Have you tried http://www.map24.co.uk ?
It's even more 'realtime' than Google's and the roads are clear. Also you can expand a map to fill the whole screen - something GoogleMap can't do.
Hehe, a bit late for any other people to see/mod this, but I thought I might as well reply.
Assuming all this is true, what *you* are doing is something quite unusual; YOU ARE MAKING A "COLOUR" THAT COULD NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE!
Well that's true, but then I've always separated the waves of light from the actual sensation of color. So theoretically, all colors don't exist:) For all we know, what we see as green, a dog might really see as bright pink.
and this brings up some very interesting philosophical questions.
Ah... Qualia. My number one reason for thinking that souls exist:)
Perhaps you *really* have to zap those red receptors, or perhaps (as I originally assumed), the red-receptor output is so negligible at cyan frequencies that reducing/omitting it makes no notable difference.
Try staring at it for even longer. Also, if the Cyan behind the planet behind was stronger, that would certain improve the saturation even further.
In the same way that there are many different programming languages (even in one paradigm), the same is true of the *nix and its various GUIs. It's still in its development stages, and people are testing different ideas and concepts. Eventually of course, they'll probably combine the best of all worlds into a single OS/desktop, and when that day combines, I'll probably switch from Windows. (What would really encourage me to switch is if they integrated a database/metadata single folder filesystem by the way).
Look what happened with ZSNES and SNES9x. At first they worked separately. It was a good idea, because it gave them chance to develop their own strengths. Then of course, they worked together, taking the best elements from each other, and incorporated those to make much better software.
Not too sure to be honest. I thought that maybe even exact cyan wavelengths may stimulate the red cone to some degree. Only by wearing down the red cones in the eye, and then looking at cyan will result in actual cyan. Or so I thought. Maybe I'm wrong?
For a taste of true cyan (which like you imply, one probably can't see in real life, let alone on your monitor), try the Eclipse of Mars optical illusion on my site.
Interesting, though you don't mention that ideal white - containing an equal mixture of red, green and blue - is set at 6504K.
The color temperature of sunlight is approximately 5000-6000K which is actually more yellow-ish than actual white.
I'm sure if you're not used to distingushing between various hues around white, that the brain can be fooled into seeing what it thinks of as 'white', but it's not entirely a relative thing, since noone could be fooled into thinking say... 1000K or 15000K was white.
It should be interesting to see how it compares to BrainBoost.com
Out of the 27 question I gave Google from the BrainBoost.com front page, it answered 9 of them. Ask Jeeves also answered 9 of them, but a slightly different set. BrainBoost got them all 'right', but then they are the questions that BrainBoost selected:)
Here are the ones Google got right: Where is Iraq?
How many people live in Israel?
Who is the CEO of Amazon.com?
Who is Thad Starner?
What is solar wind?
When was Cameron Diaz born?
What is a calorie?
Here are the ones Ask Jeeves got right: How many people live in Israel?
What is the capital of Indonesia?
Who was the 3rd president of the US?
What is solar wind?
When was Cameron Diaz born?
What is a calorie?
What does HTML stand for?
And then there's simply the case where technology and bandwidth becomes so cheap and efficient that it may as well be free. Especially if it's just one group of people which can make a noticable difference to the world at a relatively small cost.
Nothing will sound particularly 'wrong' if the finished product only sticks to the pentatonic subset of the chromatic scale. Nor will it sound anything like decent music though.
We want a key centre/s, proper cadences, augmented/diminished triads and whatnot, interesting melodies, and groovy bass lines! Oh and more of the 12 notes please.
More importantly, were the hamsters tortured with the very music they were 'creating'? I kinda feel sorry for them:)
But couldn't one turn chess into a 'spectacularly complex' game by increasing the number of squares say... to 16*16? Or even into 3D:-)
A question. For chess to be 'solved', would a computer have to know definite answers to the best moves (something that would take a computer lots of processing time to figure out)? Or is it that some kind of 'mega-formula' is needed - one that uses relatively little processor time (but instead requiring tremendous human insight). If it's the former, then what is the term for the 'formula' type of solving.
