You missed the part where I said that even today "right mouse" and "ctrl-click" are unknown, let alone comfortably used by people using a computer to make their living. 25 years after the Mac, and 15 years after Windows 95 put "right click" in the vocab, people STILL don't get it. Not a few, but many.
And 15 years into the WWW, how many people still DOUBLE CLICK on web links? Why? They don't know the difference. It's not intuitive to them, it's learned behavior. Getting them to use 10 fingers will never happen. Some will, some won't. That was my point.
Ok, but that raises a question... For 10GUI to be effective, it will need to move away from the current scattered windowing paradigm. What? Is that going to be an option on Windows 8? Mac OS XI? Classic Windows or Minority Report?
These people don't know how to change their monitor resolution to native. They are not going to be able to choose their paradigm. They will be the have-nots. They will NOT inherit the earth.
Yes, this is slick. Yes, it's an improvement. Yes, this will happen. But...
Having seen people have trouble with pressing control and clicking at the same time (to deselect a single item), I foresee a chilly reception, user frustration and a training issue. 10GUI is like playing Mozart among people only able to manage Chop Sticks.
I see this as stratifying feature... the have's and have not, the able and the un-able. I would request this for my workflow, but the run of the mill admins would be stuck with the keyboard. Aside from the social aspect, there is the difficult task of convincing the boss that "you need this, even if the others don't". Good luck with that.
I have grown to hate the windowing paradigm for all the reasons cited. I'm not convinced that the linear arrangement is an improvement. I'm more in favor of multiple monitors, the main screen for the primary task and satellites with multiple windows for ancillary tasks. 10GUI doesn't address this.
We can now have permanently glowing, warm toilet seats. No more *GASP* from the cold, no more splash from not seeing the 'upright, locked position' in the dark. I had considered plutonium & phosphor laced Lexan, but this would be easier.
I, a Mac User, have several Windows machines... because they were given to me. When they get too crufted as to be inoperable, someone will say "Hey, I have this old Dell I'm going to throw out. Want it?" Sure. It's a 2.4GHz, with 1GB of RAM and it takes Firefox 2 minutes to open from cold start. I can BOOT my G4 1GHz, 768MB of RAM, open Firefox and surf faster than that.
Sad that a machine which last year was fast enough is now mothballed. Sadder still that they will buy another, faster machine which will suffer the same fate in a year or two.
I use that machine everyday. I have it beside my Mac-holding desk, and I put my Diet Dr Pepper can on it, to save desktop space.
Send a zillion seeds and drop them on Mars. Wait. Within years, the planet will be green. Oxygen abundant. Then we can burn half of it, and turn up the heat in the greenhouse~
Imagine a bobsled run made of ice. Ok, but the bobsled has no steering and follows the curves when the gravity balances the centripetal acceleration (oft called centrifugal force). This is not new. It's like driving on a banked, icy road.
OK, the run was designed to work because of a very specific initial speed. Anything higher, you fly off. Any lower and you slip down. The same with these chaotic trajectories. If you hit em too fast, you fly off the handle. They tried to use the surfing analogy, but we've ALL driven too fast on an icy road.
What you thought you heard from TFA was that there was a wall which would keep you in as you went faster. There ain't one.
It might seem like it, but it's not. "A few months" is stated as if it's nothing. But it took Cassini 3 YEARS to get TO Jupiter. This article makes it sound like it could have just hopped onto the freeway. Cassini used multiple slingsshots around Venus and one VERY controversial slingshot off of Earth. By contract, New Horizons took only 13 months, but was going REALLY FAST when it got to Jupiter. It wasn't stopping, or it would have needed a LOT of propellant to do so.
A few months to get around the Jovian Moons sounds a lot like "a few months to get TO the Jovian moons." The general public doesn't know how long it takes to get there. They think we can get there in a couple hours using impulse engines. We can't. Hell, we're even going to miss the 2010 deadline. Dave Bowman will NOT be pleased.
If I'm in orbit around the sun, stationed at an L1, 2, 3, where do I get the delta V (change in energy) from Earth's circular orbit to Jupiter? What magical force adds energy to my current trajectory?
