Recognize multiple touch points?(Score:1) by sonamchauhan (587356) on Saturday June 22, @08:51AM (#3748840) (Last Journal: Friday January 21, @11:08AM) It's good to know this tablet can measure pressure -- but it would be nice if touch screens recognized multiple SIMULTANEOUS points of contact. All the touchscreens I've 'touched' only function as a type of mouse (i.e. use a single contact point to define single pointer location). If screens could measure touch points across the entire screen simultaneously, they could be used to select text quickly (think of a 'pick' action), recognize gestures ('twisting' an on-screen knob), or even recognize the *shape* of your hand (the coolest yet most insecure biometric authentication ever!:-). Seriously though, the age of the mouse seems to passing and touch screens should provide more than just a single 'mouse-point' reading.
PS: From what I gather, resistive touch screens look more promising than capacitive ones... This page explains why [go.com]
A question of mine that appeared on Ask Slashdot in July 02:
Building a Pressure-Sensitive, Multi-Point TouchScreen? Posted by Cliff on Thursday July 25, @09:15AM from the d-i-y-baby dept.
sonamchauhan asks: "I'd like advice on building (yes, building) my own low-res touchscreen. The reasons for 'build' instead of 'buy' are: 1) to have it sense pressure (pressure sensing is quite expensive) and 2) to have it sense multiple points of contact simultaneously (which is a useful thing). Back in 1985, researchers at U.Toronto built (PDF file) a touch-tablet (not a touch-screen) that fulfilled both requirements (pressure-sensitive and multi-touch) and used only basic electronics: lots of diodes, A/D convertors, etc. Some 17 years later, it should be possible to build a touch-screen using the same techniques (possibly using layers of transparent conductive and insulating paint for the sensor paths.) Any comments? Some other links: a Microsoft paper (PDF file) describing a touch sensor painted onto a mouse, a basic FAQ on current touchscreen technology, and a slashdot thread that discussed building touchscreens (these links don't address pressure or multi-touch though)."
Hm - Water is good advice. This happens to me as well, and I noticed I wasn't breathing well.... I'd basically stop deep breathing while driving, and that would make me sleepy.
Taking rest breaks, driving with the window down, making sure I get enough sleep - these things help.
I remember getting these codes sometime around 1993 from (I think) Byte magazine.
Using these codes at the end of the game, (when you enter the 'dark portal' and are killed by monsters as your health automatically counts down), I was able to kill all the monsters and clip back into lit area where of course, there was nothing left to do. So it was neat as I actually 'won' the game.
Doom 1 was cutting edge, Doom 2 was squeezing the franchise, but Doom 3 was all out terrible as they made it all too darker and goth. And slow. HL2 was better and faster.
" C# blogger Eric Maino , blogged that "the biggest lesson that we learned on this most recent version (Visual Studio 2005) was that we were not agile enough and we took too long to ship.""
> Just wait until stores start hooking up their security cameras > to this service. They could use the service to identify > everyone that enters the store and has their photo in the > system.
Or stores start hooking up their security cameras to this service, _and_ have it trained not only with their customers images, but with 'most-wanted' images from fbi.gov and their state's Justice Dept. webservice.
... > if this results in any research paper publications, > we would give credit to the supplier of the data.
If that's all you offer in return, which company will allocate the resources to verify:?
(a) this breaches no privacy laws (b) business advantage isn't sacrificed?...And rightly so for companies whose constitution is 'maximise profit'.
Some suggestions:
1. Offer a quid-pro-quo to companies you contact: in return for access, you will deliver (say) a multi-page detailed architectural review and specific recommendations on potential improvements, reviewed, say, by your professor.
2. Talk to people who run websites for non-profits, or open-source/ creative-commons websites like wikipedia.org, sourceforge.net, even slashdot. The attitude there may be more sympathetic to your efforts and the admins more willing to knock up a few Perl scripts to strip logs of sensitive information.
3. Offer to be a website maintainer for a large indepedent open-source / community effort and obtain agreement on your access to logs.
> feel ambivalent about the issue even in a first-world country... > The Nazis didn't get anything; Al Qaeda sure did.
Just illustrates the hypocrisy of the loony left; both Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism being totalitarian, conscience-suppressing, facist ideologies.
> a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is > not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right. Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/
> anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's > least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not... I hope it's on scientific grounds.
> then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour::-/ Yeah sure, after-the-fact humor covers a whole multitude of logic flaws.
