There's one UI concept which seems quite easy to grasp for most people (even so called "computer illiterates") and yet almost unused...except in many ATMs.
Buttons around the screen, pointing at menu/iconbar just next to them, with action changing depending on context. Yeah, probably they could be only below the screen for physical stability of the laptop and overall small size with relatively big screen, but it's still worthy of consideration IMHO (weren't they present in old Psion palmtops? Quite nice UI-wise back then, supposedly)
Quite cheap in themselves, perhaps less need for touchscreen...
You really worked hard to ignore that I wasn't proposing usage of totally unmodified Antonov or any form of actual Delta IV (and when mentioning possible modifications, different structural requirements and corresponding weight increase, ignoring the benefit of launching at altitude above most of the atmosphere and with small delta-v already...). I was just showing that the numbers for aircraft payloads and rocket masses aren't that much at odds with each other.
I don't expect this video will change your mind...it's clearly a fabrication, something impossible:
Behold! Recent test of mock-up weighting 35 tonnes, half of the C-17 payload, dropped from the rear ramp of unmodified aircraft.
Also, An-225 can carry 200 tonnes on its back so that's another option...one that Russians wanted to use in cheap launcher, actually... http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm...too bad the project died together with Soviet Union.
But their plans (which reached hardware development stage) clearly show that such launcher, with the weight of smallest Delta IV, can carry not 8.6 tonnes into LEO, but a spaceplane weighting almost 30 tonnes (with cargo)
Yes, it will be hard. Though I understand why you want it to be easy, it's not rocket science after all.
W8, did you together with GlassHeart above you just just come to conclusion that the existence and practices of MS are as inevitable as laws of physics?;/
But I do have the impression that parent to my previous post was voicing his opposition at what he perceived as "equal = the same". It fits best when taken in the context of physique.
Excuse me? The conclusions of inspectors were clear - Iraq doesn't have what the US claims it has. Several large European countries also voiced their doubts.
I guess what you just wrote might be a really good example of how US media influenced public opinion...
But we are building aircraft with much greater payload than C5 (which can do 120 tonnes). Airbus A380 - 150 tonnes. Antonov An-225 - 250 tonnes, over twice more than C5.
The last is just enough to lift the smallest, fueled configuration of Delta IV! (not that it's capable of such launch...) The one that can place 8.6 tonnes into LEO while launching from the ground. With comparable rocket launched from high altitude, small "spaceplane" to LEO should be already doable. Certainly old-style capsule.
I'm hoping for some time to see such things enter mainstream.
It's a horrible thing to think that I wouldn't stand a chance after many serious injuries not because of any fundamental limitations, but currently limited tech and procedures.
And it's only from my selfish point of view, I can't imagine what ambulance & ER medics are going through, seeing cases which are inescapably fatal now...but we're quite certain they don't have to be.
Uhm...mobile phones already must have a closed source code in them - the radio signaling stack. Mandated by FCC in the case of US.
(oh, if you are throwing away your smartphone because of what you've just learned...could you spend a little time and sent it to me? (only if it's a quad band GSM) I cover the cost of shipping of course)
RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though, has to use very little power.
BTW, Samsung also has dual sim phones. From quick Google search those are at least d880, c6112, d980, w629, b5722, b5702, c3212, c5212...so quite a lot.
(who also shows blatant lack of any idea about the processes that led to dissolution of regimes in Central Europe 20 years ago, in his second line; ot outright lies, no difference; later it gets only worse)
Freedom of speech? You can hardly show tits on TV.
Even politically you impose self-censorship, at the least. What were doing your news outlets when the ones in the rest of world were casting serious doubts at, say, "Iraq has WMDs"?
But he wasn't arguing that woman are equal; he was arguing that they are not inferior.
Huge difference, especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.
No, "equal" is not the same as "not inferior". Sure, we're different, not equal, certain things work better in certain scenarios, worse in others (you provide your own example at the beginning), but that doesn't mean one is universally inferior to the other.
Tabbed browsing doesn't make sense. You have one application, a web browser, with multiple pages, taking up less taskbar space but replicating it inside its window. It's tabbed so you don't have to click on a bunch of minimized windows or use Expose or whatever shiny workalike the Gnome / KDE bunch has now to find what you want on taskbar - you have to do the same in browser window now - and so you aren't cluttering up the desktop with a hundred web browser windows. Instead you clutter browser window.
