They also make some very bone-headed recommendations based on some intellectually lazy assumptions; e.g., that command menus are the best and most appropriate way to allow for discoverability on any platform or form factor.
Some of their "problems" are not only risible, but their proposed alternatives are downright ludicrous.
For instance, their model for "Discoverability" (sic) on a touch-driven interface is to add buttons and menus. That's right, it is not user experimentation of touching and interacting directly with screen objects, but the flat, indirect execution of commands via a textual proxy.
Some of their complaints are valid: it seems every app developer ignores even platform conventions and does his own thing, or misappropriates Desktop UI interface conventions (e.g., WTF are "+" and "-" buttons doing on a map application when the user has been trained to expect pinch-and-zoom?) But these are due mostly to individual developers. Apple has some fairly good guidelines on UI interface designs for the iPad and iPhone, starting with the recommendation to design it specifically for the device, and not port it from a different platform; that new and inexperienced developers is not their fault.
This will all be sorted out eventually, as the technologies mature and the interaction paradigms are cemented into the cultural consciousness.
The article authors' idea of advancing human-computer interfaces for touch screens is to ignore the potential of the technology and stick to what works for a desktop and a mouse. Sure, they acknowledge the need to experiment with new techniques--just as long as they keep within the boundaries of what is known and what works already, mainly the desktop GUI and mouse.
I'm currently reading the book Sky Walking by astronaut Tom Jones, who relates, among other mission details and adventures, some of the scientific experiments performed by his crew on the Space Shuttle during the early 1990s. In his book, Mr. Jones talks about how they used a new satellite radar imaging systems to not only measure and map the entire Earth, but as an archeology tool to uncover old ruins and buried landmarks.
If this is the same, it's been going on for at least 15 years.
Although I understand your sentiment, the article proposes replacing *all* control interfaces with a single command line where people type in natural language, because you know, natural language is completely unambiguous and verbose typing is more efficient and intuitive than clicking menu options--or pictures.
No, that is not true. It downloads a disk image, and if Safari is configured as default, it will mount it and execute the installer. At that point it requires the user to actively continue with the installation, which involves clicking "next" or "continue" and entering his admin password.
like an emulator? many of them have advanced smoothing effects already, with options.
Except that this algorithm vectorizes, instead of just upscaling the image with bigger pixels and smooth edges.
there's just this ONE LITTLE PROBLEM, you can't recreate information the artist left in his head because there wasn't enough pixels
Except that this algorithm is intended to accentuate the information that is there. Their thesis is that, on such low-resolution images, each individual pixel may convey important information that the artist added precisely because of the constraints of the platform.
Thus, a single pixel could represent an eye, and a checkered pattern a squiggly line. These are trivially perceptible details which are non-obvious to mechanical detection. This new algorithm attempts to discern these peculiarities and uses heuristics to try to best match the intention of the artist.
It is not perfect, and the authors even explain some cases where it fails, and even some suggestions for future improvements. However, it is darn good enough, and the fact that it generates a resolution-independent vector image makes it suitable for modern high-definition displays.
>> Not every distributed network is some global monster that's going to go sentient and send our killer robots.
That may be true, but the problem is that we can't easily discern which ones will. Therefore, in the interest of Mankind's survival, we distrust them all, "cloud" and "peer-to-peer" alike.
They're not archiving those aircraft movements; the pilots must register their flight plans with the FAA, and such registrations are a matter of public record. The FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, is a public agency.
Note that the flight plans in question could be associated with Messrs. Brin and Page because they own the plane, which is a known fact, not because the FAA keeps track of who goes where in their own private transport.
No. He is suggesting that people like Sergey Brin and Larry Page believe it to be immoral to burn fuel, and so feel compelled to purchase carbon credits to absolve their sins and remove their own guilt.
