Fitts's Law is irrelevant to devices with modern display sizes and resolutions. It was more about Apple arrogance all along, but it ceased being a compelling argument once multiple programs were simultaneously displayed on a screen bigger than a postage stamp. On today's screens, one is far more likely to be slowed down spanning the huge distance to the screen top, especially if doing so slightly wrong causes defocusing of the window as occurs frequently with me. That never occurs on tiny screens with full-screen apps for which Fitts's Law originally applied. The top menu bar is a UI dog.
It wasn't about optimizing screen real estate, though, you got that right. The top menu bar doesn't save screen real estate though it does create a handy area for software to plug into.
You give the original mac too much credit. "The final product's screen was a 9-inch, 512x342 pixel monochrome display..." from Wikipedia...
Yes, the mac UI is full of idiosyncrasies that are passed off as intuitive brilliance. "Fitts's law" is among the most ridiculous, having not been relevant since machines got real displays. That, of course, occurred in macs long after everywhere else.;)
Yes, the good parts of OS X are under the hood, the UI is just a different stink you grow accustomed to.
Apple introduces the iPill that provides 20/20 vision. Apple's customers respond that there are many solutions to 20/20 vision and that what we really need is a cure for cancer. Apple responds that you definitely do not want a cure for cancer because it might compromise 20/20 vision. Fanbois proclaim that 20/20 vision is the only thing preventing a perfect life and only Apple is genius enough to think up a solution.
Apple then introduces the iPill v2 which offers 20/20 vision plus the ability for others to add cures for other maladies. Soon after, a 3rd party, most likely one already developing for similar platforms for the last decade, extends the iPill v2 to cure cancer. Apple profits not only from sales of the iPill but also through a 30% cut from 3rd party efforts by monopolizing distribution. Fanbois proclaim Apple's vision for an extensible iPill platform as revolutionary despite Apple's initlal refusal to do what everyone else had done for years.
Apple then introduces the iPill v3 that includes it's own cure for cancer reverse engineered from the 3rd party solution. It then bans the 3rd party solution and introduces a marketing campaign where it claims to have invented the cure for cancer despite all its competitors also curing cancer through the same solution Apple banned. Curing cancer, after all, was their vision the entire time and it's CEO is the world's greatest humanitarian. Sadly, it's CEO dies of cancer shortly thereafter because, despite his visionary genius, it turns out he had never even taken a pill prior to inventing the iPill and didn't understand how or why people used them.
He also said that people need a keyboard and that Apple believed tablets were going to fail. Apple is now banking on tablets to succeed without keyboards.
Why don't you make the speed limit zero? That would eliminate ALL fatalities and gas consumption. Oh yeah, roads are for transportation. Don't forget that.
Making it illegal to pass on the right will only result in all drivers packing into the left lane as they do in states where that is the case. I noticed you didn't say make it illegal not to move to the right if you are slower, already the case in many states, I wonder why that is? Irrelevant anyway, the only traffic laws that get enforced are ones that generate easy revenue.
More traffic laws aren't the solution, they kill no birds except the ones in your mind. People tend to drive at speeds that are naturally supportable by road conditions and only respect posted speed limits if they are reasonable. Unreasonable speed limits actually decrease safety by creating greater speed differentials, and lower speed limits are only useful for increasing government income anyway. We need government to make things better in our lives, not destroy the usefulness of what infrastructure we have.
"No, strings with a listed length would also be pointers to a series of integers..."
Interesting that you deleted a portion of the claim so you could argue with it, then ignored the fact that you, yourself, created a struct as a counterexample to the claim that a struct was needed. Defining the first two bytes as meaning something special means that it is either explicitly a struct or "magic type" as the OP said.
Depends of your definition of "anywhere close". If you compare data sets of the same size, as is appropriate, the larger capacity drive will effectively be short-stroked leading to some effective reduction in seek latency so it really depends. Comparing full stroke seek latency of drives with unlike capacities is misleading; a newer generation, higher capacity but slower spinning drive can absolutely "come close" on real workloads.