Has even tic-tac-toe been solved using a neat formula (insert positions of pieces and x & y position, who's move it is, and out pops the answer) ?
Yes, but that's a continuous scroll. I was thinking something more along the lines of moving the mouse moves the page, and then when the mouse stops, the page stops moving. Also, you'd keep the right mouse button held down while you did this 'scroll'. Releasing it would return to normal operation.
Well, I'm one of those that would prefer zero buttons - nobody would get confused then. It'd nicer to just hold the mouse over an area of the screen and keep it there for around 5 seconds. Waiting that time would be the equivalent of a 'click'.
Seriously, two buttons is one of those things that might be harder to use initially, and then over time (i.e. 5 minutes), the increase in productivity, and general ease of use is all worth it. Even my mum can use 2 buttons, and if she can, anyone can.
Can any of the browsers use the the right mouse button to 'lock' the cursor, and then you move the mouse to scroll the page up and down (or even left and right) ? The idea is that the cursor doesn't move while you do so. I think that'd be a really neat idea - better than the usual scroll bar.
Some of the ideas in your post (such as the adding of the image's resolution) could be automatically added, though of course, others would currently need to be manually added (e.g. whether a song is sad/happy). Thing is, adding one or two extra keywords is in my opinion less taxing on the brain than wondering which directory to store it in! (Plus it takes a while to trundle through folders).
make it easy to find what you want when you want it
Throw the current folder-based file system away, and choose a metadata/database type filesystem. Files are then given keywords, and everything is found by 'filtering'. Everything would be in a single folder. It would actually work kinda like Google.
Yes, there are a couple of issues to work out (such as duplicate file names), but it's definitely the way to go.
It's notoriously tricky to prove, but I think that all music and art can theoretically be given an objective 'score' or 'value', even if no one knows for sure how 'good' it really is. The better someone's taste in music/art, the closer their opinion would be to this 'universal' score.
To break music down to one of its elements, there has to be a reason why the chord:
C, F, B, D, F#, A... sounds much worse than:
C, F, Bb, D, F, A
finishing it would destroy many, MANY jobs; all that road maintenance, auto production (if all cars ride the same track and no car can exceed the speed limit, then there is no motivation to buy new cars) and so on.
Which would be a bad thing why? Okay, so those people would need to find new jobs, so initially, it would be a pain for them. But overall the economy would improve. Apart from the potential loss of existing infrastructure, removing the need for unnecessary work and encouraging automation is a very good thing. Ideally, everyone would do interesting work, create and play, but I'm sure that day is far away...
Exactly, and you can even 'move' the advert so that it appears similar to the way it was in Opera 7.2 (i.e. at the top right). Simply select View > Toolbars > Main bar, and viola (see a PNG shot here). That screenshot is from 7.5, but I assume you can do the same with 8.
One of things I love about Opera is how configurable its interface is. For example, Explorer could learn a thing or two from the way Opera allows buttons to be easily dropped onto toolbars.
I couldn't agree more. It's half Google's fault too. They don't even try to make it interesting by allowing you to filter the results by location, browser, or operating system.
Hehe, what would really be interesting is to see results from the slashdot crowd!
Not forgetting the brilliant Opera email client...
I love it the way all emails can get put into the same view (you can filter of course by specific email if you want).
GMail still lacks a 'redirect' feature, and it can't save out all emails to a text file for potential archive purposes.
Have you ever tried lucid dreaming? The images you see are often just as detailed as real life. Unless you're saying that 'real life' uses this compression too? That would be close to what Dr Susan Blackmore says...
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I don't know why, but 'Llamatron' and 'Revenge of the Mutant camels' springs to mind... :)
Have you tried http://www.map24.co.uk ? It's even more 'realtime' than Google's and the roads are clear. Also you can expand a map to fill the whole screen - something GoogleMap can't do.
-
Assuming all this is true, what *you* are doing is something quite unusual; YOU ARE MAKING A "COLOUR" THAT COULD NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE!