However, there is something to be said for separating out the different groups of tasks instead of applications and simply clicking the icon or what have you, to switch between them. In fact, isn't that what X-windows has had for about 20 years now in the form of virtual desktops? Sure, the application tab bar goes on the bottom the screen by default, and is called the "Start Menu" but it is essentially, exactly what is proposed here.
Sure, the virtual desktop selector goes on the bottom of the screen by default, beside what's called usually "task bar" but is in reality "launched applications bar", but it is essentially, exactly what is proposed here.
The problem is that you end up filling up the bar at the bottom with two different structures of organization, and then having to collapse the bar in one of several ways, all of which are annoying.
Expose, or whatever the Gnome / KDE equivalent is, is another way of abstracting that.
OK, my quick paraphrasing effort is a bit rough...but does nobody else sees that it's simply a different take on the concept of virtual workspace? With the former "application bar" becoming true task bar, replacing completely distinct virtual desktops with apps grouped inside windows? (with current sizes of screens...)
Another intermediary step between "desktop" and "the window in which I'm working right now". Might be interesting...
Slashdot Mirror
There's one UI concept which seems quite easy to grasp for most people (even so called "computer illiterates") and yet almost unused...except in many ATMs.
Buttons around the screen, pointing at menu/iconbar just next to them, with action changing depending on context. Yeah, probably they could be only below the screen for physical stability of the laptop and overall small size with relatively big screen, but it's still worthy of consideration IMHO (weren't they present in old Psion palmtops? Quite nice UI-wise back then, supposedly)
Quite cheap in themselves, perhaps less need for touchscreen...
PS. And please, primarily ARM.
You really worked hard to ignore that I wasn't proposing usage of totally unmodified Antonov or any form of actual Delta IV (and when mentioning possible modifications, different structural requirements and corresponding weight increase, ignoring the benefit of launching at altitude above most of the atmosphere and with small delta-v already...). I was just showing that the numbers for aircraft payloads and rocket masses aren't that much at odds with each other.
I don't expect this video will change your mind...it's clearly a fabrication, something impossible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIOLvXy8Bk
Behold! Recent test of mock-up weighting 35 tonnes, half of the C-17 payload, dropped from the rear ramp of unmodified aircraft.
Also, An-225 can carry 200 tonnes on its back so that's another option...one that Russians wanted to use in cheap launcher, actually... ...too bad the project died together with Soviet Union.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm
But their plans (which reached hardware development stage) clearly show that such launcher, with the weight of smallest Delta IV, can carry not 8.6 tonnes into LEO, but a spaceplane weighting almost 30 tonnes (with cargo)
Yes, it will be hard. Though I understand why you want it to be easy, it's not rocket science after all.
Oh, wait...
W8, did you together with GlassHeart above you just just come to conclusion that the existence and practices of MS are as inevitable as laws of physics? ;/
Which...would be...cloud car?
Oh well, not a native EN speaker...
But I do have the impression that parent to my previous post was voicing his opposition at what he perceived as "equal = the same". It fits best when taken in the context of physique.
Excuse me? The conclusions of inspectors were clear - Iraq doesn't have what the US claims it has. Several large European countries also voiced their doubts.
I guess what you just wrote might be a really good example of how US media influenced public opinion...
Oh please, don't put Israel into the position of blame, it only weakens the general argument.
There is no one actor at the top. Just a bunch of loosely connected people in right places and with complementary goals, ideas, ambitions.
It's not unheard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
Of course you need much bigger launcher and carrier aircraft, but:
- Antonov An-225 - 250 tonnes of payload
- smallest Delta IV (8 tonnes to LEO, and it launches from the ground) weights...250 tonnes, fueled.
We certainly can do it if we want to. Whether or not it will be actually much cheaper - I don't know.
But we are building aircraft with much greater payload than C5 (which can do 120 tonnes). Airbus A380 - 150 tonnes. Antonov An-225 - 250 tonnes, over twice more than C5.
The last is just enough to lift the smallest, fueled configuration of Delta IV! (not that it's capable of such launch...) The one that can place 8.6 tonnes into LEO while launching from the ground. With comparable rocket launched from high altitude, small "spaceplane" to LEO should be already doable. Certainly old-style capsule.
