help but remember a while back when Slashdot and others were saying Bluetooth is dead.
I'm personally hoping this mainstream use and the improvments in version 2, will lead to more mice, keyboards and other devices that use it. It would be nice to have it built right into desktop PCs like it is in some notebooks. Being able to easily use your Wiimote or sixaxis on the PC, or your wireless keyboard and mouse on the consoles, would be great (though I doubt they made it this functional at launch). It could do away with needing to buy two steering wheels to play driving games on your console and your PC and could even let you use your phone's Bluetooth headset in gaming, or your more comfortable gaming headset for your phone around the house.
Can we finally say that the death of bluetooth talk is, well, dead? I hope we will so people can start using it to it's full potential.
I think standardization is great. It's more than great. It allows things like CDs, gasoline and soda vending machines to work. I wouldn't have it any other way. But notice that none of the above is mandated by law.
If I prefer to make a device that uses floppy disks or DVDs for data transfer, no one is going to stop me. Despite the fact that the industry standardizes on cans of about the same size, manufactures felt plenty free to start making plastic bottles. Nothing in America says I have to use a gasoline powered car. If I want to use natural gas or electric, it's no problem.
I'm not against standardization. I'm against laws that enforce standardization. Industries should come together and standardize on a format. If they don't, consumers suffer, but that shouldn't be an excuse to force them.
As you point out, something standardized by the government is AC outlets. They haven't changed in how many years? Is it honestly the best outlet that could possibly be made? Is it possible we could have safer, flatter, more portable plugs if not for the prongs? We probably wont know for many years to come, if ever. Maybe 220 would be superior, like in Europe? But you don't have the option of having your house equipped with European-style outlets. If you want 220, you have to go with American-style appliance outlets. Do you want to have smart conductive plates that communicate with whatever you place against them and give just the right amount of juice making wall warts a thing of the past? And they don't fry your toddler who discovered the butter knife? Can't have it. Are their better ideas than the off-the-cuff examples I just gave? Almost certainly, but who would spend the time developing them knowing the legal hurdles they'd have to jump to even start up a small commercial operation.
Is this a huge problem. Probably not, but we'll never know what we may have missed out on. Innovation is how I make my living in IT, and how I enjoy my very cool toys. Standardization is totally, totally awesome, but I would not give up innovation to get it.
This is a totally awesome idea, except it's also stupid as hell.
I've wanted manufacturers to standardize on USB for a few years now. It would truly be wonderful, as many of you have been happy to point out. But what happens when something better comes along? What happens when someone has a great idea, but finds out he can't legally implement it?
I don't know what that idea may be. It could be the ability to safely and seamlessly hop amperage and voltage to much higher levels based on communication between power-only hubs and devices. It may be an even better connection. It may be much faster data that requires two more wires. I really don't know.
If it was an industry association mandating the standard, it would be different. Mavericks with good ideas could at least go it alone and see if anyone bites. Industry giants reading good press about the new connection could push for a change and get it.. That actually happens in the marketplace, but governments don't even come close to moving that quickly. If the law prevents people from getting a new idea to market until the law is changed, or government bureaucracy grinds along, it'll put a big damper on innovation.
Once again, I like USB and I would love all my portable devices to be recharged by it, but once you make differences illegal, you end up paying a heavy price. We shouldn't celebrate a great idea at the moment if it means we'll pay dearly down the road.
It is nice. With one store. Add three stores and then tell me what you think. My personal opinion is that at about two stores it starts to bite. But you know what they say about opinions....:-)
Even assuming they fix the DRM issues and iTunes loses it's monopoly, I'm starting to get bummed about everyone wanting an account and client software to download a song that costs a buck.
It's bad enough that I need to have a user name and password every place I shop on line, and I can understand why newegg.com needs an address because they have to actually ship something, but why is the process still so tedious to download a single song? What happened to micro-payments?
The matter gets worse when they want you to install software to download. Not only do I need the iTunes client to download from Apple, but now I have to install a Yahoo client to download a non-DRM MP3, and I'll probably have to go into the registry to keep it from showing up in my "tray" at startup.
What will Sony and Skype want me to do? Who knows. But if they're trying to attract new customers, my advice would be to try and make it easier. At least Skype is likely to use PayPal, but if they don't make the download web-based, they might find it hard to convince me to install yet another "music manager" that I don't want or need. I have a Q and a Y in my tray. Someone somewhere is going to have to realize that this isn't a game of Scrabble and I really don't need to add two Ss.
When I broke down and decided I would have to start over at entry level I found that everyone wanted interview after interview. Some places would string you along for three or even four interviews. Do these hiring employers really have so little to do?
I don't understand this. Not only should the hiring managers have better things to do, but they should have more respect for their potential employees. Three interviews says, "bureaucracy." Four says, "we will have no problem ignoring your personal life once you work for us, because, as you can see, we have no problem ignoring it now."
I'm not saying there's never a call for a third interview, especially at the highest levels, but it's completely unnecessary at the lowest levels. I can't imagine you'll ferret out anything useful. The only thing you're likely to get is "buy-in" from various levels of management.