Yes, but the goal of sound reproduction itself is to be accurate. The goal of sound creation is to "sound best". A test of human behavior does nothing to illuminate that, but it does illuminate the idiocy of Amar Bose's reasoning. He thinks a loudspeaker is a musical instrument with the most elaborate cabinate imaginable but with the cheapest, full range driver he can get away with using. All the better to simulate the sound of those old radios. He's going to turn those dials all the way down whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do to get it back.
Once the food has gone rancid you can spice it up all you want but all you are doing is making it possible to choke down.
"The colors with film are orders of magnitude better than with digital--incredibly vibrant and crisp. Digital--even the best digital--seems washed out in comparison. Her newest camera is amazing as digital cameras go, but in terms of image quality, it's only roughly approaching film. The DSLR movement has been picking up in my mind mostly because it's a start toward recapturing what people had with film cameras--like reinventing the wheel. My guess is that sometime in the not-too-distant future digital will be on par with film, or better, but we're not quite there yet."
Absolutely none of this is remotely accurate and says more about your personal ignorance and bias than about the technologies involved. It is difficult to find a metric where digital doesn't exceed film already and that's been true for some time.
"I think something analogous to the DSLR push in photography hasn't happened with sound yet."
What? The exact analogous event happened to "sound" long before it happened to photography.
but Kodak got killed in electronic imaging and the companies that whooped them are still doing well in the area of image quality. Kodak's last attempt at a DLSR was a horrible POS with a sensor designed by idiots (though full frame long before the D3). The demise of Kodak wasn't caused by everyone transitioning to crappy cell phone cameras, it was caused by them sucking at their business. The market they failed in is flourishing now.
"All things being equal, a single speaker producing a full range of frequencies will sound better than two separate speakers (bookshelf plus separate subwoofer). So a pair of floorstanders is going to sound better than two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer."
This is not true, "all things being equal". If all things weren't equal, which is actually the case between "a pair of floorstanders" and "two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer", then who knows. That depends on the speakers in question and room they are in.
Subwoofers don't have to be used as singles and there's no such thing as "truly non-directional". You can see very quickly that the single, large box versus multiple box comparison is only a matter packaging convenience, the real issue is speaker placement and the flexibility multiple boxes affords. It's actually common in finer floorstanding speakers to have separate boxes within the enclosure anyway, making the comparison superficial and silly.
"... people buy horsepower but drive torque as the saying goes."
It's a stupid saying offered, and repeated, by stupid people. Torque is an intermediate mathematical term. Horsepower is what gets the work done, and when people talk torque, what they're really talking about is power curve. You can get any torque you want through gearing.
That is correct. Many PCs shipped with USB before the iMac, including large manufacturers. It was Intel and the PC companies, after all, and not Apple that developed USB.
The reason the PC world was delayed in officially rolling out USB was Microsoft's delays in shipping Win98. That opened the door for Apple to lie about it being first to market, and like all Apple's lies, it was bought into by many. Apple contributed next to nothing to USB.
Just to be clear, though, this is not a "good compromise". No compromise on hatred is good. Also, as a sidenote, deliberate misspellings are useful to get around word filtering in forums, so using the variation is done not just as an excuse but also to avoid censorship when making slurs. "Ghey" is simply the form of "gay" that is easily posted by douchebags, both mechanically and ethically.
Yeah, it was tested on tiny screens decades ago by Apple people justifying Apple's design. No reason to believe it applies to fingers, trackpads, and large hi-res displays today. Jobs dispensed with it while at NeXT.
It's the Apple design that makes mandatory vertical screen space disappear in favor of a menu bar that conforms to the antiquated "Fitt's Law" concept.
GPL is not about keeping software free, it's about forcing future software to be like itself. You said it already, other licenses allow for "closed derivative works". Those derivative works in no way effect the free nature of the original software. All the GPL does is limit the freedoms on so-called free code, truly free software wouldn't care how derivative works were used, and they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Fitts's Law is irrelevant to devices with modern display sizes and resolutions. It was more about Apple arrogance all along, but it ceased being a compelling argument once multiple programs were simultaneously displayed on a screen bigger than a postage stamp. On today's screens, one is far more likely to be slowed down spanning the huge distance to the screen top, especially if doing so slightly wrong causes defocusing of the window as occurs frequently with me. That never occurs on tiny screens with full-screen apps for which Fitts's Law originally applied. The top menu bar is a UI dog.