Well that's true, but then I've always separated the waves of light from the actual sensation of color. So theoretically, all colors don't exist- and this brings up some very interesting philosophical questions.
Ah... Qualia. My number one reason for thinking that souls exist- Perhaps you *really* have to zap those red receptors, or perhaps (as I originally assumed), the red-receptor output is so negligible at cyan frequencies that reducing/omitting it makes no notable difference.
Try staring at it for even longer. Also, if the Cyan behind the planet behind was stronger, that would certain improve the saturation even further.In the same way that there are many different programming languages (even in one paradigm), the same is true of the *nix and its various GUIs. It's still in its development stages, and people are testing different ideas and concepts. Eventually of course, they'll probably combine the best of all worlds into a single OS/desktop, and when that day combines, I'll probably switch from Windows. (What would really encourage me to switch is if they integrated a database/metadata single folder filesystem by the way).
Look what happened with ZSNES and SNES9x. At first they worked separately. It was a good idea, because it gave them chance to develop their own strengths. Then of course, they worked together, taking the best elements from each other, and incorporated those to make much better software.
Not too sure to be honest. I thought that maybe even exact cyan wavelengths may stimulate the red cone to some degree. Only by wearing down the red cones in the eye, and then looking at cyan will result in actual cyan. Or so I thought. Maybe I'm wrong?
For a taste of true cyan (which like you imply, one probably can't see in real life, let alone on your monitor), try the Eclipse of Mars optical illusion on my site.
:)
Yes, that is my permanent sig below
Interesting, though you don't mention that ideal white - containing an equal mixture of red, green and blue - is set at 6504K.
The color temperature of sunlight is approximately 5000-6000K which is actually more yellow-ish than actual white.
I'm sure if you're not used to distingushing between various hues around white, that the brain can be fooled into seeing what it thinks of as 'white', but it's not entirely a relative thing, since noone could be fooled into thinking say... 1000K or 15000K was white.
It should be interesting to see how it compares to BrainBoost.com
:)
Out of the 27 question I gave Google from the BrainBoost.com front page, it answered 9 of them. Ask Jeeves also answered 9 of them, but a slightly different set. BrainBoost got them all 'right', but then they are the questions that BrainBoost selected
Here are the ones Google got right:
Where is Iraq?
How many people live in Israel?
Who is the CEO of Amazon.com?
Who is Thad Starner?
What is solar wind?
When was Cameron Diaz born?
What is a calorie?
Here are the ones Ask Jeeves got right:
How many people live in Israel?
What is the capital of Indonesia?
Who was the 3rd president of the US?
What is solar wind?
When was Cameron Diaz born?
What is a calorie?
What does HTML stand for?
Nice post. I'll just add that it's harder to write a compiler for something like BASIC compared to C, if speed is an issue. But maybe not impossible.
Am I right in saying that given the perfect compiler, you could write BASIC code that would run as fast as assembler code?
They should make it much cheaper for those people who wouldn't use it for commercial purposes. Say £50.
Does anyone think they are limiting their userbase (and potential income) by keeping the price so high?
And then there's simply the case where technology and bandwidth becomes so cheap and efficient that it may as well be free. Especially if it's just one group of people which can make a noticable difference to the world at a relatively small cost.
It's not really a wooden laptop until the keys (and preferably the screen and insides!) are also made of wood! Not good enough.
Nothing will sound particularly 'wrong' if the finished product only sticks to the pentatonic subset of the chromatic scale. Nor will it sound anything like decent music though.
:)
We want a key centre/s, proper cadences, augmented/diminished triads and whatnot, interesting melodies, and groovy bass lines! Oh and more of the 12 notes please.
More importantly, were the hamsters tortured with the very music they were 'creating'? I kinda feel sorry for them
But couldn't one turn chess into a 'spectacularly complex' game by increasing the number of squares say... to 16*16? Or even into 3D :-)
A question. For chess to be 'solved', would a computer have to know definite answers to the best moves (something that would take a computer lots of processing time to figure out)? Or is it that some kind of 'mega-formula' is needed - one that uses relatively little processor time (but instead requiring tremendous human insight). If it's the former, then what is the term for the 'formula' type of solving.