>>> - science *is* by definition incapable of >>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. >>> there is no such thing. >> Your statement isn't true, then. >ah, you got the point! mission accomplished;-) Indeed. Now only if you'd get the same point;-D
> > "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
> let's split this up in two, shall we? - where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of (verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
Well, the science textbooks he is talking about push a unobserved and *unverifiable* theory of macroevolution which exclude direct supernatural cause. Which brings you back to the parent posters point.
> - science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
> >No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor. > Like I implied, Occam's Razor is a dangerous philosophy > usually employed by those fighting a losing battle.
No.
> > Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes. > Like I said again, reading helps a lot.
My additional reading can't make up for your poor writing.
> > It's hard for 0% to exceed anything. > Like I said again, you're in no position to take > the high ground here, since it's 0% for you as well.
I remind of your own words:
> >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes > Well I doubt you can take the higher ground > since whatever the percentage may be for iitians, > it will be lower for your ilk.
> > here is surely some big discrimination going on > Yes, it's called "selection by merit".
Consider then the implication.
> of discrimination that's led to the worldwide defeat of Communism.
> >> 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me).... > >> than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect. > >Convoluted rubbish. > No. It's called the truth.
No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.
> Translation: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
Practise what you preach.
> Except here they only SEEM equally predictive, > and that is because of your clever abuse of the > English language, not because of the nature of your (il)logic.
Another evidence-free assertion. If it walks like a duck, behaves like a duck in every way... wishful thinking won't make it a swan.
> >an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians. > I also mentioned "statistically" in a previous post.
Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.
Lets inspect that 'mention' of yours:
> > top students in the country (statistically) > > graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters > Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs. > In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur, > based on the list of > Indian Physics Assoc. awardees
You ignored this, and subsequent retorts, I see you still insist on clinging to the coattails of your sister departments and institutes.
Lets inspect your later outburst:
> > >Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists? > > "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person." Here we see those famous coattails again. But now, with a "_We_ _do_ _better_... _you'll_ be... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion on all IIT-ians: and in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.
> The peak of the Gaussian curve of the achievements of iitians > is at least one standard deviation above that of wherever you came from. Beyond your tortured phrasing... Can't you recall what I said a few posts earlier: "I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians."
> >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes > Well I doubt you can take the higher ground > since whatever the percentage may be for iitians, > it will be lower for your ilk.
It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.
Lets not take our eye off the ball, shall we? We were discussing your absurd claim: > > In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best > > students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of > Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too
If 80-90% of the best physics students worldwide are IIT-ians, there is surely some big discrimination going on, starting all the way from the Nobel prize committee all the way down to the Indian Physics Association.
> > You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute
> I know at least 20. >... > agree with the 30 that each of them > know and so on. Thus, my claim still stands.
You claim to have personal knowledge that all 600 (or fewer) exant physicists-of-repute share your view: "NASA is filled with idiots".
Liar.
Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
> You know nothing about me, yet you say the things above.That's not a fact, that's a rant.
These observations are on your behavior exhibited here publicly in this thread.
Kill your foolish pride before it does you in. I really mean you well.
> > I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement > You're not inferior, and you know this consciously. Subconsciously, it is another matter
I said I was inferior in _intellectual_ achievement to most IIT-ians (which is true.)You seem blinkered enough to accept intellectual inferiority as something meaningful.
> comes from some deep rooted resentment you have against iitians, No
> > ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you". > misstate all of what I said
Then lets state it again: "Get this: we do better. Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
You made an unsuccesful attempt to run down a person (me) instead of their assertion.
> A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: > > 1. A makes claim B; > 2. there is something objectionable about A, > 3. therefore claim B is false.
See above.
> My argument: > > 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me). >... > than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.
Convoluted rubbish.
> You know that the above is true, but your argument > is more like"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" > and that's juststupid.
your latin is useless - Speak English.
> I never said "I do better than you" (look at my posts carefully),
So lets look at it again...
> "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person." "_We_ _do_ _better_... _you'll_ be... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.
And the usual clarification: > just that iitians do better on a statistical average than others, and this is a fact.
> In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best > students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of > iitians (there are some honorable exceptions, of course, but they're > few and far between). You can blame this on whoever you want (the > sadstate of Indian Universities etc etc) but the facts remain.
Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too.
> >unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching > If every theorist of repute is 'bellyaching', then go with the flow.
'Every' theorist of repute? You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute?