Well, we can all pool together and petition to get it postponed. It seems to have worked in the past, since all other predicted dates have come and gone:
Also, the purpose of "cat" is to concatenate files, not display; it just happens to output to STDOUT so that it can be used as part of an efficient tool chain workflow. By consequence, using "cat" on a single file will output its contents to the terminal. This is a useful side-effect, but not its main function.
When the installer you mentioned is executed, it prompts the user for a password, and goes through the motions of installing the software, which requires a few steps. At any step the user can stop it without and completely avoid the issue.
We're talking about an intermediate process that requires user attention and intervention, not an automatic installation, as you are suggesting.
Let's be clear about this false comparison. On the one hand we have the historical reputation of Windows PCs and easily-propagated malware. On the other hand we have more secure environments where only social engineering is effective, since automatic replication or infection is thwarted by design.
The former is the domain of DOS and Windows 9x, and maybe even Windows XP. The latter is the realm of virtually all modern operating systems, including Windows Vista, Windows 7, etc.
So your comment is a propos: inert malware that depends on social engineering and requires the user to go out of his way to permit and execute it, is just as uninteresting in OS X as it is in a modern version of Windows.
Nobody is claiming the false dichotomy of "pure and secure OS X" vs. "malware-infested Windows." As a matter of fact, a lot of comments on this forum actually try to defect how modern Windows security measures protect user from the old style of drive-by virus/trojan installations.
This is a non-issue, the same as it would be a non-issue on Windows or Linux. Users need guidance and education, not anti-virus software or different operating systems.
Actually, the level of sophistication of malware circa-1995 was rather high. You had pernicious viruses that self-replicated and infected other files and computers, polymorphic and encryption algorithms to avoid detection, mutating routines to ensure propagation; all sort of technically interesting stuff. They were written in low-level languages and typically worked as close to the hardware as possible, bypassing OS APIs and services. Their purpose could be anything from mere prolific replication, to malicious document destruction or corruption. I think some even had a field day with your HD/Floppy drive's heads until they got misaligned or damaged.
It's hard to find that level of sophistication on modern malware. A lot of it runs underground and typically is not heard of in the mainstream. The macro-viruses and script-kiddie stuff that you mostly hear in the news are often not much to brag about.
There's no question about it. You can spend the bucks and the time in setting up an old-fashioned DOS box, and play with the hardware set-up and AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS configurations until you get it right; or you could download DOSBox, use one of its many "presets" of virtual hardware to run many (MANY) popular vintage games and spend your time and bucks on the games themselves.
Moreover, with a physical DOS box, you need the full set of hardware, and dedicated attention to it: You have to switch over to the box (monitor and keyboard) and load up your games. With DOSBox, you can just double-click your icons from within your regular desktop or workstation, or run a DOS "Console" window alongside your Twitbook and MyFace sessions.
You seemed to have missed the point. Read the article from Wired to get an idea.
There are other services that actually provide what DropBox was claiming, and they necessarily have a higher cost of doing business due to the additional technical measures that need to be implemented. Moreover, such measures limit the extent to which the organization can use cost-saving techniques such as "hashing."
These additional costs may translate into increase prices for consumers. However, irrespective of this, since DropBox only claimed to offer such security measures, they incurred none of the costs associated with them. Therefore, they clearly and artificially gained a competitive advantage through the use of false advertisements.
The fact that stood to--and did--gain substantial advantages in trade by making misleading claims, suggests that there was intent, and thus unmasks an organization that has no respect for the law, no qualms about lying to its customers, and no interest in the actual security of their services.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind installing a turbo button on the office clock.
-dZ.
They also make some very bone-headed recommendations based on some intellectually lazy assumptions; e.g., that command menus are the best and most appropriate way to allow for discoverability on any platform or form factor.
Some of their "problems" are not only risible, but their proposed alternatives are downright ludicrous.
For instance, their model for "Discoverability" (sic) on a touch-driven interface is to add buttons and menus. That's right, it is not user experimentation of touching and interacting directly with screen objects, but the flat, indirect execution of commands via a textual proxy.