Has even tic-tac-toe been solved using a neat formula (insert positions of pieces and x & y position, who's move it is, and out pops the answer) ?
Yes, but that's a continuous scroll. I was thinking something more along the lines of moving the mouse moves the page, and then when the mouse stops, the page stops moving. Also, you'd keep the right mouse button held down while you did this 'scroll'. Releasing it would return to normal operation.
Well, I'm one of those that would prefer zero buttons - nobody would get confused then. It'd nicer to just hold the mouse over an area of the screen and keep it there for around 5 seconds. Waiting that time would be the equivalent of a 'click'.
Seriously, two buttons is one of those things that might be harder to use initially, and then over time (i.e. 5 minutes), the increase in productivity, and general ease of use is all worth it. Even my mum can use 2 buttons, and if she can, anyone can.
Can any of the browsers use the the right mouse button to 'lock' the cursor, and then you move the mouse to scroll the page up and down (or even left and right) ? The idea is that the cursor doesn't move while you do so. I think that'd be a really neat idea - better than the usual scroll bar.
Some of the ideas in your post (such as the adding of the image's resolution) could be automatically added, though of course, others would currently need to be manually added (e.g. whether a song is sad/happy). Thing is, adding one or two extra keywords is in my opinion less taxing on the brain than wondering which directory to store it in! (Plus it takes a while to trundle through folders).
- make it easy to find what you want when you want it
Throw the current folder-based file system away, and choose a metadata/database type filesystem. Files are then given keywords, and everything is found by 'filtering'. Everything would be in a single folder. It would actually work kinda like Google.Yes, there are a couple of issues to work out (such as duplicate file names), but it's definitely the way to go.
- If homo sapiens is replaced by silicon sapiens, is it really such a bad thing?
This assumes though that the things have what could be described as a soul. I very much doubt they can enjoy music, or 'feel' anything at all.It's notoriously tricky to prove, but I think that all music and art can theoretically be given an objective 'score' or 'value', even if no one knows for sure how 'good' it really is. The better someone's taste in music/art, the closer their opinion would be to this 'universal' score.
... sounds much worse than:
To break music down to one of its elements, there has to be a reason why the chord:
C, F, B, D, F#, A
C, F, Bb, D, F, A
- finishing it would destroy many, MANY jobs; all that road maintenance, auto production (if all cars ride the same track and no car can exceed the speed limit, then there is no motivation to buy new cars) and so on.
Which would be a bad thing why? Okay, so those people would need to find new jobs, so initially, it would be a pain for them. But overall the economy would improve. Apart from the potential loss of existing infrastructure, removing the need for unnecessary work and encouraging automation is a very good thing. Ideally, everyone would do interesting work, create and play, but I'm sure that day is far away...Exactly, and you can even 'move' the advert so that it appears similar to the way it was in Opera 7.2 (i.e. at the top right). Simply select View > Toolbars > Main bar, and viola (see a PNG shot here). That screenshot is from 7.5, but I assume you can do the same with 8.
One of things I love about Opera is how configurable its interface is. For example, Explorer could learn a thing or two from the way Opera allows buttons to be easily dropped onto toolbars.
Plus the email client (M2) rules.
I couldn't agree more. It's half Google's fault too. They don't even try to make it interesting by allowing you to filter the results by location, browser, or operating system.
Hehe, what would really be interesting is to see results from the slashdot crowd!
Not forgetting the brilliant Opera email client...
I love it the way all emails can get put into the same view (you can filter of course by specific email if you want).
GMail still lacks a 'redirect' feature, and it can't save out all emails to a text file for potential archive purposes.
Have you ever tried lucid dreaming? The images you see are often just as detailed as real life. Unless you're saying that 'real life' uses this compression too? That would be close to what Dr Susan Blackmore says...