Unfortunately most people are just resistant to change.
Course maneuvers. I've survived as a programmer for forty years. If I were resistant to change I'd have quit thirty-nine years ago. I've also seen rather a lot of very good, and very bad UI design since the introduction of the command line and have adapted to all of it.
The Office Ribbon UI is a tremendously bad concept, because it intrudes on the process of using the application in a negative way. Every little smooth, automatic, dynamic expansion and compression of menu items contrasts with the items you have already scanned and mentally noted, and costs you a re-think as to the arrangement of items.
Familiarity is definitely the issue here, because you are forced to read and interpret transitions that previously were static enough to select by reflex. No amount of familiarisation can compensate for a UI designed (deliberately or otherwise) to avoid your becoming familiar with object placement.
The Windows XP interface and associated Office products had a decent UI design. The current Ribbon UI is simply crap by comparison.
Infrared light disinfects? Well, yes, but only if you get the target surface hot enough to act like an autoclave. Most party goers wouldn't like that. Ultraviolet on the other hand, will disinfect, as it disrupts cellular activity. And unless you're using it in a closed area for disinfecting drinking or pool water, aforementioned party goers wouldn't like that much either. Disinfectants kill mostly unwanted living things.
Musically however, I prefer ultraviolent and infradig.
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Hmm... representative. I remember reading about what happened in the 18th century in several countries when the courts were used predominantly as a tool for the rich. There was a rather pronounced change in government in several countries, notably France and the USA. It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
At least until the next version comes out. Then you have the ribbon too. God, I hope it can be disabled.
Agree. The Ribbon was a tremendous step backwards in user friendliness, all in the name of eye candy. It sucks. Way too long a familiarisation curve. In contrast, I'm having zero trouble -- almost zero thought -- in using the plain vanilla Gnome / Open Office interface to do the stuff I need to do on the home laptop, i.e. load documents, edit them, and store them.
That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy
In the short term, yes. In the long term, perhaps not. On the scale of things Google they're likely to turn into "cheap commodity quantum whiteboxes".
Either that, or everybody will be able to use the same one simultaneously.
I project there will be a world need for five of them. None of them will need more than 640k and there will be no need for a personal version in the home.
It can cut both ways, though. I work for a Very Large Nonprofit that has been trying to implement a software system , and it's been a fiasco of FAA/IRS proportions. The root cause is a decision made at the very beginning to go with COTS software.
Medieval. Tell him you can't work at all without music. Tell him that your mind only associates algorithms correctly when stimulated by harmony and melody, and that you've always coded like that and wouldn't know how to code without it. Considering how utterly clue-free your boss has to be to come up with a directive like that, it'll probably slip on past. Anyway, tell him you'll be zero productive without it, and to do the sums.
Or, simply ignore him. If he sacks you because you're wearing headphones, two things will happen: (a) Word will get around His Assholiness' circle that this happened, and he'll cop a grue, and (b) you will have the opportunity to find someplace better, which you need.
I've managed software development teams of up to 70 before. We were hugely productive and made money. And if we wanted to talk to someone we waited until they were out of the zone if we could, or touched their desk to let them return to the surface on their own terms (I was big on courtesy).
I can categorically state that the aforementioned boss is completely and wildly out of his tree, and should be sacked. Not because of the directive, but because he's clearly an idiot.
It's hard for an old SF fan like me to admit it, but I think the implications of this paper on possibly how EM fields propagate might be even more interesting than its application as a drive. EM is an electric field collapsing to become a magnetic field, which collapses to become an electric field, rinse and repeat. How often this happens is the frequency of the EM wave system. Aren't we running up against some sort of frequency limit here, to get EM affect against quanta? Is there a maximum number for this? And at these higher limits, will there be some split between the E and the M portions of the wave? Jus' curious, but I suspect there's a few papers waiting to be writ along those lines.
If you, you know, read the article, you'd know they're changing the momentum of the electromagnetic fields in a quantum vacuum. Thus, momentum is conserved.
By changing the spin orientation of quanta.
Hmm... the math and physics of all this makes me dizzy. I know!! I'll call it a "Spindizzy"!
I doubt that you'll be too sad for too long. Alan Shepard's Redstone-Mercury flight was suborbital. It was an early proof of concept flight that solved a few soft issues (need to back a political agenda) and a few hard ones (do we trust a human in one of these crates?). John Glenn did a couple of orbits not much later, but that first step was essential.
SS2 is arguably a lot prettier, but -- boost the carrier aircraft's frame and engines to more of a commercial jet scale, extend the rocket's performance and both the military and commercial interests will find a use for getting key people to a transcontinental address quickly, more so than the late {lamented|unlamented} Concorde. Without the intervening sonic boom that crippled the Concorde. The concept of a separable carrier aircraft as a launch vehicle is a good one; it only need gain altitude, then turn around and land. The entire composite flight might take less fuel overall than the equivalent trip via Airbus.