If we couldn't figure it out in two interviews, we went on to a candidate who was a little more easy to judge. If a manager with input missed his first or second chance to talk to the candidate, then he also missed his chance for input.
Absolutely!...if you were making your network in the 80s. Anyone who actually knows how to make a proper ring topology network should also be able to name the type of network and point out that it's non-standard for 2006. He also wouldn't be applying for an entry-level position.
First I ask them to name the parts of a PC (I'll ask specifically about the power button next time:-). I wanted to hear things like hard drive, CD-ROM, CPU, RAM, video card, etc. If they can't name the parts, it shows insufficient interest in the field. If they they get this pretty well, I ask them to name a few different types of CPU, RAM and Video cards. Once again, good answers show interest and enthusiasm.
Then I move onto buses. Most newbies will look at you funny because they don't know the term "bus", but that doesn't mean they don't know what a bus is good for. If I have to, I'll give them a simple explanation like, "They're the systems that let you expand the PC by allowing different parts talk to each other. For example, the IDE bus will let your hard drive talk to the rest of the computer." A bright guy will usually catch on and mention the AGP or PCI-E buses because he probably expanded his video card. They'll usually get the PCI and SATA buses too, and might refer to the IDE/ATA as PATA if they're especially young. For some reason, a lot of guys miss the USB, even though "Bus" is right there in the acronym. I think it's because they're thinking of buses as being inside the case only. For this reason, if they get USB I usually give them extra points for "thinking outside the box" (couldn't resist:-) Once again, you can tell by how they answer these questions what their level of enthusiasm is for the work. I don't look for all the right answers as much as I look for them showing they've taken the time to learn some stuff on their own with the tools they've had on hand.
I then go on to networking. I have them draw a simple network on the white board consisting of a server, a workstation a network printer and any other equipment they think is necessary to get them all to work together. They should show network cables going to a switch or hub. Wireless is also an acceptable answer. This shows me several things. Do they understand that there's a piece of centralized networking equipment involved? Can they take direction to do a simple task? Can they effectively communicate data to another team members? I've had coworkers who questioned this interview technique because they think the question is too simple. It doesn't seem possible that anyone could get this wrong. They were amazed to see so many candidates that couldn't handle this request, even going so far as to make wild networks with ring topologies or multiple routers. I had one guy draw a line from the workstation to a small box. When I asked him about it, he said "it plugs into the wall." I actually gave him credit for this (it was a tough call) because he said that that was his only exposure to networking instead of making something up. It's also increadible the number of candidates that blow this one just from giving pushback about getting up out of their chair to "work."
As far as technical aptitude is concerned, understanding their PC and simple networking shows that they care about computer equipment. Actual brilliance with technical stuff is difficult to gauge, so knowing they've taken the time to learn their way around the stuff they already have at home is sometimes all you can get. I've found these people tend to pick up on new concepts rather easily.
Communicating effectively both to and from other team members usually makes for a good employee that will learn rapidly because they know how to make the most of their relationships with people that know more than them. It also tends to show that they're more likely to get along with the staff in general.
Another guy also mentioned the memorization thing as an impediment to making full use of the right click. It's an interesting perspective and seems to be a somewhat common theme in the replies I've gotten. I am curious as to whether it makes the computer harder to use, or whether it means the right mouse button just doesn't get used much. Either way, I find myself all the more curious whether anyone has done usability studies recently and what kind of results they got.
It was interesting that you mentioned that single button mice force better design in Mac apps. I think this is kind of funny because the I've always felt the lack of a second button has resulted in Mac context menus that aren't very good relative to Windows. I've found that if I use a two button mouse on a Mac or hit CTRL+CLICK, that the menus were small and lacking features. Oh well, I guess it's just a lesson that even small changes can have significant unintended consequences.
Seriously? I'm amazed. Gimp is not exactly a model of transparency for beginners. I normally rate Gimp users' computer savvy as pretty darn high, much less Linux. Just out of curiosity, do you have any guesses as to why this might be? He's clearly bright and not a newbie so I'm having a hard time figuring this out short of a handedness issue or some kind of selective memory issue.
Are you a usability expert? I just want to know, because you spend a lot of time talking as if you are. This is not a criticism, just a question.
Tech support with GUIs is a setup. Explaining the right vs.left button is nothing compared to trying to explain scrolling to someone who doesn't know it by that name, or trying to walk someone through something that's slightly different on your screen because of a version mismatch. This isn't a mouse issue, it's an issue with the difficulty of effectively delivering remote tech support.
I'm guilty of having to think of the difference between left and right when someone gives me directions, but I don't click the wrong button any more than I mistype my password or make other inadvertent or clumsy mistakes. I'm guessing this is the same for almost everyone. This is not a mouse issue, but a human dexterity issue. Getting rid of a button doesn't fix it, it just moves your clumsy errors to occurring at the menu bar. If your father truly forgets which button does which, I'll be impressed in a clinical sense that his memory is so selectively bad with this, but works just fine with email addresses. If it's just an inadvertent mistake, please reference the first part of this paragraph for what I think of the relevance.