Some of their complaints are valid: it seems every app developer ignores even platform conventions and does his own thing, or misappropriates Desktop UI interface conventions (e.g., WTF are "+" and "-" buttons doing on a map application when the user has been trained to expect pinch-and-zoom?) But these are due mostly to individual developers. Apple has some fairly good guidelines on UI interface designs for the iPad and iPhone, starting with the recommendation to design it specifically for the device, and not port it from a different platform; that new and inexperienced developers is not their fault.
This will all be sorted out eventually, as the technologies mature and the interaction paradigms are cemented into the cultural consciousness.
The article authors' idea of advancing human-computer interfaces for touch screens is to ignore the potential of the technology and stick to what works for a desktop and a mouse. Sure, they acknowledge the need to experiment with new techniques--just as long as they keep within the boundaries of what is known and what works already, mainly the desktop GUI and mouse.
-dZ.
I'm currently reading the book Sky Walking by astronaut Tom Jones, who relates, among other mission details and adventures, some of the scientific experiments performed by his crew on the Space Shuttle during the early 1990s. In his book, Mr. Jones talks about how they used a new satellite radar imaging systems to not only measure and map the entire Earth, but as an archeology tool to uncover old ruins and buried landmarks.
If this is the same, it's been going on for at least 15 years.
-dZ.
Although I understand your sentiment, the article proposes replacing *all* control interfaces with a single command line where people type in natural language, because you know, natural language is completely unambiguous and verbose typing is more efficient and intuitive than clicking menu options--or pictures.
-dZ.
No, that is not true. It downloads a disk image, and if Safari is configured as default, it will mount it and execute the installer. At that point it requires the user to actively continue with the installation, which involves clicking "next" or "continue" and entering his admin password.
-dZ.
Except that this algorithm vectorizes, instead of just upscaling the image with bigger pixels and smooth edges.
Except that this algorithm is intended to accentuate the information that is there. Their thesis is that, on such low-resolution images, each individual pixel may convey important information that the artist added precisely because of the constraints of the platform.
Thus, a single pixel could represent an eye, and a checkered pattern a squiggly line. These are trivially perceptible details which are non-obvious to mechanical detection. This new algorithm attempts to discern these peculiarities and uses heuristics to try to best match the intention of the artist.
It is not perfect, and the authors even explain some cases where it fails, and even some suggestions for future improvements. However, it is darn good enough, and the fact that it generates a resolution-independent vector image makes it suitable for modern high-definition displays.
-dZ.
Too late, you already did.
-dZ.
>> Not every distributed network is some global monster that's going to go sentient and send our killer robots.
That may be true, but the problem is that we can't easily discern which ones will. Therefore, in the interest of Mankind's survival, we distrust them all, "cloud" and "peer-to-peer" alike.
-dZ.
Coca-cola, and sometimes war.
They're not archiving those aircraft movements; the pilots must register their flight plans with the FAA, and such registrations are a matter of public record. The FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, is a public agency.
Note that the flight plans in question could be associated with Messrs. Brin and Page because they own the plane, which is a known fact, not because the FAA keeps track of who goes where in their own private transport.
-dZ.
No. He is suggesting that people like Sergey Brin and Larry Page believe it to be immoral to burn fuel, and so feel compelled to purchase carbon credits to absolve their sins and remove their own guilt.
-dZ.
True, but Mac OS X has been around for over 10 years, and Apple computers for much longer. This marks real growth, not initial market seed.
-dZ.
Is that a troll question, as in rhetorically expecting an answer in the negative?
Mac OS X has ACL built in:
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2005050120073947
-dZ.
Well, we can all pool together and petition to get it postponed. It seems to have worked in the past, since all other predicted dates have come and gone:
http://www.petitiononline.com/dotr2011/
-dZ.
How is this different from the facial recognition that has been done in things like iPhoto for years.
Oh, oh! I know this one!
The difference is that iPhoto runs on my computer and keeps its database in my computer; while Google's database is, well, not in my computer.
