Under the Page Layout Tab, there's a dropdown called "Breaks" in the Page Setup group. I've never used it in Office 2007 yet and it was in the first place I looked. To be perfectly honest, I actually thought it'd take me longer to find it than it did:P
The typical human being can only process approximately 7 menu items at a time, plus or minus 2. The toolbars would be something you skim to find what you're looking for, and we all just memorized the various dropdown menus over the years. The new system simplifies this immensely, and groups them by functional similarity. As well as replacing full menus with quick selection boxes, like the margins selector in Word. Clicking on it displays about 5 common margin defaults, and a "custom" option. This is better design, as the number of people who'll need to use non-standard margins is minuscule. These, and other similar changes, are a part of a much improved design, and does help you make common layout changes faster, organizes it better psychologically, etc. This is especially better for novice users as it prevents information overload.
There are other specifics but I don't feel like going into them at 3:30AM right now. Does that answer your question?
I wouldn't be so sure. I remember when I was little my family was pretty poor, and I used to spend all my time reading (the only tv we had was an old black and white tv with dials and bad reception. This was 1995 mind you...)
My dad bought me a really cheap telescope which is really crappy by the standards of the Galileoscope and I still managed to enjoy it. You could see Saturn and Jupiter decently well enough to just barely make out some of their moons, and seeing the amount of detail on Earth's moon was enjoyable too. It really helped get me into science. Yeah, a lot of kids might be bored by it, but I think a lot might enjoy it too.
If he had trouble with it, regardless of his previous experience, then it's because it's not intuitive! Where intuition means the ability to use the product without reading manuals, looking up online help, etc.
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong here. Previously used conventions are a major part of UI design, but abandoning old conventions for better ones is both a major and necessary risk at times. By your definition, how intuitive a system is depends entirely on the person using it, and the results of testing would have no objective value. The fact is that old Office menus were complete garbage, and we only liked them because we'd been using them for the better part of almost 2 decades.
I remember my heuristics professor once telling us how she was at CES one year and there was this black device at one of the booths. It just looked like a box, and had no buttons or anything, and she stood there for a while trying to figure out how to turn it on. It never occurred to her to just touch it. When she did, it immediately lit up and exposed interactive elements on it's surface.
Something being intuitive is not what you describe it to be. It is the ability of a system to be learned and adapted to quickly. Prior knowledge of other systems can either help or hinder this scenario, but the baseline is from the perspective of one who's never interacted with this sort of technology before. If you are accustomed to other systems for the same task, but which function differently, this will be an obvious hindrance as your mind subconsciously begins looking for the same conventions, which are notably lacking. The real measure of its worth is how long it takes to relearn how to use the new system.
I was personally hesitant to try it as well, and put it off for about two years, but found it surprisingly comfortable to use when I finally capitulated. Additionally, it's very obvious that the ribbon's real purpose is actually to provide a common interface for legacy, and potential future touch screen displays, with its use of large buttons and more area.
I'm going to reply to your previous post with this too.
No, but my point is that every breakthrough in physics came through because people were ho hum and looking through some theory where they expected to find a result, and didn't. Once upon a time people thought Newtonian mechanics was all there was. We think 100 years of Einstein (wow!), is a long time, but just imagine 300 years of Newtonian physics. All these famous problems that lead to quantum physics - like where does the sun get its energy from, black body radiation, brownian motion, etc, are all really edge cases of newtonian physics.
Oh god, wow, where to begin. First of all, you have your dates wrong. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687, so by the time GR surpassed it, it'd only been around for ~230 years or so, not 300 (so you're off by like 23%, which is a significant margin of error:P). I'll call your dates on GR close enough though, since it's only a little over a decade off.
Second, every major breakthrough was NOT "because people were ho hum and looking through some theory where they expected to find a result, and didn't." Most breakthroughs, especially in the earlier years, were due to people observing phenomenon that the current models had no explanation for, and could not account for. Hubble's expanding universe is one such phenomenon, as is GR itself, since Newtonian motion fails to account for different points of observation entirely, and is based on a static observer.
Also, in what way, exactly, is the thermonuclear fusion reaction in the sun an "edge case of newtonian physics", or even blalckbody radiation for that matter? You realize that newtonian physics says pretty much nothing about either of these, right?