It wasn't about optimizing screen real estate, though, you got that right. The top menu bar doesn't save screen real estate though it does create a handy area for software to plug into.
You give the original mac too much credit. "The final product's screen was a 9-inch, 512x342 pixel monochrome display..." from Wikipedia...
Yes, the mac UI is full of idiosyncrasies that are passed off as intuitive brilliance. "Fitts's law" is among the most ridiculous, having not been relevant since machines got real displays. That, of course, occurred in macs long after everywhere else. ;)
Yes, the good parts of OS X are under the hood, the UI is just a different stink you grow accustomed to.
I think you got that story a little wrong.
Apple introduces the iPill that provides 20/20 vision. Apple's customers respond that there are many solutions to 20/20 vision and that what we really need is a cure for cancer. Apple responds that you definitely do not want a cure for cancer because it might compromise 20/20 vision. Fanbois proclaim that 20/20 vision is the only thing preventing a perfect life and only Apple is genius enough to think up a solution.
Apple then introduces the iPill v2 which offers 20/20 vision plus the ability for others to add cures for other maladies. Soon after, a 3rd party, most likely one already developing for similar platforms for the last decade, extends the iPill v2 to cure cancer. Apple profits not only from sales of the iPill but also through a 30% cut from 3rd party efforts by monopolizing distribution. Fanbois proclaim Apple's vision for an extensible iPill platform as revolutionary despite Apple's initlal refusal to do what everyone else had done for years.
Apple then introduces the iPill v3 that includes it's own cure for cancer reverse engineered from the 3rd party solution. It then bans the 3rd party solution and introduces a marketing campaign where it claims to have invented the cure for cancer despite all its competitors also curing cancer through the same solution Apple banned. Curing cancer, after all, was their vision the entire time and it's CEO is the world's greatest humanitarian. Sadly, it's CEO dies of cancer shortly thereafter because, despite his visionary genius, it turns out he had never even taken a pill prior to inventing the iPill and didn't understand how or why people used them.
When did Apple reenter the PDA market?
He also said that people need a keyboard and that Apple believed tablets were going to fail. Apple is now banking on tablets to succeed without keyboards.
"And all this just for the sake of the likes of Justin Bieber and Shakira and Hollywood so they can profit for the crap they do."
You couldn't be bothered to at least choose an American artist for your example?
It's probably good that you posted as an AC then.
Why don't you make the speed limit zero? That would eliminate ALL fatalities and gas consumption. Oh yeah, roads are for transportation. Don't forget that.
Making it illegal to pass on the right will only result in all drivers packing into the left lane as they do in states where that is the case. I noticed you didn't say make it illegal not to move to the right if you are slower, already the case in many states, I wonder why that is? Irrelevant anyway, the only traffic laws that get enforced are ones that generate easy revenue.
More traffic laws aren't the solution, they kill no birds except the ones in your mind. People tend to drive at speeds that are naturally supportable by road conditions and only respect posted speed limits if they are reasonable. Unreasonable speed limits actually decrease safety by creating greater speed differentials, and lower speed limits are only useful for increasing government income anyway. We need government to make things better in our lives, not destroy the usefulness of what infrastructure we have.
Torque and power aren't the same thing. You can produce "neck-snapping torque" with any engine given the right gearing.
"Pascal powered much of the personal computer revolution, including the Macintosh."
Not sure what this claim has to do with anything, but it is absurd.
"No, strings with a listed length would also be pointers to a series of integers..."
Interesting that you deleted a portion of the claim so you could argue with it, then ignored the fact that you, yourself, created a struct as a counterexample to the claim that a struct was needed. Defining the first two bytes as meaning something special means that it is either explicitly a struct or "magic type" as the OP said.
I wonder what part of his post led you to think BMW? Oh yeah, it's what an Apple fanboy script directs you to say...
Depends of your definition of "anywhere close". If you compare data sets of the same size, as is appropriate, the larger capacity drive will effectively be short-stroked leading to some effective reduction in seek latency so it really depends. Comparing full stroke seek latency of drives with unlike capacities is misleading; a newer generation, higher capacity but slower spinning drive can absolutely "come close" on real workloads.