I'm looking at a reference to "a great book written by Edward Belbruno on his design of advanced trajectories called "Weak Stability Boundary Trajectories". http://www.tobedetermined.org/2008/10/fly_me_to_the_moon.html. I see a trajectory which flies from Earth to lunar distance in 2 days. That's not "low energy". That's twice the speed of the moonshots. Yes, I know that using this chaotic system, you can slide into lunar orbit (capture) without having to burn much propellant, so you can use that in the boost. But that won't get you past the moon. It won't get you to Mars, asteroids, comets or Jupiter. You need more energy, not more time. Where does the energy come from? Chaos? HA!
The basic idea is that if you can get to one of the (unstable) Lagrange points (#1-3), only a very small impulse is needed to go anywhere in the solar system.
Ok, this is the kernel of my argument. Stop using "dumbed down" descriptors like "only a very small impulse". You are dumbing them down even more.
It is an illustrative myth that "once you get into earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere." I did this math a long time ago. It goes like this... You need, ballpark, 7km/s to get into earth orbit. From there, you only need 11km/s to escape. That's a MERE 4km/s. THAT'S NOT MERE! "very little impulse is like "333m/s" maybe an OMS burn. 4KM/S is an apogee kick motor weighing in at a goodly portion of the total payload's mass. Gross Mass: 543 kg (1,197 lb) to get a 1737 lb (788 kg)spacecraft into GeoSynch. Not the moon, which is 10 times farther.
It takes a LOT of energy to get from here to 'there.' Chaos doesn't provide it. Stop making it sound like it does.
TFA makes this sound really easy, cheap and quick. It's not. Can you decrease the propellant used to get from lunar orbit to Mars? Yes. Is it free and easy? No. But TFA says I can decrease the amount of propellant 10-fold! Yes, from 1000000 to 100000. If you use enough time (and money) a solar sail will get you there for free.
But TFA makes it sound like you can find 'just the right spot just past the Moon' and zoooooop! Off you go the the gasoline seas of Titan.
BS.
Douglas Adams stated that "Space if really big." The image in TFA makes it looks like a skate park. Try drawing the Solar System to scale, and you begin to get the idea. A local community college has a scale MODEL. The sun is about a meter in diameter a frisbee throw away is Earth, this tiny dot with a tinier a fly's wingspan away. It took us a Saturn V to get there and 4 days. TFA wants us to think that once we get there, we can "freefall [down] pathways in space around and between gravitational bodies. Instead of falling down, like you do on Earth, you fall along these tubes." That's crap, without a metric a55load of Delta V.
'If you're in a parking orbit round the Earth, and one of them intersects your trajectory, you just need enough fuel to change your velocity and now you're on a new trajectory that is free.''
Ah, but what about the collisions that never happened? That's the point. A rider without the protection of a cage will driver gingerly and NOT GET into a fatal collision. Whereas, a driver who knows that their airbag will deploy will drive less carefully than a car without airbags.
But, says Steven Peterson, professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University, "An airbag allows me to drive more aggressively but not face any more risk." In fact, drivers of airbag-equipped cars get into and cause more accidents, negating the safety benefits for drivers and increasing the risk to others.
And here's a stat you won't find... Bikers with NO helmet, NO leather will drive VERY carefully. NOT relying on airbag or even traffic laws to protect them.
The person surfing the web should be babysitting their OWN stuff because anti-phishing measures make better phishers, and idiot proofing makes better idiots.
And when I get an email from Bank0fAmerica telling me my account needs X, click here to login... I delete it without reading it. Zero or not. Keep telling them that they are safe and they eventually won't be.
This problem is self limiting... People who are stupid enough to fall for a phishing scam will have their finances and credit pwned so badly that they won't be able to GET an iPhone.
Though maybe people would be less susceptible if they didn't think that their browser/OS/phone was idiot-proof. Maybe the best phishing protection is to declare that there isn't any phishing protection. Motorcyclist drive more carefully than people in air-bagged cars.
