The reason is the same as for cinemascope: it's more similar to your field of view. Why look at something with an aspect ratio of 2:3 when your field of view has as a ratio of 5:3 or something similar (I don't know the exact number)?
I would much rather see a landscape display with a browser that would automatically display the document in two columns (make the window half the width of the screen, and what doesn't fit into the first window is displayed in the second one right of it - scrolling would be coupled of course, and you could actually scroll *sideways* through the pages. That would make much more sense, since then you would have a 2D layout instead of 1D.).
There certainly are people who would benefit from a simple IA or WebPad or whatever. The question is, how many? I believe that their number is quite small, and is decreasing as more people get PCs for their homes or have to use computers at work and so get used to them.
I am saying that it is too boring to most people who are just a bit interested in stuff like release notes, but are not administrating big corporate networks (and even to some of those, unfortunately...). I don't think ZDNet has quite the same kind of audience this site here, a kernel-dev mailing list, or bugtraq have. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about parties, but itemize the changes between 2.2.18 and 2.4.0...
I think this is where we need to use the code we're given to show our moms and dads how to read it so they to can know its safe.
ROTFL;-) Yeah, sure, I will teach my parents kernel programming... no problem;-)
But seriously, maybe he wrote some more on that subject, but they just edited it out. Or maybe he realised that you cannot go into great depths in a short article, and just left it at saying "it's safe, but explaining why would be too long an boring".
Maybe he doesn't want to make Wired's vaporware list again? But seriously, I don't see why a hobby project has to abide by the same rules as big corporations. And his statement also stops people from pestering him about what he plans for 2.5 or 3.0, so maybe it's just a lie...
But they're not going to notice..NET will be an integral part of Whistler or some other future Windows version (like Internet Explorer is now;-), so.NET-Software will install like any other software. And if it can't find.NET on your machine, I am sure they can provide a little program that will tell you and do the download of the.NET stuff for you (or it even comes on the same CD). So sorry, but I am not as optimistic as you are...
Given my experience with funding in science, a scientiest would be much more likely to fly economy class... and if he was Austrian, he would have to pay the return flight himself...
But there are slightly more regulations and more experience regarding safety with buses and air planes than there is with space travel. You can't compare space travel with riding a bus, imho.
I don't think that's possible. How would you discriminate between the different signals in different parts of the satellite? You would probably pick up more noise from the antenna amplifiers than the computer --- which is exactly the reason I think they needed big dishes and sensitive equipment: You would expect Russian satellites to not transmit to US spy site locations, so you would have to pick up traces of transmissions directed at other points on the globe.
What is that supposed to be? The image, I mean? *That* is a monolith? Okay, it's been a while since I last saw the movie, but as far as I remember, it was black and pretty solid. And it cast a real shadow... this thing is semi-transparent... come on, this is a hoax.
It seems that the more technology advances, the more ideas we mimic from nature. And it makes sense, too, since many problems we face are similar to the ones plants and animals have been facing for millions of years. Just think of that swimming suit that is modeled after shark's skin, thus minimizing friction with the water, genetic algorithms, etc.
This is quite amazing and I think that there is still a lot to be learned from nature for many fields.
the heat of the reactor is contained by a magnetic field. You see, it has to
be that way - people don't react well to temperatures found on the surface of the Sun.
Well thanks, I know that much... but the heat is released by all kinds of devices using the energy. All the eletricity the power plant generates eventually ends up as heat - a light bulb produces heat and light, the latter is absorbed by objects and converted into heat. So heat is released into the atmosphere, and the more energy there is, the more heat is released.
And when I said this might not be so desirable, I meant that it would lead to much more wasting of energy, which might not be a good thing - but not because there was any shortage of energy, but because that energy has effects on the environment. Today, the average temperature in cities is already higher than in the surrounding country. We are producing enough energy to really influence the environment, even if there was no global warming. It's not because I am entirely against technical progress...
I didn't mean to say that we have to get rid of electricity, etc. It's just that when you have a cheap power source available, you're going to use it. It's the same thing with cars: When you have a car, you drive even small distances that you would otherwise have walked or used your bicycle for.
And, of course, there is a certain amount of energy we can release to the environment without doing too much damage. We just don't know how much yet.
But I can't agree to your saying that "by no means should the environment take precedence over human needs." That depends on the needs, of course. We don't do much real damage to the environment when we fulfill basic human needs. But sacrificing the environment for pure luxury (and much of the power we use is used for that) should be weighed against the fact that we need the environment... we're not going to survive on a planet that heats up constantly.