Your mom? I don't know what to say. Is it really that much easier for her to use a one-button mouse, or were there other OS differences she found easier to work with on a Mac? I will admit, some people find Macs easier. I've met 'em. I don't doubt their sincerity.
But I've never, ever witnessed people having trouble figuring out which button to press on a two-button mouse. In fact, of all the dense, clueless, dangerous, can't-figure-out-how-to-plug-the-computer-in Windows users I've worked with in my decade-long IT career, I've never once observed a mouse related issue, other that the simple misunderstandings in verbal description that plaque _all_ tech support (yes, even tech support for Macs). I've had to explain scroll-bars, then arrows, then "those little triangles." I've had to explain that even though the phone cord will fit in the network slot, it will not work. Twice. To the same person. I had a user tell me she lost her Word docs and when I asked her where she stored them she said, "in Word." No amount of cajoling could get her to understand a file structure, or, in fact, the reason her documents were gone was that her entire computer had just been replaced. Yet none of these people had any confusion over mouse buttons, including one of them (the scroll bar guy) who was using a stylus on a tablet where a tap was left and a hold-the-button tap was right.
Does your mom really dislike the mouse rather than the Windows OS? Heck, she's your mom, so you're the one best qualified to know. I'll give you this one. But if you are a usability expert, or you know of some places where one could find usability studies, I'd love to see one made in the 21st century that says one button is better than two. I know I've asked and you've already delivered, but it's just so hard for me to understand what goes so strongly against what I've actually observed: two buttons are no real problem, one button is no real help, and getting a menu with the stuff you need on it without moving your mouse an inch is, as they say in the MasterCard commercial, Priceless.
Congratulations. You're one of 100% of Mac Apologists who claim there's no reason people need more mouse buttons after they just get finished saying, "I need more mouse buttons."
I've seen thread after thread here on Slashdot where someone says they wish the standard Mac laptop or mouse had more than one button. Time after time, I've seen someone like you give them a reason why they shouldn't get it. If someone says another button or two would be useful, and a bunch of other people also chime in and say it would be useful, then there's a chance it just might be useful. Telling them they're wrong for wanting it is decidedly not useful.
I have a challenge for you. Find someone, somewhere, who sometime in the 21st century has claimed that two mouse buttons are confusing. Here's the catch; They also have to demonstrate that they can use Mac OS X for general computing tasks such as surfing the web; typing, printing and saving a document; and sending a simple email.
If you can do that, I'll give you props. If you can find two, I'll admit that there might be some truth to the "one mouse button is better," assertion. If you can find three, I'll proclaim the matter closed in favor of the one button mouse.
The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.
Actually, this is a great, potentiality workable idea if you replace "shock" with "sound". An audible tone, especially if it was a really annoying one, would not only encourage you to swing slower, but encourage peer pressure from those on the sidelines. Heck, if I was the owner of the box and my buddy was constantly making the Wiimote sound off, I might want to direct him over to the safer Gamecube instead.
Heres another idea. They could pause the game for 5 seconds if you swing too wildly. That would definitely be annoying enough to get you to slow down. They could have it set in the options panel so you choose game stutter or tone. I'll bet it would really cut down on the potential lawsuits too.
Even windows without borders have edges. Occasionally you'll find borderless windows in the MS Windows world, and in those cases you usually just drag the edge.
(clarification: a lot of times apps that have borderless windows don't want you to resize at all. Examples include splash screens on app startup. There are, however, some apps out there that make regular, resizable windows that happen to be borderless.)
I've often wondered if was just stuborness. It seems like there are a few ideas that are common in PC land and improve on the Mac way of doing things, that Apple just doesn't want to impliment purely out of a competitive spirit. I don't know if this is true, and people who use Macs often tell me I'm wrong, but for things like this I just find it difficult to believe there's any other explanation.
Here's the thing. Linux UIs freely borrow great ideas from many sources. Microsoft is famous for grabbing other peoples' good ideas. Isn't it time for Apple to learn that even their best ideas can be improved over time, even if the improvement was first implimented by another company?
Oh thank god this has finally come up. As a PC user that sometimes uses a Mac, I've found this frustrating. But any time I've brought it up in casual conversation with Mac people, they've treated me like it's my fault for not understanding the superiority of the Mac UI. I was actually starting to justify in my mind that there must be something wonderful about only using the bottom, right corner and I just had to try harder to understand what it could be. Meditation wasn't helping. Seeing this on the list might save me years of therapy.
Safety screen. Funny. My guess though, is that most people don't know the exact MPH definition of "vigorous" and possibly don't know exactly how many MPH their arms are capable of. Maybe with that in mind, and the fact that the "safety screen" doesn't physically restrain them, people might possibly make the assumption that the way they're swingin' the thing is the way that thing was meant to be swung.