The key word to my statement is "advantage". The better phrase might be "net advantage." Imagine these scenarios:
Water Impact which would inundate the east coast of China with both tsunami and sub orbital water splash, causing catastrophic flooding. Let's say '3 years warning' for grins and giggles. What would the Chinese do with this knowledge? ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO. They would seek to relocate their industry, nearly a billion people... to where? Anyplace that would survive AND be able to support their industry, government and way of life. I don't know, but maybe Indochina? India? The point is, that if you know you are sitting on or near the impact point, you will do ANYTHING to get off. Nuclear war? PSSSSH! No problem. What do YOU have to lose?
Huge impactor in the middle of nowhere, but resulting in extreme stress on the ability to produce food. Again, 3 years. If you knew that 4 BILLION people would starve to death... what do you do, as a race? What would the 4 billion do? What would 300 million Americans do, if only the breadbasket states were able to produce greenhouse subsistence level living? Leaving the 200million living in cities like Los Angeles to starve? The result would be, not food riots, but food WARFARE.
Let's say... a 3 day warning of Tunguska level event over London, UK. How do you evacuate London? And to where? Dunkirk doesn't scale. If you move them to the other side of Hadrian's Wall, how do you feed them? And if you lived there first, would you LET them come into your area?
What have we as a race GAINED from being forewarned? The ability to choose who we make die instead of us.
CLEARLY, the better solution is to be able to deflect it. Make THAT the Number One goal of space, and the lifting, the space stations, the Moon bases, and even a Mars offsite backup will follow. Practice now, while we have the luxury of time and error.
The money spent on space gets PAID to someone. From TFA, one of the comments posted below it:
"Can I have some money for food?"
"Aww...no. We're going to send a robot to the moon!"
Hey, you hungry? Go ask to wash the BMW of the guys who wrote the code for that robot, or the guy who tested the propulsion system, or THE GUY WHO EMPTIED THEIR TRASHCANS!
The money wasn't burned, it was PAID. Those who got paid will spend it. Give them a reason to PAY YOU for something, and they will.
I made money burning some of NASA's money, but also private customers'. Food and robots are NOT EITHER/OR.
"There is nothing out there worth the cost of going. Does it mean we don't go? No, it merely means that we've passed 'The Point of No Return On Investment.'"
The agency needs about $300m to expand a network of telescopes and meet the government's target of identifying, by 2020, at least 90% of the giant space rocks that pose a threat to Earth. Congress has not come up with the money and is unlikely to, according to the National Academy of Science.
There is no advantage to detecting an incoming impactor if you do not have the means to prevent its impact. Having less time before large scale annihilation may serve the public better. But when it does hit (don't say if if you mean when), the loss of tax revenue will cause more damage to the budget than the space budget would have.
A microgram of prevention is worth a metric tonne of cure.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the flies were "gifted".
Choose one.
What, am I to worry if someone takes over my keyboard? How likely is thALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO USat to happen?
You missed the part where I said that even today "right mouse" and "ctrl-click" are unknown, let alone comfortably used by people using a computer to make their living. 25 years after the Mac, and 15 years after Windows 95 put "right click" in the vocab, people STILL don't get it. Not a few, but many.
And 15 years into the WWW, how many people still DOUBLE CLICK on web links? Why? They don't know the difference. It's not intuitive to them, it's learned behavior. Getting them to use 10 fingers will never happen. Some will, some won't. That was my point.
Ok, but that raises a question... For 10GUI to be effective, it will need to move away from the current scattered windowing paradigm. What? Is that going to be an option on Windows 8? Mac OS XI? Classic Windows or Minority Report?
These people don't know how to change their monitor resolution to native. They are not going to be able to choose their paradigm. They will be the have-nots. They will NOT inherit the earth.
Yes, this is slick. Yes, it's an improvement. Yes, this will happen. But...
Having seen people have trouble with pressing control and clicking at the same time (to deselect a single item), I foresee a chilly reception, user frustration and a training issue. 10GUI is like playing Mozart among people only able to manage Chop Sticks.
I see this as stratifying feature... the have's and have not, the able and the un-able. I would request this for my workflow, but the run of the mill admins would be stuck with the keyboard. Aside from the social aspect, there is the difficult task of convincing the boss that "you need this, even if the others don't". Good luck with that.
I have grown to hate the windowing paradigm for all the reasons cited. I'm not convinced that the linear arrangement is an improvement. I'm more in favor of multiple monitors, the main screen for the primary task and satellites with multiple windows for ancillary tasks. 10GUI doesn't address this.