You don't even need non-existing aircraft...
Using identical concept as SpaceShipTwo to get into orbit is not unheard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
(accidentally, partially designed by Burt Rutan)
I'm hoping for some time to see such things enter mainstream.
It's a horrible thing to think that I wouldn't stand a chance after many serious injuries not because of any fundamental limitations, but currently limited tech and procedures.
And it's only from my selfish point of view, I can't imagine what ambulance & ER medics are going through, seeing cases which are inescapably fatal now...but we're quite certain they don't have to be.
Battery life is already the largest limiting factor for progress of smartphones.
Uhm...mobile phones already must have a closed source code in them - the radio signaling stack. Mandated by FCC in the case of US.
(oh, if you are throwing away your smartphone because of what you've just learned...could you spend a little time and sent it to me? (only if it's a quad band GSM) I cover the cost of shipping of course)
RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though, has to use very little power.
BTW, Samsung also has dual sim phones. From quick Google search those are at least d880, c6112, d980, w629, b5722, b5702, c3212, c5212...so quite a lot.
It's not "top". It's simply...85 percent.
Virtualization is hip. Somebody at your management will be swayed.
That's a much older copy & paste troll...
(who also shows blatant lack of any idea about the processes that led to dissolution of regimes in Central Europe 20 years ago, in his second line; ot outright lies, no difference; later it gets only worse)
XO uses predecessor of commercial Pixel Qi screens that are launching soon(tm).
I wouldn't be surprised if we find them in e-book readers announced some time ago by few big motherboard/laptop manufacturers. Or in Apple tablet.
You don't need laws when the biggest media are eating whatever they are fed by your administration.
Where were their doubts about the justification for invading Iraq, voiced at the time freely in other countries?
Hey, it's beneficial I guess when media conglomerates are one of the biggest campaign contributors...on both "sides".
Freedom of speech? You can hardly show tits on TV.
Even politically you impose self-censorship, at the least. What were doing your news outlets when the ones in the rest of world were casting serious doubts at, say, "Iraq has WMDs"?
Isn't there enough decent free servers for this purpose?
You don't alt.binaries or long retention to communicate.
It's a day almost wasted.
If that sounds like sidetrip to you...
But he wasn't arguing that woman are equal; he was arguing that they are not inferior.
Huge difference, especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.
No, "equal" is not the same as "not inferior". Sure, we're different, not equal, certain things work better in certain scenarios, worse in others (you provide your own example at the beginning), but that doesn't mean one is universally inferior to the other.
And you think he did all of this alone?...
(for the record, I don't think you'd find any one agent who orchestrated those things, that's not how successful group work)
Tabbed browsing doesn't make sense. You have one application, a web browser, with multiple pages, taking up less taskbar space but replicating it inside its window. It's tabbed so you don't have to click on a bunch of minimized windows or use Expose or whatever shiny workalike the Gnome / KDE bunch has now to find what you want on taskbar - you have to do the same in browser window now - and so you aren't cluttering up the desktop with a hundred web browser windows. Instead you clutter browser window.
However, there is something to be said for separating out the different groups of tasks instead of applications and simply clicking the icon or what have you, to switch between them. In fact, isn't that what X-windows has had for about 20 years now in the form of virtual desktops? Sure, the application tab bar goes on the bottom the screen by default, and is called the "Start Menu" but it is essentially, exactly what is proposed here.
Sure, the virtual desktop selector goes on the bottom of the screen by default, beside what's called usually "task bar" but is in reality "launched applications bar", but it is essentially, exactly what is proposed here.
The problem is that you end up filling up the bar at the bottom with two different structures of organization, and then having to collapse the bar in one of several ways, all of which are annoying.
Expose, or whatever the Gnome / KDE equivalent is, is another way of abstracting that.
OK, my quick paraphrasing effort is a bit rough...but does nobody else sees that it's simply a different take on the concept of virtual workspace? With the former "application bar" becoming true task bar, replacing completely distinct virtual desktops with apps grouped inside windows? (with current sizes of screens...)
Another intermediary step between "desktop" and "the window in which I'm working right now". Might be interesting...