So why not just ban all media that can lead to sympathies with the subject matter when the subject matter is a felony? Why chose child pornography over, say, murder? Hate to say it, and I know I'll never be in such a situation, but if I had to make a choice with my kid, I know I'd prefer she not die at he hands of someone all jacked up from playing Grand Theft Auto.
Actually, the documentation says otherwise, as does the construction of the strap itself. Nintendo clearly meant this strap to keep it from flying out of the operator's hands during normal use. Unfortunately, they also designed several of their games to encourage quite vigorous arm actions. "60+ MPH" movements are most certainly "normal" in this context.
BTW, ever notice that the Wiimote is smooth plastic without a hint of texturing or a rubberized surface to help hold it in place? I see this as an "upgrade" opportunity for the future, because we all know it doesn't make sense to call it a "recall".
TW
P.S. My very much not "stupid" friend has a dent in his ceiling. Thankfully his TV is intact.
You missed the point. Horror films arouse feelings of fear. They depict murder, rape, torture, but the point is not to engender the feeling of torturing someone else, is it? You don't watch Saw III to experience the feeling of killing people. At least I certainly hope you don't. So yes a feeling is illicited by horror, but not the feeling we want to discourage. The point of a depiction of murder is not to make us feel like we're murdering people. The point of porn, on the other hand, is to make us aroused in sympathy with the actions portrayed on screen
You take on the role of the victim in a horror film until the very end, then you take on the role of the killer. You may ask, "so what? Neither role is evil." This may be true, but the thrill you get from killing the bad guy is very real. You experience the joy of the bad guy's death.
In other movies, like Porky's, you get the thrill of being the voyeur. You get to watch naked teenage girls shower without their permission.
Finally, in movies like "Natural Born Killers," you absolutely become the predator. You are very happy to kill, and the movie does this quite purposefully.
As a guy pointed out earlier in the thread, there are those who would want to ban even these. They say they encourage deviant behavior, much like you suggest kiddie porn might. I won't claim that this is impossible. Some people are more prone to acting on suggestion than others. Why take a chance that someone will try to kill, rape, spy, or do other activities depicted in these films?
But this is very dangerous. The position is flat-out censorship of ideas. It's making the depiction of thought illegal, even if that depiction does no harm. To make expression of thought illegal, especially if it's on the flimsy chance that one in a million will want to act on those thoughts is criminal. As a crime perpetrated on the whole of society, it's extremely grave. It should not be tolerated.
Child porn is disgusting, and even more disgusting the younger the victim. Rape of anyone is horrible. But if you get a sexual arousal out of the _thought_ of these things, I feel I cannot judge you. You are entitled to your thoughts, no matter how horrible they are. Ever have a bad breakup where you fantasized about killing the person? Ever pictured an especially bad coworker or boss had a serious accident, or that you got to hurt them yourself? Have you ever seen a high-school girl and thought, "she is smokin' hot!" Have you ever considered going to jail for expressing any of these thoughts? Kiddie porn is horrible, but I will not be party to imprisoning those that merely depict their feelings or thoughts of it. As long as no one is harmed in order to make it, there must be no limitations on the expressions of our ideas.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, US prisons have largely checked themselves out of the rehabilitation process for many years now. Most people, it would seem, are more interested in revenge than in attempting to foster any good that may still be left in those that commit crimes.
My personal opinion is that this glorifies our basest instincts and shuts out our most human. In other words, choosing to only punish criminals is really a choice to hurt ourselves.
Ok, you got me. All these people are crazy. If I want to live in their world, I guess I'm gonna have to get used to "My Little Ponies" and "The All Rainbow Channel".
But the truth will eventually come out. I'm sure that will lead to a massive suicide rate, thus proving them wrong. I regret that I have but one life to give for sex and violence in the media.
Agreed. But for some reason these people aren't willing to admit that watching horror movies doesn't make you a mass murderer and playing GTA does not cause you to join the mob, therefore watching fake kiddie porn is unlikely to turn you into a rapist. Even those that are pretty hardcore against violence in the media very rarely say it will cause adults to do horrible things.
But even in pornography, based on my anecdotal evidence, the incidence of real life participation in threesomes among my porn-watching friends is quite rare, for the most part their wives wont let them go near the nether regions, and people of my advanced years don't have a snowball's chance in hell of having sex with a college-aged woman. Nor do we look for it, because we know our wives will leave us. In other words, it may be all good and fine to suggest that sick and twisted fantasies will lead to sick and twisted behavior, but there's very little evidence that this will actually happen.
Read the article. In air device may not technically be motion sensing, but the effect is the same. Read the second and third paragraphs of TFA and you will see that they're intended use is equivalent.
...you can try an Air Mouse from Gryration. I know we're all really excited about the Wii and all, but, honestly, it wasn't the first, and isn't the only, device that does motion sensing.
I know it's not home made, but it does the job pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides motion sensing, both the PS3 and Wii controlers use Bluetooth. I can't help but remember a while back when Slashdot and others were saying Bluetooth is dead.
