One more thing is an input method developed my some of my friends recently, with this input method, only mouse is needed to write Chinese on a computer. You can download it at http://sbsrf.cn/ and try it. I seems to work by selecting components of the caracter, and then it gives options. All the characters in the app itself are garbled for me though, so can't say, although the menu looks fine. Is it any faster than typing though?
Sinänsä kyllä ihan hyvä idea, että englanninkielinen maailma voisi käpertyä omaan pikku verkkoonsa ja käyttää kunnon kaupallisia amerikkalaisia käyttiksiä ja palvoa sitä yhtä ainoaa jumalaa. Muu maailma saisi tyytyä johonkin säälittävään Linuxiin ja ajatella omilla säälittävillä aivoillaan. Hyvin sanottu.. paitsi että purit trolliin..
You can see much more people typing "google" or even "" in the search box in their Yahoo (!) default landing page, than typing the URL google.com. Japanese just don't type URLs they use Yahoo for searching. Many don't even use bookmarks. They just search. It's understandable with roman letters.. but I'm wondering, is this actually any different from the majority in the west? I don't think a japanese geek would search for Google on Yahoo any more than any other geek, while I can certainly imagine a lot of people using the search box for everything, regardless of culture.
The first part is probably client authentication. This could be useful. A standardized way of verifiably authenticating a user, and information about that user. Of course, only if the user wants to.
For example, I don't have a problem with a (pr0n)website automatically knowing my age, as long as nothing else is known. I could then make that info available to the world in some auth scheme, but nothing else. A shopping website might request my name and address, and I could grant that info on a case-by-case basis, and the info received by the website would be guaranteed to be correct and non-fraudulent. At the same time, I could of course do the same operation on the website.
Lots of possibilities open up, only... who will keep track of everything?
Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser. Like flash?
No, a parallel set of pipes. Didn't you RTFA? No, that's what we have now, according to TFA. The next internet would be a mesh of pipes.
I happen to have a preliminary overview of the design, although it's just the abstract:
Such an interesting culture, I'd love to visit there someday. (South Korea, that is) It's interesting, sure, but the PC bang can be pretty smoky. Bring your gas mask.:)
Re:Any consensus?
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Who wants H.D. pr0n? Do you really want to see cellulite, open pores, wrinkles, etc. all in high-def? You'll end up wishing porn really did make you go blind. Hi-def makes it much harder to fulfill people's fantasies with real-life actors. Even the producers are complaining about it. I demand a sample to assess the veracity of this claim.
IBM has been involved in the parallel processing field for a long time. I'm sure they have plenty of patents which pre-date and overlap this one and probably quite a few that International Parallel Machines is arguably infringing on. A great defense for Sony.
"Your patent is invalid, because IBM already has prior art and patents on it. Ha!
No, you're right. There's nothing wrong with black on white, as long as ambient lighting is what it should be. In a darkened room, however, grey on black is a lot better. Not white on black though, that can cause a blooming effect of the typefaces.
You're assuming the existence of rational thought...
Besides, even if you do think before acting, you could still get fooled. Exe's can have their own icons embedded, so a trojan might look like an mp3 after all. I usually look at the icon first, myself, so I might get fooled by it... except I scan suspicious wares before opening.
If you buy the theory that humans originated in Africa, and developed our minds in order to survive on the savannah, then seeing circles, triangles, and squares is a useless ability. OTOH, lines are absolutely vital.
All of those species of trees you mentioned are practically identical: two roughly vertical lines (possibly curving) close together that have a contrast and texture change, compared with the surrounding. The underbrush is similar: 1000 species, all a green, unrecognizable mass except for brightly coloured berries and flowers, which stand out purely because of contrast difference and colour. The sky is what you find above the horizon, no need to analyze clouds to find that. "Above" is defined by a combination of gravity (feet point down) balance, and possibly a straight horizon, if available.
Panthers? They're camouflaged, so you have to do guesswork to find out where they're hiding (tall grass, which is a fairly even texture stretching out below the horizon).
Edible trees? Find one characteristic (shape or otherwise) of the trees you like, then look for those.