Put the towers IN THE GROUND. Even here in Colorado that is around 55-60F. The nice thing is that it is easier to protect down there. Heck, the old missile silos around US, Canada, Russia, etc. are IDEAL for this.
Powered by Stirling generator. Stick a cold side heat exchanger at the base and a hot side exchanger at the top, plumbed so you can switch them summer/winter. Pipe the heat via closed loop water pipes so you can keep the working gas loop short enough for decent RPM. Scavenge the heat from the DC as well to keep the overall losses down. Free power.
Since the space advocacy community is, in general, unused to thinking critically and analytically... And thus, again, I appear negative because I refuse to go with the herd in admiring the emperor's new clothes.
Course maneuvers. You're being negative. Instead of saying "that solution isn't the Orient Express" you could have said "That solution isn't the Orient Express. Is the concept scalable though?" You could have at least offered a single question to keep the idea open, instead of attempting to slam the door shut on a beautiful idea. As expressed above, simply knocking down an example with the attempt to close it off does not a good engineer make. Good engineers ask questions.
Yes I'm part of the space advocacy group, but I've also been a successful engineer for forty years and have been part of the engineering teams of two successful spacecraft launches. And the colleagues I respect have all been of the questioning, exploring sort. People who offer only closed assessments shut themselves off from the inquiring crowd.
It isn't fantasy to purport an idea that isn't implemented yet. Yes, you have to refine the dross from concepts until they work, but simply saying "that won't work" with no other contribution puts you outside the mainstream.
So I will maintain, there's your Orient Express. When it goes into production it will look vastly different, but you'll be able to move back along the timeline and say "it started there".
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately most people are just resistant to change.
Course maneuvers. I've survived as a programmer for forty years. If I were resistant to change I'd have quit thirty-nine years ago. I've also seen rather a lot of very good, and very bad UI design since the introduction of the command line and have adapted to all of it.
The Office Ribbon UI is a tremendously bad concept, because it intrudes on the process of using the application in a negative way. Every little smooth, automatic, dynamic expansion and compression of menu items contrasts with the items you have already scanned and mentally noted, and costs you a re-think as to the arrangement of items.
Familiarity is definitely the issue here, because you are forced to read and interpret transitions that previously were static enough to select by reflex. No amount of familiarisation can compensate for a UI designed (deliberately or otherwise) to avoid your becoming familiar with object placement.
The Windows XP interface and associated Office products had a decent UI design. The current Ribbon UI is simply crap by comparison.
No, but it disinfects... that isn't good enough?
Infrared light disinfects? Well, yes, but only if you get the target surface hot enough to act like an autoclave. Most party goers wouldn't like that. Ultraviolet on the other hand, will disinfect, as it disrupts cellular activity. And unless you're using it in a closed area for disinfecting drinking or pool water, aforementioned party goers wouldn't like that much either. Disinfectants kill mostly unwanted living things.
Musically however, I prefer ultraviolent and infradig.
No, that's the job of the compiler.
Only if you trust your compiler to do so. A real geek checks the machine code.
Or an acid bath. (Which gets you very very very clean. ;)
Bathing in baked beans (strangely, safe for work) is said to be nutritious.
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Hmm... representative. I remember reading about what happened in the 18th century in several countries when the courts were used predominantly as a tool for the rich. There was a rather pronounced change in government in several countries, notably France and the USA. It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
At least until the next version comes out. Then you have the ribbon too. God, I hope it can be disabled.
Agree. The Ribbon was a tremendous step backwards in user friendliness, all in the name of eye candy. It sucks. Way too long a familiarisation curve. In contrast, I'm having zero trouble -- almost zero thought -- in using the plain vanilla Gnome / Open Office interface to do the stuff I need to do on the home laptop, i.e. load documents, edit them, and store them.
/facepalm
That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy
In the short term, yes. In the long term, perhaps not. On the scale of things Google they're likely to turn into "cheap commodity quantum whiteboxes".
Either that, or everybody will be able to use the same one simultaneously.
I project there will be a world need for five of them. None of them will need more than 640k and there will be no need for a personal version in the home.
How well would using Chrome's "Incognito mode" work?
Do a search on whatever you're interested in. Then precede those searches with something completely random,like airplanes...
Mod NoYob +5 "Scary+Funny"
It can cut both ways, though. I work for a Very Large Nonprofit that has been trying to implement a software system , and it's been a fiasco of FAA/IRS proportions. The root cause is a decision made at the very beginning to go with COTS software.
Am I the only person thinking "Peoplesoft" here?
Your capitalisation and punctuation suck.