I'm personally hoping this mainstream use and the improvments in version 2, will lead to more mice, keyboards and other devices that use it. It would be nice to have it built right into desktop PCs like it is in some notebooks. Being able to easily use your Wiimote or sixaxis on the PC, or your wireless keyboard and mouse on the consoles, would be great (though I doubt they made it this functional at launch). It could do away with needing to buy two steering wheels to play driving games on your console and your PC and could even let you use your phone's Bluetooth headset in gaming, or your more comfortable gaming headset for your phone around the house.
Can we finally say that the death of bluetooth talk is, well, dead? I hope we will so people can start using it to it's full potential.
TW
I think standardization is great. It's more than great. It allows things like CDs, gasoline and soda vending machines to work. I wouldn't have it any other way. But notice that none of the above is mandated by law.
If I prefer to make a device that uses floppy disks or DVDs for data transfer, no one is going to stop me. Despite the fact that the industry standardizes on cans of about the same size, manufactures felt plenty free to start making plastic bottles. Nothing in America says I have to use a gasoline powered car. If I want to use natural gas or electric, it's no problem.
I'm not against standardization. I'm against laws that enforce standardization. Industries should come together and standardize on a format. If they don't, consumers suffer, but that shouldn't be an excuse to force them.
As you point out, something standardized by the government is AC outlets. They haven't changed in how many years? Is it honestly the best outlet that could possibly be made? Is it possible we could have safer, flatter, more portable plugs if not for the prongs? We probably wont know for many years to come, if ever. Maybe 220 would be superior, like in Europe? But you don't have the option of having your house equipped with European-style outlets. If you want 220, you have to go with American-style appliance outlets. Do you want to have smart conductive plates that communicate with whatever you place against them and give just the right amount of juice making wall warts a thing of the past? And they don't fry your toddler who discovered the butter knife? Can't have it. Are their better ideas than the off-the-cuff examples I just gave? Almost certainly, but who would spend the time developing them knowing the legal hurdles they'd have to jump to even start up a small commercial operation.
Is this a huge problem. Probably not, but we'll never know what we may have missed out on. Innovation is how I make my living in IT, and how I enjoy my very cool toys. Standardization is totally, totally awesome, but I would not give up innovation to get it.
TW
This is a totally awesome idea, except it's also stupid as hell.
I've wanted manufacturers to standardize on USB for a few years now. It would truly be wonderful, as many of you have been happy to point out. But what happens when something better comes along? What happens when someone has a great idea, but finds out he can't legally implement it?
I don't know what that idea may be. It could be the ability to safely and seamlessly hop amperage and voltage to much higher levels based on communication between power-only hubs and devices. It may be an even better connection. It may be much faster data that requires two more wires. I really don't know.
If it was an industry association mandating the standard, it would be different. Mavericks with good ideas could at least go it alone and see if anyone bites. Industry giants reading good press about the new connection could push for a change and get it.. That actually happens in the marketplace, but governments don't even come close to moving that quickly. If the law prevents people from getting a new idea to market until the law is changed, or government bureaucracy grinds along, it'll put a big damper on innovation.
Once again, I like USB and I would love all my portable devices to be recharged by it, but once you make differences illegal, you end up paying a heavy price. We shouldn't celebrate a great idea at the moment if it means we'll pay dearly down the road.
TW
It is nice. With one store. Add three stores and then tell me what you think. My personal opinion is that at about two stores it starts to bite. But you know what they say about opinions.... :-)
TW
Even assuming they fix the DRM issues and iTunes loses it's monopoly, I'm starting to get bummed about everyone wanting an account and client software to download a song that costs a buck.
It's bad enough that I need to have a user name and password every place I shop on line, and I can understand why newegg.com needs an address because they have to actually ship something, but why is the process still so tedious to download a single song? What happened to micro-payments?
The matter gets worse when they want you to install software to download. Not only do I need the iTunes client to download from Apple, but now I have to install a Yahoo client to download a non-DRM MP3, and I'll probably have to go into the registry to keep it from showing up in my "tray" at startup.
What will Sony and Skype want me to do? Who knows. But if they're trying to attract new customers, my advice would be to try and make it easier. At least Skype is likely to use PayPal, but if they don't make the download web-based, they might find it hard to convince me to install yet another "music manager" that I don't want or need. I have a Q and a Y in my tray. Someone somewhere is going to have to realize that this isn't a game of Scrabble and I really don't need to add two Ss.
TW
When I broke down and decided I would have to start over at entry level I found that everyone wanted interview after interview. Some places would string you along for three or even four interviews. Do these hiring employers really have so little to do?
I don't understand this. Not only should the hiring managers have better things to do, but they should have more respect for their potential employees. Three interviews says, "bureaucracy." Four says, "we will have no problem ignoring your personal life once you work for us, because, as you can see, we have no problem ignoring it now."
I'm not saying there's never a call for a third interview, especially at the highest levels, but it's completely unnecessary at the lowest levels. I can't imagine you'll ferret out anything useful. The only thing you're likely to get is "buy-in" from various levels of management.