A large part of our basic vision needs is based on simple geometrical shapes like lines, circles, ovals, triangles, etc., the direction they're pointing, and shadows that objects cast (themselves geometrical shapes, frequently triangular-ish). A triangle doesn't need to be perfect in order for you to recognise it as a triangle. It just needs three pointy bits, and there are plenty of objects like that in nature. A "mathematical" triangle with straight edges is just a special case of a "natural" triangle.
A tank can easily be recognized by it's silhouette, it's a simple 2D shape. A trash can however, can take many shapes, but they all have a hole in the top. Thus we have a system for recognizing 3D objects based on the 2D image we perceive (3D, or stereoscopic recognizing of a shape is very often inadequate). This is based on simple rules like geometry (vertical lines, circle or oval on top), which way shadows fall (curved and slanted shadow inside circle), etc. That the rules are simple is obvious, as the human eye is entirely trivial to fool with optical illusion.
On top of this comes pattern recognizing, like a grid-like structure (a plastic thrash can), curved reflection of surroundings (a metal trash can), non-shadowed texture within top circle (aha, no hole so not a trash can after all!), and so on, and so on.
What are you afraid of? The devaluing of humans, perhaps. No-one wants to be superfluous, so we want to consider ourselves magically above "the rest", or untouchable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a dialect either, It's a three-year old troll post. Someone mod it away already.
And.. what do they do with naver.com?
For example, I don't have a problem with a (pr0n)website automatically knowing my age, as long as nothing else is known. I could then make that info available to the world in some auth scheme, but nothing else. A shopping website might request my name and address, and I could grant that info on a case-by-case basis, and the info received by the website would be guaranteed to be correct and non-fraudulent. At the same time, I could of course do the same operation on the website.
Lots of possibilities open up, only... who will keep track of everything?
Uh.. put that knife down..
I happen to have a preliminary overview of the design, although it's just the abstract:
#
Sounds like a Matchmaker of Death.
"Your patent is invalid, because IBM already has prior art and patents on it. Ha!
...Oh shit."
Do you mean other cars don't have their parts made in different countries?
And probably similar to the Internet seconds in the good old Netscape, longest seconds I ever saw.
No, you're right. There's nothing wrong with black on white, as long as ambient lighting is what it should be. In a darkened room, however, grey on black is a lot better. Not white on black though, that can cause a blooming effect of the typefaces.
Besides, even if you do think before acting, you could still get fooled. Exe's can have their own icons embedded, so a trojan might look like an mp3 after all. I usually look at the icon first, myself, so I might get fooled by it... except I scan suspicious wares before opening.
The importance of a death is proportional to your relation to it. It's not an absolute, it depends on who you ask, and there are no right answers.
Also, non-kidding: third person dies. It doesn't look good...
You must be... no, you're definitely new here.
All of those species of trees you mentioned are practically identical: two roughly vertical lines (possibly curving) close together that have a contrast and texture change, compared with the surrounding. The underbrush is similar: 1000 species, all a green, unrecognizable mass except for brightly coloured berries and flowers, which stand out purely because of contrast difference and colour. The sky is what you find above the horizon, no need to analyze clouds to find that. "Above" is defined by a combination of gravity (feet point down) balance, and possibly a straight horizon, if available.
Panthers? They're camouflaged, so you have to do guesswork to find out where they're hiding (tall grass, which is a fairly even texture stretching out below the horizon).
Edible trees? Find one characteristic (shape or otherwise) of the trees you like, then look for those.
A large part of our basic vision needs is based on simple geometrical shapes like lines, circles, ovals, triangles, etc., the direction they're pointing, and shadows that objects cast (themselves geometrical shapes, frequently triangular-ish). A triangle doesn't need to be perfect in order for you to recognise it as a triangle. It just needs three pointy bits, and there are plenty of objects like that in nature. A "mathematical" triangle with straight edges is just a special case of a "natural" triangle.
On top of this comes pattern recognizing, like a grid-like structure (a plastic thrash can), curved reflection of surroundings (a metal trash can), non-shadowed texture within top circle (aha, no hole so not a trash can after all!), and so on, and so on.
I didn't even notice until the last word...
This'll teach me not to read medical articles just before lunch. Argh.
I don't think you need 20x for a hard drive. Hard drive speeds are going pretty much nowhere. If you need SCSI, use SCSI.