> > You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across
> Now whos resorting to implicit ad-hominems?
You - see above.
But why not me?
Because: (a) I firstaddressed your assertions (b) I supported this, my final assertion, by fact: Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
> > Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
> Man, your inferiority complex No.
I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians. It doesn't make me a better or worse person. How can I have a inferiority complex then?
Here is my jibe explained plainly: the IITK computer science team who obtained that pathbreaking result above _aren't_ physicists.
Hence, your attempt to claim superiority (which you did) over TIFR and IISc physics post-graduates by standing on the shoulders of other IITK departments and your 'sister' IITs is laugable.
> I suppose I should get used to such things. > This will follow me around forever.
The only thing that follows you around is your pride - manufacturing enemies where none exist.
> Get this: we do better. Live with it.
You keep coming up with easy to defeat generalizations: "NASA is populated by idiots", "I do better than you". Again, in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.
> > in "NASA's Jet >Propulsion Laboratory" > I'm a physicist, not a politician.
Good. Don't bellyache like one then.
> >It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on. > It takes an even better man to admit he's fighting a > losing battle.
Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across. Kill your pride before it does you in. I mean you well.
> Oh! Gee! You can spell! I tremble before greatness.
No need to shiver child - just be more careful with your piercing insights next time.
> postdoctoral offers to ponder over and job offers from CYSCO to reject.
So you're not joining the hoi polloi working class? No worries, perhaps CYSCO one day opens a full department on self-similar network research.:-)
> >Don't play both sides of the court at the same time. > But I can strike a middle ground. There's another sports metaphor for you.
Net!
> > [tifr.res.in]. > Sure, sure. Dream on brother.
Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
> > but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way. > Never said I was. Physics is, at it's roots, an experimantal science.
This thread and the one before it display of your problem ego.
> excludes the JPL, though it's connected to NASA. They're all right).... > > http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html [nasa.gov] > >Famous enough for you? It's useful too... > See above. The JPL isn't connected to NASA - it belongs to NASA. as in "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory" Injecting late qualifiers to somehow redeem wrong argument fools no one except yourself. It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.
Thanks for the comment - glad you substantially agree.
> done in more of an AJAX style
Unfortunately, AJAX, while useful:
(a) isn't responsive enough
(b) is not rich enough.
(c) doesn't have deep enough access to local resources (eg: local drag and drop, copy and paste, vision and voice input processing, spellchecker and grammer checker processing,)
(d) require a total rewrite (perhaps innovative automated MFC/Swing -> HTML translation libraries can help)
(e) depends totally on network access (no ability to work disconnected)
That's why XPCOM would be better - users aren't willing to sacrifice all this current functionality just for network-backed storage.
However google can proceed to write (say) a way to automatically translate openoffice display primitives (eg: combobox, list selection) to HTML and provide that functionality over the web. (It may even be faster on some machines, given how slow openoffice is compared to MS Office:-) They could also build it into say, froogle, gmail, etc.
For eg: I could go to froogle, search for something, copy/ paste a table comparing vendors for that item into a gmail _as a embedded spreadsheet_, forward that to my boss who sort the _copy_ of the data using the spreadsheet function (the live Froogle data itself may have changed), and approves something for purchase. This could be scripted (on Google's servers) with OpenOffice Basic
Slashdot Mirror
...a comment I posted on Slashdot in June 02:
8 840
:-). Seriously though, the age of the mouse seems to passing and touch screens should provide more than just a single 'mouse-point' reading.
6 15259
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=34641&cid=374
Recognize multiple touch points?(Score:1)
by sonamchauhan (587356) on Saturday June 22, @08:51AM (#3748840)
(Last Journal: Friday January 21, @11:08AM)
It's good to know this tablet can measure pressure -- but it would be nice if touch screens recognized multiple SIMULTANEOUS points of contact. All the touchscreens I've 'touched' only function as a type of mouse (i.e. use a single contact point to define single pointer location). If screens could measure touch points across the entire screen simultaneously, they could be used to select text quickly (think of a 'pick' action), recognize gestures ('twisting' an on-screen knob), or even recognize the *shape* of your hand (the coolest yet most insecure biometric authentication ever!
PS: From what I gather, resistive touch screens look more promising than capacitive ones... This page explains why [go.com]
A question of mine that appeared on Ask Slashdot in July 02:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/24/1
Building a Pressure-Sensitive, Multi-Point TouchScreen?