If we couldn't figure it out in two interviews, we went on to a candidate who was a little more easy to judge. If a manager with input missed his first or second chance to talk to the candidate, then he also missed his chance for input.
TW
Absolutely! ...if you were making your network in the 80s. Anyone who actually knows how to make a proper ring topology network should also be able to name the type of network and point out that it's non-standard for 2006. He also wouldn't be applying for an entry-level position.
TW
First I ask them to name the parts of a PC (I'll ask specifically about the power button next time :-). I wanted to hear things like hard drive, CD-ROM, CPU, RAM, video card, etc. If they can't name the parts, it shows insufficient interest in the field. If they they get this pretty well, I ask them to name a few different types of CPU, RAM and Video cards. Once again, good answers show interest and enthusiasm.
:-) Once again, you can tell by how they answer these questions what their level of enthusiasm is for the work. I don't look for all the right answers as much as I look for them showing they've taken the time to learn some stuff on their own with the tools they've had on hand.
Then I move onto buses. Most newbies will look at you funny because they don't know the term "bus", but that doesn't mean they don't know what a bus is good for. If I have to, I'll give them a simple explanation like, "They're the systems that let you expand the PC by allowing different parts talk to each other. For example, the IDE bus will let your hard drive talk to the rest of the computer." A bright guy will usually catch on and mention the AGP or PCI-E buses because he probably expanded his video card. They'll usually get the PCI and SATA buses too, and might refer to the IDE/ATA as PATA if they're especially young. For some reason, a lot of guys miss the USB, even though "Bus" is right there in the acronym. I think it's because they're thinking of buses as being inside the case only. For this reason, if they get USB I usually give them extra points for "thinking outside the box" (couldn't resist
I then go on to networking. I have them draw a simple network on the white board consisting of a server, a workstation a network printer and any other equipment they think is necessary to get them all to work together. They should show network cables going to a switch or hub. Wireless is also an acceptable answer. This shows me several things. Do they understand that there's a piece of centralized networking equipment involved? Can they take direction to do a simple task? Can they effectively communicate data to another team members? I've had coworkers who questioned this interview technique because they think the question is too simple. It doesn't seem possible that anyone could get this wrong. They were amazed to see so many candidates that couldn't handle this request, even going so far as to make wild networks with ring topologies or multiple routers. I had one guy draw a line from the workstation to a small box. When I asked him about it, he said "it plugs into the wall." I actually gave him credit for this (it was a tough call) because he said that that was his only exposure to networking instead of making something up. It's also increadible the number of candidates that blow this one just from giving pushback about getting up out of their chair to "work."
As far as technical aptitude is concerned, understanding their PC and simple networking shows that they care about computer equipment. Actual brilliance with technical stuff is difficult to gauge, so knowing they've taken the time to learn their way around the stuff they already have at home is sometimes all you can get. I've found these people tend to pick up on new concepts rather easily.
Communicating effectively both to and from other team members usually makes for a good employee that will learn rapidly because they know how to make the most of their relationships with people that know more than them. It also tends to show that they're more likely to get along with the staff in general.
TW
Another guy also mentioned the memorization thing as an impediment to making full use of the right click. It's an interesting perspective and seems to be a somewhat common theme in the replies I've gotten. I am curious as to whether it makes the computer harder to use, or whether it means the right mouse button just doesn't get used much. Either way, I find myself all the more curious whether anyone has done usability studies recently and what kind of results they got.
It was interesting that you mentioned that single button mice force better design in Mac apps. I think this is kind of funny because the I've always felt the lack of a second button has resulted in Mac context menus that aren't very good relative to Windows. I've found that if I use a two button mouse on a Mac or hit CTRL+CLICK, that the menus were small and lacking features. Oh well, I guess it's just a lesson that even small changes can have significant unintended consequences.
Seriously? I'm amazed. Gimp is not exactly a model of transparency for beginners. I normally rate Gimp users' computer savvy as pretty darn high, much less Linux. Just out of curiosity, do you have any guesses as to why this might be? He's clearly bright and not a newbie so I'm having a hard time figuring this out short of a handedness issue or some kind of selective memory issue.
TW
Are you a usability expert? I just want to know, because you spend a lot of time talking as if you are. This is not a criticism, just a question.
Tech support with GUIs is a setup. Explaining the right vs.left button is nothing compared to trying to explain scrolling to someone who doesn't know it by that name, or trying to walk someone through something that's slightly different on your screen because of a version mismatch. This isn't a mouse issue, it's an issue with the difficulty of effectively delivering remote tech support.
I'm guilty of having to think of the difference between left and right when someone gives me directions, but I don't click the wrong button any more than I mistype my password or make other inadvertent or clumsy mistakes. I'm guessing this is the same for almost everyone. This is not a mouse issue, but a human dexterity issue. Getting rid of a button doesn't fix it, it just moves your clumsy errors to occurring at the menu bar. If your father truly forgets which button does which, I'll be impressed in a clinical sense that his memory is so selectively bad with this, but works just fine with email addresses. If it's just an inadvertent mistake, please reference the first part of this paragraph for what I think of the relevance.