-dZ.
Also, the purpose of "cat" is to concatenate files, not display; it just happens to output to STDOUT so that it can be used as part of an efficient tool chain workflow. By consequence, using "cat" on a single file will output its contents to the terminal. This is a useful side-effect, but not its main function.
-dZ.
When the installer you mentioned is executed, it prompts the user for a password, and goes through the motions of installing the software, which requires a few steps. At any step the user can stop it without and completely avoid the issue.
We're talking about an intermediate process that requires user attention and intervention, not an automatic installation, as you are suggesting.
It seems you are misinformed.
-dZ.
They count as much.
Let's be clear about this false comparison. On the one hand we have the historical reputation of Windows PCs and easily-propagated malware. On the other hand we have more secure environments where only social engineering is effective, since automatic replication or infection is thwarted by design.
The former is the domain of DOS and Windows 9x, and maybe even Windows XP. The latter is the realm of virtually all modern operating systems, including Windows Vista, Windows 7, etc.
So your comment is a propos: inert malware that depends on social engineering and requires the user to go out of his way to permit and execute it, is just as uninteresting in OS X as it is in a modern version of Windows.
Nobody is claiming the false dichotomy of "pure and secure OS X" vs. "malware-infested Windows." As a matter of fact, a lot of comments on this forum actually try to defect how modern Windows security measures protect user from the old style of drive-by virus/trojan installations.
This is a non-issue, the same as it would be a non-issue on Windows or Linux. Users need guidance and education, not anti-virus software or different operating systems.
-dZ.
It's not interesting nor sudden at all, these guys have been "crying wolf" for about a decade now.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/05/wolf
-dZ.
Here, take a look at this:
http://daringfireball.net/2011/05/wolf
Now that the Mac is popular... any day now... for sure this time...
-dZ.
Actually, the level of sophistication of malware circa-1995 was rather high. You had pernicious viruses that self-replicated and infected other files and computers, polymorphic and encryption algorithms to avoid detection, mutating routines to ensure propagation; all sort of technically interesting stuff. They were written in low-level languages and typically worked as close to the hardware as possible, bypassing OS APIs and services. Their purpose could be anything from mere prolific replication, to malicious document destruction or corruption. I think some even had a field day with your HD/Floppy drive's heads until they got misaligned or damaged.
It's hard to find that level of sophistication on modern malware. A lot of it runs underground and typically is not heard of in the mainstream. The macro-viruses and script-kiddie stuff that you mostly hear in the news are often not much to brag about.
-dZ.
DOSBox. Simples.
There's no question about it. You can spend the bucks and the time in setting up an old-fashioned DOS box, and play with the hardware set-up and AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS configurations until you get it right; or you could download DOSBox, use one of its many "presets" of virtual hardware to run many (MANY) popular vintage games and spend your time and bucks on the games themselves.
Moreover, with a physical DOS box, you need the full set of hardware, and dedicated attention to it: You have to switch over to the box (monitor and keyboard) and load up your games. With DOSBox, you can just double-click your icons from within your regular desktop or workstation, or run a DOS "Console" window alongside your Twitbook and MyFace sessions.
-dZ.
CTRL+X+B in Emacs
You seemed to have missed the point. Read the article from Wired to get an idea.
There are other services that actually provide what DropBox was claiming, and they necessarily have a higher cost of doing business due to the additional technical measures that need to be implemented. Moreover, such measures limit the extent to which the organization can use cost-saving techniques such as "hashing."
These additional costs may translate into increase prices for consumers. However, irrespective of this, since DropBox only claimed to offer such security measures, they incurred none of the costs associated with them. Therefore, they clearly and artificially gained a competitive advantage through the use of false advertisements.
The fact that stood to--and did--gain substantial advantages in trade by making misleading claims, suggests that there was intent, and thus unmasks an organization that has no respect for the law, no qualms about lying to its customers, and no interest in the actual security of their services.
That is the point.
-dZ.