Posted by Cliff on Thursday July 25, @09:15AM
from the d-i-y-baby dept.
sonamchauhan asks: "I'd like advice on building (yes, building) my own low-res touchscreen. The reasons for 'build' instead of 'buy' are: 1) to have it sense pressure (pressure sensing is quite expensive) and 2) to have it sense multiple points of contact simultaneously (which is a useful thing). Back in 1985, researchers at U.Toronto built (PDF file) a touch-tablet (not a touch-screen) that fulfilled both requirements (pressure-sensitive and multi-touch) and used only basic electronics: lots of diodes, A/D convertors, etc. Some 17 years later, it should be possible to build a touch-screen using the same techniques (possibly using layers of transparent conductive and insulating paint for the sensor paths.) Any comments? Some other links: a Microsoft paper (PDF file) describing a touch sensor painted onto a mouse, a basic FAQ on current touchscreen technology, and a slashdot thread that discussed building touchscreens (these links don't address pressure or multi-touch though)."
Hm - Water is good advice. This happens to me as well, and I noticed I wasn't breathing well.... I'd basically stop deep breathing while driving, and that would make me sleepy.
Taking rest breaks, driving with the window down, making sure I get enough sleep - these things help.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gmail+invite
or a LED based backlight
Because it makes for an interesting discussion.
> ....
> policy, not law. The other 0.1% gets
> consistently struck down as unconstitutional.
If a paedophile gave your 9 year old indecent pictures of himself, then society jails him.
So if he _sold_ those pictures to your 9 year old, it's "unconstitutional" to arrest him, eh?
Wake up , listen to your conscience. It is about "saving the children".
Is there an audio equivalent to the CSS "display:none" property that can zap specific page elements?
I think the word tablet is applied to electronic devices on which you can write and whose dimensions at least comparable to the stone tablets of old.
The size of this thing is comparable more to a pottery shard than a stone tablet.
Also, no one calls the PSP a "gaming tablet" or confuses the PocketPC with the Tablet PC.
So you're right - it's more a "widescreen PDA" than a "tablet" - the word "Tablet" is probably used as a marketing gimmick.
Hey, IDCHOPPERS isn't one I remember.
I'd normally go...
IDKFA
IDDQD
IDSPISPOPD
I remember getting these codes sometime around 1993 from (I think) Byte magazine.
Using these codes at the end of the game, (when you enter the 'dark portal' and are killed by monsters as your health automatically counts down), I was able to kill all the monsters and clip back into lit area where of course, there was nothing left to do. So it was neat as I actually 'won' the game.
Doom 1 was cutting edge, Doom 2 was squeezing the franchise, but Doom 3 was all out terrible as they made it all too darker and goth. And slow. HL2 was better and faster.
From the microsoft-watch.com article:
" C# blogger Eric Maino , blogged that "the biggest lesson that we learned on this most recent version (Visual Studio 2005) was that we were not agile enough and we took too long to ship.""
Strawman builder!
As is obvious, the truth is between the extremes you paint, and the person you replied to is correct.
... and the most fun was IDSPISPOPD -- it was 'no clipping' from what I recall.
> "Well, the details are a bit scant, but it seems that the content of Google searches were used to help establish intent in a murder trial.
Great!
> Will police in the future simply serve a subpoena to Google to find out what you've been thinking about?
Maybe
> While this use of that information makes sense,
Excellent. Good thinking.
> at what point does your privacy give way to public concerns?
At the point it needs to be inspected to establish intent to a crime.
> Should police be able to search through your search history for
> "questionable" searches before you've been arrested for a crime,
Yes. Inspecting questionable online activity *before* an arrest is what they do with online paedophiles, remember?
> and what effect would this have on the health of society?"
A good one.
> Just wait until stores start hooking up their security cameras
> to this service. They could use the service to identify
> everyone that enters the store and has their photo in the
> system.
Or stores start hooking up their security cameras to this service, _and_ have it trained not only with their customers images, but with 'most-wanted' images from fbi.gov and their state's Justice Dept. webservice.
...
...And rightly so for companies whose constitution is 'maximise profit'.
> if this results in any research paper publications,
> we would give credit to the supplier of the data.
If that's all you offer in return, which company will allocate the resources to verify:?
(a) this breaches no privacy laws (b) business advantage isn't sacrificed?
Some suggestions:
1. Offer a quid-pro-quo to companies you contact: in return for access, you will deliver (say) a multi-page detailed architectural review and specific recommendations on potential improvements, reviewed, say, by your professor.