Your mom? I don't know what to say. Is it really that much easier for her to use a one-button mouse, or were there other OS differences she found easier to work with on a Mac? I will admit, some people find Macs easier. I've met 'em. I don't doubt their sincerity.
But I've never, ever witnessed people having trouble figuring out which button to press on a two-button mouse. In fact, of all the dense, clueless, dangerous, can't-figure-out-how-to-plug-the-computer-in Windows users I've worked with in my decade-long IT career, I've never once observed a mouse related issue, other that the simple misunderstandings in verbal description that plaque _all_ tech support (yes, even tech support for Macs). I've had to explain scroll-bars, then arrows, then "those little triangles." I've had to explain that even though the phone cord will fit in the network slot, it will not work. Twice. To the same person. I had a user tell me she lost her Word docs and when I asked her where she stored them she said, "in Word." No amount of cajoling could get her to understand a file structure, or, in fact, the reason her documents were gone was that her entire computer had just been replaced. Yet none of these people had any confusion over mouse buttons, including one of them (the scroll bar guy) who was using a stylus on a tablet where a tap was left and a hold-the-button tap was right.
Does your mom really dislike the mouse rather than the Windows OS? Heck, she's your mom, so you're the one best qualified to know. I'll give you this one. But if you are a usability expert, or you know of some places where one could find usability studies, I'd love to see one made in the 21st century that says one button is better than two. I know I've asked and you've already delivered, but it's just so hard for me to understand what goes so strongly against what I've actually observed: two buttons are no real problem, one button is no real help, and getting a menu with the stuff you need on it without moving your mouse an inch is, as they say in the MasterCard commercial, Priceless.
TW
Congratulations. You're one of 100% of Mac Apologists who claim there's no reason people need more mouse buttons after they just get finished saying, "I need more mouse buttons."
I've seen thread after thread here on Slashdot where someone says they wish the standard Mac laptop or mouse had more than one button. Time after time, I've seen someone like you give them a reason why they shouldn't get it. If someone says another button or two would be useful, and a bunch of other people also chime in and say it would be useful, then there's a chance it just might be useful. Telling them they're wrong for wanting it is decidedly not useful.
I have a challenge for you. Find someone, somewhere, who sometime in the 21st century has claimed that two mouse buttons are confusing. Here's the catch; They also have to demonstrate that they can use Mac OS X for general computing tasks such as surfing the web; typing, printing and saving a document; and sending a simple email.
If you can do that, I'll give you props. If you can find two, I'll admit that there might be some truth to the "one mouse button is better," assertion. If you can find three, I'll proclaim the matter closed in favor of the one button mouse.
The truth is, I don't think you'll find a single person on Earth that can do email but is actually confused by two mouse buttons.
TW
Actually, this is a great, potentiality workable idea if you replace "shock" with "sound". An audible tone, especially if it was a really annoying one, would not only encourage you to swing slower, but encourage peer pressure from those on the sidelines. Heck, if I was the owner of the box and my buddy was constantly making the Wiimote sound off, I might want to direct him over to the safer Gamecube instead.
Heres another idea. They could pause the game for 5 seconds if you swing too wildly. That would definitely be annoying enough to get you to slow down. They could have it set in the options panel so you choose game stutter or tone. I'll bet it would really cut down on the potential lawsuits too.
Even windows without borders have edges. Occasionally you'll find borderless windows in the MS Windows world, and in those cases you usually just drag the edge.
(clarification: a lot of times apps that have borderless windows don't want you to resize at all. Examples include splash screens on app startup. There are, however, some apps out there that make regular, resizable windows that happen to be borderless.)
TW
I've often wondered if was just stuborness. It seems like there are a few ideas that are common in PC land and improve on the Mac way of doing things, that Apple just doesn't want to impliment purely out of a competitive spirit. I don't know if this is true, and people who use Macs often tell me I'm wrong, but for things like this I just find it difficult to believe there's any other explanation.
Here's the thing. Linux UIs freely borrow great ideas from many sources. Microsoft is famous for grabbing other peoples' good ideas. Isn't it time for Apple to learn that even their best ideas can be improved over time, even if the improvement was first implimented by another company?
TW
Oh thank god this has finally come up. As a PC user that sometimes uses a Mac, I've found this frustrating. But any time I've brought it up in casual conversation with Mac people, they've treated me like it's my fault for not understanding the superiority of the Mac UI. I was actually starting to justify in my mind that there must be something wonderful about only using the bottom, right corner and I just had to try harder to understand what it could be. Meditation wasn't helping. Seeing this on the list might save me years of therapy.
TW
Safety screen. Funny. My guess though, is that most people don't know the exact MPH definition of "vigorous" and possibly don't know exactly how many MPH their arms are capable of. Maybe with that in mind, and the fact that the "safety screen" doesn't physically restrain them, people might possibly make the assumption that the way they're swingin' the thing is the way that thing was meant to be swung.