Medieval. Tell him you can't work at all without music. Tell him that your mind only associates algorithms correctly when stimulated by harmony and melody, and that you've always coded like that and wouldn't know how to code without it. Considering how utterly clue-free your boss has to be to come up with a directive like that, it'll probably slip on past. Anyway, tell him you'll be zero productive without it, and to do the sums.
Or, simply ignore him. If he sacks you because you're wearing headphones, two things will happen: (a) Word will get around His Assholiness' circle that this happened, and he'll cop a grue, and (b) you will have the opportunity to find someplace better, which you need.
I've managed software development teams of up to 70 before. We were hugely productive and made money. And if we wanted to talk to someone we waited until they were out of the zone if we could, or touched their desk to let them return to the surface on their own terms (I was big on courtesy).
I can categorically state that the aforementioned boss is completely and wildly out of his tree, and should be sacked. Not because of the directive, but because he's clearly an idiot.
Or more simply, as the number of users approaches infinity, the comment quality approaches 4chan
I think that works as a calculus limit. But mainly I think it's the type of people who congregate here that makes it worthwhile.
Your Hoover won't work in outer space.
But my pressure-differential spacecraft dust cleansing device will! (opens tiny valve in hull of spacecraft) Muahahahaha!!!
Oh.
It's hard for an old SF fan like me to admit it, but I think the implications of this paper on possibly how EM fields propagate might be even more interesting than its application as a drive. EM is an electric field collapsing to become a magnetic field, which collapses to become an electric field, rinse and repeat. How often this happens is the frequency of the EM wave system. Aren't we running up against some sort of frequency limit here, to get EM affect against quanta? Is there a maximum number for this? And at these higher limits, will there be some split between the E and the M portions of the wave? Jus' curious, but I suspect there's a few papers waiting to be writ along those lines.
If you, you know, read the article, you'd know they're changing the momentum of the electromagnetic fields in a quantum vacuum. Thus, momentum is conserved.
By changing the spin orientation of quanta.
Hmm... the math and physics of all this makes me dizzy. I know!! I'll call it a "Spindizzy"!
So... you're saying that nothing's impossible? Or just that we ain't seen nothing yet?
Nothing is sacred! Bow down before it!
That was highly useful, my thanks. I sit surrounded by DC planners, and I've sent that link around.
SS2 is arguably a lot prettier, but -- boost the carrier aircraft's frame and engines to more of a commercial jet scale, extend the rocket's performance and both the military and commercial interests will find a use for getting key people to a transcontinental address quickly, more so than the late {lamented|unlamented} Concorde. Without the intervening sonic boom that crippled the Concorde. The concept of a separable carrier aircraft as a launch vehicle is a good one; it only need gain altitude, then turn around and land. The entire composite flight might take less fuel overall than the equivalent trip via Airbus.
Put the towers IN THE GROUND. Even here in Colorado that is around 55-60F. The nice thing is that it is easier to protect down there. Heck, the old missile silos around US, Canada, Russia, etc. are IDEAL for this.
Powered by Stirling generator. Stick a cold side heat exchanger at the base and a hot side exchanger at the top, plumbed so you can switch them summer/winter. Pipe the heat via closed loop water pipes so you can keep the working gas loop short enough for decent RPM. Scavenge the heat from the DC as well to keep the overall losses down. Free power.
How the hell can someone misspell CSIRO, then get it right 1 sentence later, then get it WRONG AGAIN in the very next paragraph?!?
I hvae no idea, myself. Some have key spelling and typing skills, and others haev the same challenges I face.
Looks like they read too much UserFriendly...
Thanks, mate. I just blew another hour.
Oh, hang on - you used your real name?
Since the space advocacy community is, in general, unused to thinking critically and analytically ... And thus, again, I appear negative because I refuse to go with the herd in admiring the emperor's new clothes.
Course maneuvers. You're being negative. Instead of saying "that solution isn't the Orient Express" you could have said "That solution isn't the Orient Express. Is the concept scalable though?" You could have at least offered a single question to keep the idea open, instead of attempting to slam the door shut on a beautiful idea. As expressed above, simply knocking down an example with the attempt to close it off does not a good engineer make. Good engineers ask questions.
Yes I'm part of the space advocacy group, but I've also been a successful engineer for forty years and have been part of the engineering teams of two successful spacecraft launches. And the colleagues I respect have all been of the questioning, exploring sort. People who offer only closed assessments shut themselves off from the inquiring crowd.
It isn't fantasy to purport an idea that isn't implemented yet. Yes, you have to refine the dross from concepts until they work, but simply saying "that won't work" with no other contribution puts you outside the mainstream.
So I will maintain, there's your Orient Express. When it goes into production it will look vastly different, but you'll be able to move back along the timeline and say "it started there".