Please enlighten me. Perhaps this was meant tongue-in-cheek. On this side of the pond we can deduce precisely nothing from someone's name regarding class, socio-economic niche, etc. Are you suggesting that \caste\ class distinction is still divided along familial lines over there? I mean, really? You guys still do that?
Ahh, remember that sound?
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why nobody has developed the perfect interface: a touch-pad the size of a mouse-pad, placed next to the computer like a mousepad, with tactile feedback built in. The tactile feedback (variable, by user preference) could be made precise enough so that I could feel the borders of windows and buttons. Even braille, if you'd like.
No worries about smudging the monitor, nor need to reposition it; no extra work beyond what we're used to with a mouse, but no sacrifice in pixel precision either.
Mega-bonus extra points if it's multi-touch interface, so I can do things like zoom out by pinching my fingers together and zoom in by opening them up again.
I'm sure the technology is there. But why haven't I seen this yet?
No brainer in my book. (But then my book is a Dr. Seuss, so there you go.)
And the most important aspect of maintaining your work is to remember this: six months after you've written your code, it might just as well have been written by someone else. So here's a way to get in a time machine and make your future self really happy: INCLUDE CLEAR COMMENTS EVERYWHERE. Even to things you think are obvious. If it takes you more than 10 minutes to figure out how to do something, make a note to remind yourself why you did it.
Exercise for the reader: work out how you're going to power the climber
Couldn't you just dangle another ribbon in the opposite direction (stretching away from the earth) attached to a second object roughly equal in mass to the payload? If balanced appropriately, I would think it would take very little power to shuttle the payload back and forth.
Better yet, just have a second payload coming back down on the far side of a huge "space pulley."
Reminds me of the account I once read of Khrushcev boasting about his country's greatness by describing the superiority of their wathces: "Our vatches are better than sviss vatches! And our vatches are STRONGER than sviss vatches! And our vatches run FASTER than sviss vatches!"
Now Cuil is boasting that they have faster results than Google! and they have MORE results than Google! and their results are less popular than Google's!! Eiiyyahhh!
However, they were still FAR FAR FAR FAR BETTER than any of the prequels
You don't know the POWER of nostalgia, Luke!
All I hear on/. is how SW IV is the best ever and the others can never compare. Of course I would agree, because I too saw that movie 17 times as an 11 year old.
But last night I asked my 9 and 7 year old kids to rank all 5 movies (I won't let them see III until they're older). To my shock and dismay, they both ranked IV dead last! Try this in your own household and you may be surprised!
(Somewhat more amusing is that they both rated III first -- even though they haven't seen it yet! They've read so much about it, they're just SURE it's the best of all!)
"What George Lucas did give us was the dreaded sequel. Give him credit for that..."
Definitely do NOT five George Lucas credit for inventing the sequel! Godfather II ('74), Jaws II ('78) certainly preceded SW V ('80), just to name a couple. But of course we could go on and on: Crosby & Hope's Road Trips, Laurel & Hardy's endless adventures, Long John Silver's Return to Treasure Island(!), heck, even The New Testament.
Move along! Move along! Nothing to see here! This bone that was TOO BIG TO FIT IN A HELICOPTER is not, afterall, a dinosaur bone. It's just, uhh, left over from Clifford's dog dish. Yeah, yeah, that's it!
For those who wonder what a wingsuit looks like in action, check out some of the videos on this page. I particularly enjoyed the one called "BirdMan on Monte Brento" which links to this other page.
Here's a video (9.7MB) from SIGGRAPH (Note: slow to load; wait for it). It was linked to from this page:
Not terribly imressive, I'm afraid. It's hard to imagine how this might scale up to anything useful. The omni-directional treadmill referred to elsewhere seems much more promising.
Ok how about this:
What does this say in your browser:
testlink
(I put 'http://www.amazon.com%01@google.com' in an HREF)
In IE 6.0 it says google.com
so what's the problem?
-One of these days I've got to think of a cool sig.
Google's 1st Place position is well-deserved but not unassailable. If you want to one-up Google you won't do it by adding new features or slimming your GUI's. You need a more powerful query language. The future championship will not go to the s-engine with the biggest index but the one with the sharpest scalpel.
Google's PageRank pocket knife is great (unsurpassed, even). But I still get several hundred hits on any given search. That's too many. Yet I have a hard time whittling that down (given Google's 10-word limit) because my queries end up looking like this:
Slashdot Mirror
Please enlighten me. Perhaps this was meant tongue-in-cheek. On this side of the pond we can deduce precisely nothing from someone's name regarding class, socio-economic niche, etc. Are you suggesting that \caste\ class distinction is still divided along familial lines over there? I mean, really? You guys still do that?
...the screeching sound of your modem connecting?
[high-pitched] *whhhheeeeeeeeeeeeee* - *oohhnnnggnnggngnng* - *errnkk errnnkk errnnggk*
Ahh, the memories!
------
Isn't it remarkable that our entire civilization is now precariously dependent upon a contraption that wasn't even invented 100 years ago?