We can now have permanently glowing, warm toilet seats. No more *GASP* from the cold, no more splash from not seeing the 'upright, locked position' in the dark. I had considered plutonium & phosphor laced Lexan, but this would be easier.
I, a Mac User, have several Windows machines... because they were given to me. When they get too crufted as to be inoperable, someone will say "Hey, I have this old Dell I'm going to throw out. Want it?" Sure. It's a 2.4GHz, with 1GB of RAM and it takes Firefox 2 minutes to open from cold start. I can BOOT my G4 1GHz, 768MB of RAM, open Firefox and surf faster than that.
Sad that a machine which last year was fast enough is now mothballed. Sadder still that they will buy another, faster machine which will suffer the same fate in a year or two.
I use that machine everyday. I have it beside my Mac-holding desk, and I put my Diet Dr Pepper can on it, to save desktop space.
Send a zillion seeds and drop them on Mars. Wait. Within years, the planet will be green. Oxygen abundant. Then we can burn half of it, and turn up the heat in the greenhouse~
I already carped about the reporting that makes this seem fast, easy and fun. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1372627&cid=29455133
Here's your analogy:
Imagine a bobsled run made of ice. Ok, but the bobsled has no steering and follows the curves when the gravity balances the centripetal acceleration (oft called centrifugal force). This is not new. It's like driving on a banked, icy road.
OK, the run was designed to work because of a very specific initial speed. Anything higher, you fly off. Any lower and you slip down. The same with these chaotic trajectories. If you hit em too fast, you fly off the handle. They tried to use the surfing analogy, but we've ALL driven too fast on an icy road.
What you thought you heard from TFA was that there was a wall which would keep you in as you went faster. There ain't one.
It might seem like it, but it's not. "A few months" is stated as if it's nothing. But it took Cassini 3 YEARS to get TO Jupiter. This article makes it sound like it could have just hopped onto the freeway. Cassini used multiple slingsshots around Venus and one VERY controversial slingshot off of Earth. By contract, New Horizons took only 13 months, but was going REALLY FAST when it got to Jupiter. It wasn't stopping, or it would have needed a LOT of propellant to do so.
A few months to get around the Jovian Moons sounds a lot like "a few months to get TO the Jovian moons." The general public doesn't know how long it takes to get there. They think we can get there in a couple hours using impulse engines. We can't. Hell, we're even going to miss the 2010 deadline. Dave Bowman will NOT be pleased.
If I'm in orbit around the sun, stationed at an L1, 2, 3, where do I get the delta V (change in energy) from Earth's circular orbit to Jupiter? What magical force adds energy to my current trajectory?
I'm looking at a reference to "a great book written by Edward Belbruno on his design of advanced trajectories called "Weak Stability Boundary Trajectories". http://www.tobedetermined.org/2008/10/fly_me_to_the_moon.html. I see a trajectory which flies from Earth to lunar distance in 2 days. That's not "low energy". That's twice the speed of the moonshots. Yes, I know that using this chaotic system, you can slide into lunar orbit (capture) without having to burn much propellant, so you can use that in the boost. But that won't get you past the moon. It won't get you to Mars, asteroids, comets or Jupiter. You need more energy, not more time. Where does the energy come from? Chaos? HA!
The basic idea is that if you can get to one of the (unstable) Lagrange points (#1-3), only a very small impulse is needed to go anywhere in the solar system.
Ok, this is the kernel of my argument. Stop using "dumbed down" descriptors like "only a very small impulse". You are dumbing them down even more.
It is an illustrative myth that "once you get into earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere." I did this math a long time ago. It goes like this... You need, ballpark, 7km/s to get into earth orbit. From there, you only need 11km/s to escape. That's a MERE 4km/s. THAT'S NOT MERE! "very little impulse is like "333m/s" maybe an OMS burn. 4KM/S is an apogee kick motor weighing in at a goodly portion of the total payload's mass. Gross Mass: 543 kg (1,197 lb) to get a 1737 lb (788 kg)spacecraft into GeoSynch. Not the moon, which is 10 times farther.
It takes a LOT of energy to get from here to 'there.' Chaos doesn't provide it. Stop making it sound like it does.