I am not saying "let's get back into the caves" or something like that. But I do think we need to be a bit more considerate of the effects such things a electrical power consumption have on the environment.
But if we can create as much power as we want, that isn't exactly going to help global warming (well it is, but that's the point...). Even if we get rid of the gases that contribute to the glass house effect, simply releasing any amount of heat to the environment is going to hurt it (and already does). So such a power source might not be such a desirable thing after all...
... single software giant who won't even let them look at the intrinsic workings of their software (the source)...
Are you sure about that? I know that there are a few research institutions that have access to the windows source code, so I would guess this is also true for the military (but I don't really know).
I also find your subject line interesting... if they used more different software in different parts of the organization that would also make breaking in harder. Because now, if somebody really found a hithertho unknown security hole in windows, they can easily get into many machines. But if only a part is windows, and there are also other systems, that means much more work.
I'm sorry. I'm usually not such an asshole, even when I am right... you are right of course, I didn't think of drivers and fan-out and all this real-world stuff... but my great design wouldn't have worked anyway, because I would still need the logic in a different part, driving the switches...
I apologize, I was wrong. I just had this idea of building a multiplexer without all the logic by just selecting the right lines with a single layer of and gates and... well never mind. I'm sorry. I should really think before I write something the next time...
Excuse me? What is algorithmically difficult about a shift? A three-year-old can design a variable shift that takes one cycle. It takes a bit of silicon, but it really pays off since you need shifts all the time (math, address calculation,...)
I don't have a problem with "organic" UIs, but I think that this program has a pretty bad UI, organic or not. The parts don't fit together, some are 2D, some 3D, buttons and scrollbars are lit from different directions, and the text is hard to read because you can't find any structures for orientation. So the problem here is IMHO not the organic layout, it's just that the UI is not very well thought out, and done mostly for the effect (and maybe for looking good in computer magazines), not for making the program usable.
Who needs a video phone, anyway? I certainly don't. And few other people, it seems. I remember hearing about video phones back in the 80s. Then when ISDN came, video phones were to finally replace the old voice-only again. Hm. Hasn't happened yet. And I can't imagine it ever will, because we just don't need it. Phones work very well because they are simple. And that's what they should remain. Please leave me alone with video, embedded mp3 players and all that crap... I want a working phone, that's all...
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that if the CEO is MIA you better talk to the FBI asap, or your company will be fubar pdq, and your competition will ROTFL ...
;-)
(and yes, I too have seen too much "Good Morning Vietnam"
BTW: What's a COO? Chief Operations Officer? What does a COO do?
The reason is the same as for cinemascope: it's more similar to your field of view. Why look at something with an aspect ratio of 2:3 when your field of view has as a ratio of 5:3 or something similar (I don't know the exact number)?
I would much rather see a landscape display with a browser that would automatically display the document in two columns (make the window half the width of the screen, and what doesn't fit into the first window is displayed in the second one right of it - scrolling would be coupled of course, and you could actually scroll *sideways* through the pages. That would make much more sense, since then you would have a 2D layout instead of 1D.).
There certainly are people who would benefit from a simple IA or WebPad or whatever. The question is, how many? I believe that their number is quite small, and is decreasing as more people get PCs for their homes or have to use computers at work and so get used to them.
I am saying that it is too boring to most people who are just a bit interested in stuff like release notes, but are not administrating big corporate networks (and even to some of those, unfortunately ...). I don't think ZDNet has quite the same kind of audience this site here, a kernel-dev mailing list, or bugtraq have. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about parties, but itemize the changes between 2.2.18 and 2.4.0 ...
But seriously, maybe he wrote some more on that subject, but they just edited it out. Or maybe he realised that you cannot go into great depths in a short article, and just left it at saying "it's safe, but explaining why would be too long an boring".
Maybe he doesn't want to make Wired's vaporware list again? But seriously, I don't see why a hobby project has to abide by the same rules as big corporations. And his statement also stops people from pestering him about what he plans for 2.5 or 3.0, so maybe it's just a lie ...
But they're not going to notice. .NET will be an integral part of Whistler or some other future Windows version (like Internet Explorer is now ;-), so .NET-Software will install like any other software. And if it can't find .NET on your machine, I am sure they can provide a little program that will tell you and do the download of the .NET stuff for you (or it even comes on the same CD). So sorry, but I am not as optimistic as you are ...