I don't understand why nobody has developed the perfect interface: a touch-pad the size of a mouse-pad, placed next to the computer like a mousepad, with tactile feedback built in. The tactile feedback (variable, by user preference) could be made precise enough so that I could feel the borders of windows and buttons. Even braille, if you'd like. No worries about smudging the monitor, nor need to reposition it; no extra work beyond what we're used to with a mouse, but no sacrifice in pixel precision either.
Mega-bonus extra points if it's multi-touch interface, so I can do things like zoom out by pinching my fingers together and zoom in by opening them up again. I'm sure the technology is there. But why haven't I seen this yet?
No brainer in my book. (But then my book is a Dr. Seuss, so there you go.)
And the most important aspect of maintaining your work is to remember this: six months after you've written your code, it might just as well have been written by someone else. So here's a way to get in a time machine and make your future self really happy: INCLUDE CLEAR COMMENTS EVERYWHERE. Even to things you think are obvious. If it takes you more than 10 minutes to figure out how to do something, make a note to remind yourself why you did it.
You'll be glad you did.
Exercise for the reader: work out how you're going to power the climber
Couldn't you just dangle another ribbon in the opposite direction (stretching away from the earth) attached to a second object roughly equal in mass to the payload? If balanced appropriately, I would think it would take very little power to shuttle the payload back and forth.
Better yet, just have a second payload coming back down on the far side of a huge "space pulley."
Reminds me of the account I once read of Khrushcev boasting about his country's greatness by describing the superiority of their wathces: "Our vatches are better than sviss vatches! And our vatches are STRONGER than sviss vatches! And our vatches run FASTER than sviss vatches!"
Now Cuil is boasting that they have faster results than Google! and they have MORE results than Google! and their results are less popular than Google's!! Eiiyyahhh!
However, they were still FAR FAR FAR FAR BETTER than any of the prequels
/. is how SW IV is the best ever and the others can never compare. Of course I would agree, because I too saw that movie 17 times as an 11 year old.
You don't know the POWER of nostalgia, Luke!
All I hear on
But last night I asked my 9 and 7 year old kids to rank all 5 movies (I won't let them see III until they're older). To my shock and dismay, they both ranked IV dead last! Try this in your own household and you may be surprised!
(Somewhat more amusing is that they both rated III first -- even though they haven't seen it yet! They've read so much about it, they're just SURE it's the best of all!)
... still using "GOTO"?q =gotorel=url2html-1642http://www.google.com/codese arch?hl=en&lr=&q=goto>
ahref=http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&
"What George Lucas did give us was the dreaded sequel. Give him credit for that..."
Definitely do NOT five George Lucas credit for inventing the sequel! Godfather II ('74), Jaws II ('78) certainly preceded SW V ('80), just to name a couple. But of course we could go on and on: Crosby & Hope's Road Trips, Laurel & Hardy's endless adventures, Long John Silver's Return to Treasure Island(!), heck, even The New Testament.
The Gödel post, G:
There is a post, G, which is both true and insightful, but which cannot be modded up.
Move along! Move along! Nothing to see here! This bone that was TOO BIG TO FIT IN A HELICOPTER is not, afterall, a dinosaur bone. It's just, uhh, left over from Clifford's dog dish. Yeah, yeah, that's it!
Sorry! Our mistake! Move along!
Fire in a stick. Hmm. Comes to mind as something that has been used from time to time down through history. Guess it can't compete with the Clapper.
But at least the Abacus was only three places behind the Magic-8 ball! Now THERE's a computing device that never Blue-Screened!
Nightly News reported that (for the first time) electronic items outsold books.
For those who wonder what a wingsuit looks like in action, check out some of the videos on this page. I particularly enjoyed the one called "BirdMan on Monte Brento" which links to this other page.
My other sig is funnier.
Here's a video (9.7MB) from SIGGRAPH (Note: slow to load; wait for it). It was linked to from this page: Not terribly imressive, I'm afraid. It's hard to imagine how this might scale up to anything useful. The omni-directional treadmill referred to elsewhere seems much more promising.
That's odd. I did type it in the way I said...
Ok how about this:
What does this say in your browser: testlink
(I put 'http://www.amazon.com%01@google.com' in an HREF)
In IE 6.0 it says google.com
so what's the problem?
-One of these days I've got to think of a cool sig.
One word: "stemming"
:
Google's 1st Place position is well-deserved but not unassailable. If you want to one-up Google you won't do it by adding new features or slimming your GUI's. You need a more powerful query language. The future championship will not go to the s-engine with the biggest index but the one with the sharpest scalpel.
Google's PageRank pocket knife is great (unsurpassed, even). But I still get several hundred hits on any given search. That's too many. Yet I have a hard time whittling that down (given Google's 10-word limit) because my queries end up looking like this:
"(search | searching | searched) (engine | engines) (image | imagery | images) (graphic | graphics | graphical)"
when what I REALLY want to say is
"search* engine* (image* OR graphic*)"
An engine that could add stemming (or, better yet, regular expressions) to Google's PageRank precision could certainly take the throne.
--
When they finally put web interfaces in my brain, will the popup adds cause migraines?