Yes, but the goal of sound reproduction itself is to be accurate. The goal of sound creation is to "sound best". A test of human behavior does nothing to illuminate that, but it does illuminate the idiocy of Amar Bose's reasoning. He thinks a loudspeaker is a musical instrument with the most elaborate cabinate imaginable but with the cheapest, full range driver he can get away with using. All the better to simulate the sound of those old radios. He's going to turn those dials all the way down whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do to get it back.
Once the food has gone rancid you can spice it up all you want but all you are doing is making it possible to choke down.
"The colors with film are orders of magnitude better than with digital--incredibly vibrant and crisp. Digital--even the best digital--seems washed out in comparison. Her newest camera is amazing as digital cameras go, but in terms of image quality, it's only roughly approaching film. The DSLR movement has been picking up in my mind mostly because it's a start toward recapturing what people had with film cameras--like reinventing the wheel. My guess is that sometime in the not-too-distant future digital will be on par with film, or better, but we're not quite there yet."
Absolutely none of this is remotely accurate and says more about your personal ignorance and bias than about the technologies involved. It is difficult to find a metric where digital doesn't exceed film already and that's been true for some time.
"I think something analogous to the DSLR push in photography hasn't happened with sound yet."
What? The exact analogous event happened to "sound" long before it happened to photography.
but Kodak got killed in electronic imaging and the companies that whooped them are still doing well in the area of image quality. Kodak's last attempt at a DLSR was a horrible POS with a sensor designed by idiots (though full frame long before the D3). The demise of Kodak wasn't caused by everyone transitioning to crappy cell phone cameras, it was caused by them sucking at their business. The market they failed in is flourishing now.
"All things being equal, a single speaker producing a full range of frequencies will sound better than two separate speakers (bookshelf plus separate subwoofer). So a pair of floorstanders is going to sound better than two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer."
This is not true, "all things being equal". If all things weren't equal, which is actually the case between "a pair of floorstanders" and "two bookshelves and a smallish subwoofer", then who knows. That depends on the speakers in question and room they are in.
Subwoofers don't have to be used as singles and there's no such thing as "truly non-directional". You can see very quickly that the single, large box versus multiple box comparison is only a matter packaging convenience, the real issue is speaker placement and the flexibility multiple boxes affords. It's actually common in finer floorstanding speakers to have separate boxes within the enclosure anyway, making the comparison superficial and silly.
"... people buy horsepower but drive torque as the saying goes."
It's a stupid saying offered, and repeated, by stupid people. Torque is an intermediate mathematical term. Horsepower is what gets the work done, and when people talk torque, what they're really talking about is power curve. You can get any torque you want through gearing.
That is correct. Many PCs shipped with USB before the iMac, including large manufacturers. It was Intel and the PC companies, after all, and not Apple that developed USB.
The reason the PC world was delayed in officially rolling out USB was Microsoft's delays in shipping Win98. That opened the door for Apple to lie about it being first to market, and like all Apple's lies, it was bought into by many. Apple contributed next to nothing to USB.
Just to be clear, though, this is not a "good compromise". No compromise on hatred is good. Also, as a sidenote, deliberate misspellings are useful to get around word filtering in forums, so using the variation is done not just as an excuse but also to avoid censorship when making slurs. "Ghey" is simply the form of "gay" that is easily posted by douchebags, both mechanically and ethically.
This is correct. The original PC/XT was good, the AT keyboard even better. The chicklet PCjr keyboard was junk.
I can't imagine any college at that time teaching programming on PC-DOS 1.0. Don't believe it.
Yeah, it was tested on tiny screens decades ago by Apple people justifying Apple's design. No reason to believe it applies to fingers, trackpads, and large hi-res displays today. Jobs dispensed with it while at NeXT.
It's the Apple design that makes mandatory vertical screen space disappear in favor of a menu bar that conforms to the antiquated "Fitt's Law" concept.
Apple did this from the beginning. There was never a time before "this kind of crap started".
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy isn't murder. That's part of the crazy talk you haven't deciphered yet.
GPL is not about keeping software free, it's about forcing future software to be like itself. You said it already, other licenses allow for "closed derivative works". Those derivative works in no way effect the free nature of the original software. All the GPL does is limit the freedoms on so-called free code, truly free software wouldn't care how derivative works were used, and they don't.