Hm, interesting
Given my experience with funding in science, a scientiest would be much more likely to fly economy class ... and if he was Austrian, he would have to pay the return flight himself ...
But there are slightly more regulations and more experience regarding safety with buses and air planes than there is with space travel. You can't compare space travel with riding a bus, imho.
I don't think that's possible. How would you discriminate between the different signals in different parts of the satellite? You would probably pick up more noise from the antenna amplifiers than the computer --- which is exactly the reason I think they needed big dishes and sensitive equipment: You would expect Russian satellites to not transmit to US spy site locations, so you would have to pick up traces of transmissions directed at other points on the globe.
But the original (TM ;-) Monolith was black! At least that's how I remember it ...
I only have Linux here at the moment, so ... too bad. But I will have a look at the movie tonight.
Ah
What is that supposed to be? The image, I mean? *That* is a monolith? Okay, it's been a while since I last saw the movie, but as far as I remember, it was black and pretty solid. And it cast a real shadow ... this thing is semi-transparent ... come on, this is a hoax.
It seems that the more technology advances, the more ideas we mimic from nature. And it makes sense, too, since many problems we face are similar to the ones plants and animals have been facing for millions of years. Just think of that swimming suit that is modeled after shark's skin, thus minimizing friction with the water, genetic algorithms, etc.
This is quite amazing and I think that there is still a lot to be learned from nature for many fields.
Well thanks, I know that much ... but the heat is released by all kinds of devices using the energy. All the eletricity the power plant generates eventually ends up as heat - a light bulb produces heat and light, the latter is absorbed by objects and converted into heat. So heat is released into the atmosphere, and the more energy there is, the more heat is released.
And when I said this might not be so desirable, I meant that it would lead to much more wasting of energy, which might not be a good thing - but not because there was any shortage of energy, but because that energy has effects on the environment. Today, the average temperature in cities is already higher than in the surrounding country. We are producing enough energy to really influence the environment, even if there was no global warming. It's not because I am entirely against technical progress ...
I didn't mean to say that we have to get rid of electricity, etc. It's just that when you have a cheap power source available, you're going to use it. It's the same thing with cars: When you have a car, you drive even small distances that you would otherwise have walked or used your bicycle for.
... we're not going to survive on a planet that heats up constantly.
And, of course, there is a certain amount of energy we can release to the environment without doing too much damage. We just don't know how much yet.
But I can't agree to your saying that "by no means should the environment take precedence over human needs." That depends on the needs, of course. We don't do much real damage to the environment when we fulfill basic human needs. But sacrificing the environment for pure luxury (and much of the power we use is used for that) should be weighed against the fact that we need the environment
I am not saying "let's get back into the caves" or something like that. But I do think we need to be a bit more considerate of the effects such things a electrical power consumption have on the environment.
But if we can create as much power as we want, that isn't exactly going to help global warming (well it is, but that's the point ...). Even if we get rid of the gases that contribute to the glass house effect, simply releasing any amount of heat to the environment is going to hurt it (and already does). So such a power source might not be such a desirable thing after all ...
I also find your subject line interesting ... if they used more different software in different parts of the organization that would also make breaking in harder. Because now, if somebody really found a hithertho unknown security hole in windows, they can easily get into many machines. But if only a part is windows, and there are also other systems, that means much more work.
I'm sorry. I'm usually not such an asshole, even when I am right ... you are right of course, I didn't think of drivers and fan-out and all this real-world stuff ... but my great design wouldn't have worked anyway, because I would still need the logic in a different part, driving the switches ...
I apologize, I was wrong. I just had this idea of building a multiplexer without all the logic by just selecting the right lines with a single layer of and gates and ... well never mind. I'm sorry. I should really think before I write something the next time ...
I don't have a problem with "organic" UIs, but I think that this program has a pretty bad UI, organic or not. The parts don't fit together, some are 2D, some 3D, buttons and scrollbars are lit from different directions, and the text is hard to read because you can't find any structures for orientation. So the problem here is IMHO not the organic layout, it's just that the UI is not very well thought out, and done mostly for the effect (and maybe for looking good in computer magazines), not for making the program usable.
Who needs a video phone, anyway? I certainly don't. And few other people, it seems. I remember hearing about video phones back in the 80s. Then when ISDN came, video phones were to finally replace the old voice-only again. Hm. Hasn't happened yet. And I can't imagine it ever will, because we just don't need it. Phones work very well because they are simple. And that's what they should remain. Please leave me alone with video, embedded mp3 players and all that crap ... I want a working phone, that's all ...