2. Talk to people who run websites for non-profits, or open-source/ creative-commons websites like wikipedia.org, sourceforge.net, even slashdot. The attitude there may be more sympathetic to your efforts and the admins more willing to knock up a few Perl scripts to strip logs of sensitive information.
3. Offer to be a website maintainer for a large indepedent open-source / community effort and obtain agreement on your access to logs.
> feel ambivalent about the issue even in a first-world country ...
> The Nazis didn't get anything; Al Qaeda sure did.
Just illustrates the hypocrisy of the loony left; both Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism being totalitarian, conscience-suppressing, facist ideologies.
Please, no attempted justifications.
> a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is
:-/ Yeah sure, after-the-fact humor covers a whole multitude of logic flaws.
;-) ;-D
> not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/
> anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's
> least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
I hope it's on scientific grounds.
> then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour:
>>> - science *is* by definition incapable of
>>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct.
>>> there is no such thing.
>> Your statement isn't true, then.
>ah, you got the point! mission accomplished
Indeed. Now only if you'd get the same point
> > "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
> let's split this up in two, shall we?
- where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of
(verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few
Well, the science textbooks he is talking about push a unobserved and *unverifiable* theory of macroevolution which exclude direct supernatural cause. Which brings you back to the parent posters point.
> - science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
Your statement isn't true, then.
Your grandparent poster is correct - if you can't rebut what he says, avoid empty knee-jerk criticism.
> >No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.
> Like I implied, Occam's Razor is a dangerous philosophy
> usually employed by those fighting a losing battle.
No.
> > Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.
> Like I said again, reading helps a lot.
My additional reading can't make up for your poor writing.
> > It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.
> Like I said again, you're in no position to take
> the high ground here, since it's 0% for you as well.
I remind of your own words:
> >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes
> Well I doubt you can take the higher ground
> since whatever the percentage may be for iitians,
> it will be lower for your ilk.
> > here is surely some big discrimination going on
> Yes, it's called "selection by merit".
Consider then the implication.
> of discrimination that's led to the worldwide defeat of Communism.
A defeat I welcome.
> >> 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me). ...
... _you'll_ be ... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion on all IIT-ians: and in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.
...
> >> than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.
> >Convoluted rubbish.
> No. It's called the truth.
No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.
> Translation: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
Practise what you preach.
> Except here they only SEEM equally predictive,
> and that is because of your clever abuse of the
> English language, not because of the nature of your (il)logic.
Another evidence-free assertion.
If it walks like a duck, behaves like a duck in every way... wishful thinking won't make it a swan.
> >an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.
> I also mentioned "statistically" in a previous post.
Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.
Lets inspect that 'mention' of yours:
> > top students in the country (statistically)
> > graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters
> Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs.
> In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur,
> based on the list of
> Indian Physics Assoc. awardees
You ignored this, and subsequent retorts, I see you still insist on clinging to the coattails of your sister departments and institutes.
Lets inspect your later outburst:
> > >Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
> > "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
Here we see those famous coattails again. But now, with a "_We_ _do_ _better_
> The peak of the Gaussian curve of the achievements of iitians
> is at least one standard deviation above that of wherever you came from.
Beyond your tortured phrasing... Can't you recall what I said a few posts earlier: "I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians."
> >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes
> Well I doubt you can take the higher ground
> since whatever the percentage may be for iitians,
> it will be lower for your ilk.
It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.
Lets not take our eye off the ball, shall we? We were discussing your absurd claim:
> > In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best
> > students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of
> Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too
If 80-90% of the best physics students worldwide are IIT-ians, there is surely some big discrimination going on, starting all the way from the Nobel prize committee all the way down to the Indian Physics Association.
> > You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute
> I know at least 20.
>
> agree with the 30 that each of them
> know and so on. Thus, my claim still stands.
You claim to have personal knowledge that all 600 (or fewer) exant physicists-of-repute share your view: "NASA is filled with idiots".
Liar.
Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
> You know nothing about me, yet you say the things above.That's not a fact, that's a rant.
These observations are on your behavior exhibited here publicly in this thread.
Kill your foolish pride before it does you in. I really mean you well.
> > I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement
...
... _you'll_ be ... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.
> You're not inferior, and you know this consciously. Subconsciously, it is another matter
I said I was inferior in _intellectual_ achievement to most IIT-ians (which is true.)You seem blinkered enough to accept intellectual inferiority as something meaningful.