But TFA makes it sound like you can find 'just the right spot just past the Moon' and zoooooop! Off you go the the gasoline seas of Titan.
BS.
Douglas Adams stated that "Space if really big." The image in TFA makes it looks like a skate park. Try drawing the Solar System to scale, and you begin to get the idea. A local community college has a scale MODEL. The sun is about a meter in diameter a frisbee throw away is Earth, this tiny dot with a tinier a fly's wingspan away. It took us a Saturn V to get there and 4 days. TFA wants us to think that once we get there, we can "freefall [down] pathways in space around and between gravitational bodies. Instead of falling down, like you do on Earth, you fall along these tubes." That's crap, without a metric a55load of Delta V.
'If you're in a parking orbit round the Earth, and one of them intersects your trajectory, you just need enough fuel to change your velocity and now you're on a new trajectory that is free.''
BS.
He's in a hole somewhere until 12/24/2012. I wouldn't admit to it either.
What? This is just outsourcing to another vendor what corporations have been doing 'in house' since... well, ever.
In a fatal collision...
Ah, but what about the collisions that never happened? That's the point. A rider without the protection of a cage will driver gingerly and NOT GET into a fatal collision. Whereas, a driver who knows that their airbag will deploy will drive less carefully than a car without airbags.
But, says Steven Peterson, professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University, "An airbag allows me to drive more aggressively but not face any more risk." In fact, drivers of airbag-equipped cars get into and cause more accidents, negating the safety benefits for drivers and increasing the risk to others.
And here's a stat you won't find... Bikers with NO helmet, NO leather will drive VERY carefully. NOT relying on airbag or even traffic laws to protect them.
The person surfing the web should be babysitting their OWN stuff because anti-phishing measures make better phishers, and idiot proofing makes better idiots.
And when I get an email from Bank0fAmerica telling me my account needs X, click here to login... I delete it without reading it. Zero or not. Keep telling them that they are safe and they eventually won't be.
This problem is self limiting... People who are stupid enough to fall for a phishing scam will have their finances and credit pwned so badly that they won't be able to GET an iPhone.
Though maybe people would be less susceptible if they didn't think that their browser/OS/phone was idiot-proof. Maybe the best phishing protection is to declare that there isn't any phishing protection. Motorcyclist drive more carefully than people in air-bagged cars.
Well, Kingdom Hearts just got a lot more difficult!!!
Does this mean that Beauty and the Beast ][ will have Kelsey Grammar as the voice?
Become a single parent web deveoper. You find out that Multitasking is a skill that can be honed.
Try it. Step #1: Have sex... Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot. Nevermind.
CLEARLY, the better solution is to be able to deflect it. Make THAT the Number One goal of space, and the lifting, the space stations, the Moon bases, and even a Mars offsite backup will follow. Practice now, while we have the luxury of time and error.
"Can I have some money for food?"
"Aww...no. We're going to send a robot to the moon!"
Hey, you hungry? Go ask to wash the BMW of the guys who wrote the code for that robot, or the guy who tested the propulsion system, or THE GUY WHO EMPTIED THEIR TRASHCANS!
The money wasn't burned, it was PAID. Those who got paid will spend it. Give them a reason to PAY YOU for something, and they will.
I made money burning some of NASA's money, but also private customers'. Food and robots are NOT EITHER/OR.
"There is nothing out there worth the cost of going. Does it mean we don't go? No, it merely means that we've passed 'The Point of No Return On Investment.'"
Starglider29a
Offline document
It sounds good, but which projects would you "buy stock" for? And if so, would you expect your money back?
The agency needs about $300m to expand a network of telescopes and meet the government's target of identifying, by 2020, at least 90% of the giant space rocks that pose a threat to Earth. Congress has not come up with the money and is unlikely to, according to the National Academy of Science.
There is no advantage to detecting an incoming impactor if you do not have the means to prevent its impact. Having less time before large scale annihilation may serve the public better. But when it does hit (don't say if if you mean when), the loss of tax revenue will cause more damage to the budget than the space budget would have.
A microgram of prevention is worth a metric tonne of cure.
I wonder what the return rate is of Macs is? Esp from Best Buy?