TW
So why not just ban all media that can lead to sympathies with the subject matter when the subject matter is a felony? Why chose child pornography over, say, murder? Hate to say it, and I know I'll never be in such a situation, but if I had to make a choice with my kid, I know I'd prefer she not die at he hands of someone all jacked up from playing Grand Theft Auto.
TW
Actually, the documentation says otherwise, as does the construction of the strap itself. Nintendo clearly meant this strap to keep it from flying out of the operator's hands during normal use. Unfortunately, they also designed several of their games to encourage quite vigorous arm actions. "60+ MPH" movements are most certainly "normal" in this context.
BTW, ever notice that the Wiimote is smooth plastic without a hint of texturing or a rubberized surface to help hold it in place? I see this as an "upgrade" opportunity for the future, because we all know it doesn't make sense to call it a "recall".
TW
P.S. My very much not "stupid" friend has a dent in his ceiling. Thankfully his TV is intact.
You missed the point. Horror films arouse feelings of fear. They depict murder, rape, torture, but the point is not to engender the feeling of torturing someone else, is it? You don't watch Saw III to experience the feeling of killing people. At least I certainly hope you don't. So yes a feeling is illicited by horror, but not the feeling we want to discourage. The point of a depiction of murder is not to make us feel like we're murdering people. The point of porn, on the other hand, is to make us aroused in sympathy with the actions portrayed on screen
You take on the role of the victim in a horror film until the very end, then you take on the role of the killer. You may ask, "so what? Neither role is evil." This may be true, but the thrill you get from killing the bad guy is very real. You experience the joy of the bad guy's death.
In other movies, like Porky's, you get the thrill of being the voyeur. You get to watch naked teenage girls shower without their permission.
Finally, in movies like "Natural Born Killers," you absolutely become the predator. You are very happy to kill, and the movie does this quite purposefully.
As a guy pointed out earlier in the thread, there are those who would want to ban even these. They say they encourage deviant behavior, much like you suggest kiddie porn might. I won't claim that this is impossible. Some people are more prone to acting on suggestion than others. Why take a chance that someone will try to kill, rape, spy, or do other activities depicted in these films?
But this is very dangerous. The position is flat-out censorship of ideas. It's making the depiction of thought illegal, even if that depiction does no harm. To make expression of thought illegal, especially if it's on the flimsy chance that one in a million will want to act on those thoughts is criminal. As a crime perpetrated on the whole of society, it's extremely grave. It should not be tolerated.
Child porn is disgusting, and even more disgusting the younger the victim. Rape of anyone is horrible. But if you get a sexual arousal out of the _thought_ of these things, I feel I cannot judge you. You are entitled to your thoughts, no matter how horrible they are. Ever have a bad breakup where you fantasized about killing the person? Ever pictured an especially bad coworker or boss had a serious accident, or that you got to hurt them yourself? Have you ever seen a high-school girl and thought, "she is smokin' hot!" Have you ever considered going to jail for expressing any of these thoughts? Kiddie porn is horrible, but I will not be party to imprisoning those that merely depict their feelings or thoughts of it. As long as no one is harmed in order to make it, there must be no limitations on the expressions of our ideas.
TW
I agree with you. Unfortunately, US prisons have largely checked themselves out of the rehabilitation process for many years now. Most people, it would seem, are more interested in revenge than in attempting to foster any good that may still be left in those that commit crimes.
My personal opinion is that this glorifies our basest instincts and shuts out our most human. In other words, choosing to only punish criminals is really a choice to hurt ourselves.
TW
Ok, you got me. All these people are crazy. If I want to live in their world, I guess I'm gonna have to get used to "My Little Ponies" and "The All Rainbow Channel".
But the truth will eventually come out. I'm sure that will lead to a massive suicide rate, thus proving them wrong. I regret that I have but one life to give for sex and violence in the media.
TW
Agreed. But for some reason these people aren't willing to admit that watching horror movies doesn't make you a mass murderer and playing GTA does not cause you to join the mob, therefore watching fake kiddie porn is unlikely to turn you into a rapist. Even those that are pretty hardcore against violence in the media very rarely say it will cause adults to do horrible things.
But even in pornography, based on my anecdotal evidence, the incidence of real life participation in threesomes among my porn-watching friends is quite rare, for the most part their wives wont let them go near the nether regions, and people of my advanced years don't have a snowball's chance in hell of having sex with a college-aged woman. Nor do we look for it, because we know our wives will leave us. In other words, it may be all good and fine to suggest that sick and twisted fantasies will lead to sick and twisted behavior, but there's very little evidence that this will actually happen.
TW
Read the article. In air device may not technically be motion sensing, but the effect is the same. Read the second and third paragraphs of TFA and you will see that they're intended use is equivalent.
TW
...you can try an Air Mouse from Gryration. I know we're all really excited about the Wii and all, but, honestly, it wasn't the first, and isn't the only, device that does motion sensing.
I know it's not home made, but it does the job pretty well.
TW