> comes from some deep rooted resentment you have against iitians,
No
> > ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
> misstate all of what I said
Then lets state it again:
"Get this: we do better. Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
You made an unsuccesful attempt to run down a person (me) instead of their assertion.
> A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
>
> 1. A makes claim B;
> 2. there is something objectionable about A,
> 3. therefore claim B is false.
See above.
> My argument:
>
> 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me).
>
> than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.
Convoluted rubbish.
> You know that the above is true, but your argument
> is more like"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
> and that's juststupid.
your latin is useless - Speak English.
> I never said "I do better than you" (look at my posts carefully),
So lets look at it again...
> "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
"_We_ _do_ _better_
And the usual clarification:
> just that iitians do better on a statistical average than others, and this is a fact.
> In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best
> students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of
> iitians (there are some honorable exceptions, of course, but they're
> few and far between). You can blame this on whoever you want (the
> sadstate of Indian Universities etc etc) but the facts remain.
Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too.
> >unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching
> If every theorist of repute is 'bellyaching', then go with the flow.
'Every' theorist of repute? You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute?
> > You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across
> Now whos resorting to implicit ad-hominems?
You - see above.
But why not me?
Because:
(a) I firstaddressed your assertions
(b) I supported this, my final assertion, by fact:
Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
> > Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
> Man, your inferiority complex
No.
I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians. It doesn't make me a better or worse person. How can I have a inferiority complex then?
Here is my jibe explained plainly: the IITK computer science team who obtained that pathbreaking result above _aren't_ physicists.
Hence, your attempt to claim superiority (which you did) over TIFR and IISc physics post-graduates by standing on the shoulders of other IITK departments and your 'sister' IITs is laugable.
> I suppose I should get used to such things.
> This will follow me around forever.
The only thing that follows you around is your pride - manufacturing enemies where none exist.
> Get this: we do better. Live with it.
You keep coming up with easy to defeat generalizations: "NASA is populated by idiots", "I do better than you". Again, in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.
> > in "NASA's Jet >Propulsion Laboratory"
> I'm a physicist, not a politician.
Good. Don't bellyache like one then.
> >It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.
> It takes an even better man to admit he's fighting a
> losing battle.
Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across. Kill your pride before it does you in. I mean you well.
> Oh! Gee! You can spell! I tremble before greatness.
:-)
... ...
No need to shiver child - just be more careful with your piercing insights next time.
> postdoctoral offers to ponder over and job offers from CYSCO to reject.
So you're not joining the hoi polloi working class? No worries, perhaps CYSCO one day opens a full department on self-similar network research.
> >Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.
> But I can strike a middle ground. There's another sports metaphor for you.
Net!
> > [tifr.res.in].
> Sure, sure. Dream on brother.
Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
> > but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.
> Never said I was. Physics is, at it's roots, an experimantal science.
This thread and the one before it display of your problem ego.
> excludes the JPL, though it's connected to NASA. They're all right).
> > http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html [nasa.gov]
> >Famous enough for you? It's useful too
> See above.
The JPL isn't connected to NASA - it belongs to NASA. as in "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory"
Injecting late qualifiers to somehow redeem wrong argument fools no one except yourself. It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.
Thanks for the comment - glad you substantially agree.
:-) They could also build it into say, froogle, gmail, etc.
> done in more of an AJAX style
Unfortunately, AJAX, while useful:
(a) isn't responsive enough
(b) is not rich enough.
(c) doesn't have deep enough access to local resources (eg: local drag and drop, copy and paste, vision and voice input processing, spellchecker and grammer checker processing,)
(d) require a total rewrite (perhaps innovative automated MFC/Swing -> HTML translation libraries can help)
(e) depends totally on network access (no ability to work disconnected)
That's why XPCOM would be better - users aren't willing to sacrifice all this current functionality just for network-backed storage.
However google can proceed to write (say) a way to automatically translate openoffice display primitives (eg: combobox, list selection) to HTML and provide that functionality over the web. (It may even be faster on some machines, given how slow openoffice is compared to MS Office
For eg: I could go to froogle, search for something, copy/ paste a table comparing vendors for that item into a gmail _as a embedded spreadsheet_, forward that to my boss who sort the _copy_ of the data using the spreadsheet function (the live Froogle data itself may have changed), and approves something for purchase. This could be scripted (on Google's servers) with OpenOffice Basic