But its not really useful, unless those predictions were wrong. That's my point. If they find gravity waves, and it confirms GR, that's all well and good but it doesn't really do anything useful as it doesn't change anything and in that sense its a waste of money. But, if there are no gravity waves, or, more spectacularly, there is no Higgs Bosun, then, really, our understanding or rather, physics understanding, of how gravity and mass works is completely wrong, and that would be as interesting as when Rutherford first aimed a beam at a gold foil and realized that the density of the gold is not uniform and got a rather surprising finding about how small atomic nuclei are relative to the size of the space around them.
No, again, you really, REALLY don't get it. Being proven wrong just rules out a theory, it does not necessarily make new ones, as Rutherford's experiment did. Finding gravity waves would help confirm GR, confirm that out understanding of gravity is solid, at least for now, and give us more data to work with in mathematical models as well as allowing us to make more potential observations. Quite the contrary to what you say actually, being proven wrong doesn't do anything useful, as it only leaves us back at square one. No gravity waves means either GR is incorrect, that we're measuring them in a bad way, again, or, that there's some weird exception that prevents them from forming. If in the case that GR is proven wrong, well, then what? There's no other theory that even comes close to rivaling it's explanations for phenomenon which we have observed, and the explanation for what gravity really is, according to GR, is pretty damned elegant if you actually understand it.
You realize that for physics to be in "confirmation mode" is a good thing right? That means we're on the right track, and that we haven't been "wasting money" at all, quite the contrary, it means we've been using it effectively to learn more about the universe. That is the end goal. Not to "shake up science" or to "make breakthroughs," but to actually learn something.
No, you really, really, don't get it. It's not like someone one day decided there are gravity waves, and conned people into spending millions on tests for them.
Eintein's theory of General Relativity (GR) predicts that gravity waves exist, and GR has already made several other verified predictions. It's a bit like a boat in the water. What we've verified with GR already is that the boat displaces water, this is the distortion that objects with mass cause to occur on spacetime. Gravity waves would be the wake the boat leaves behind as it moves through the water.
This is expected to be most evident in binary star systems, as the stars rotating around one another have a relatively high angular momentum, as well as the large masses required to make gravity waves easier to detect.
Now, your analogy to Santa Claus is pretty bad, what with Santa being based on myth and all, but if we ignore that for a second and ran with it, it'd be saying something like this:
We can see a flying sled, pulled by reindeer in the sky between December 24th and 25th. Also, any house this sled visits finds mysteriously delivered presents under their Christmas tree, which no one in the house placed there. We haven't seen anyone in the sled, but we believe that the sled is related to the presents appearing on that particular night. So now we're looking for the little man in the sled (maybe it's an elf, maybe it's Santa, maybe it's Jack Skellington for all we know) that we believe is dropping off the presents. For the last experiment, we looked for things at eye level, but saw no one. Therefore, if there is someone coming into the house from the sled, they must be shorter than 6', thereby ruling out Jack Skellington. We have now developed a new tests that will look two foot above, and two foot below our eye level.
Science isn't just about observing events and figuring out the cause. It's also about attempting to make predictions based on existing knowledge, and verifying those predictions with experiments.
PS - Wow, that analogy was painful to continue running with <.<
I meant I don't know how it handles turn by turn alerts. No matter what, even if on a phone call, I could always switch to viewing the GPS app during the call. It's just a matter of whether it'd continue announcing the directions...
Depends on your phone. My Palm Pre just has a notifications area that you can click to in order to see an event. Whatever app is running takes precedence. I can even listen to music on it with the GPS running, and it lowers the music volume to like 10% to announce the directions and street names. My old dedicated GPS didn't even do street names. Plus, with the card view, the GPS just keeps running in the background, even if you do switch to something else, so you don't have to restart it or anything. I haven't used it enough to know how it handles call when you pick up though, as I usually try not to take calls while driving:/
I'm referring to the Sprint Navigation App fyi, since it has turn-by-turn directions, unlike Google Maps.
They probably uploaded the wrong build image to their repository. WebOS Doctor, the app which caused the leak, is meant to basically reflash the OS onto the phone. It's not inconceivable that some intern or something copied over the wrong files to the repo. It's not like it's been like this since launch, this likely happened in the most recent update of the repo.
You can play the entire PS3 game Lair via RemotePlay on the PSP. Or you could, if it had more buttons. It works, you just can't do certain necessary actions due to this limitation.
All RemotePlay is is essentially a streaming video that sends your controller movements back to the PS3. Running a PS3 game would be no different than running a PS1 game, or playing a video from the video library. It's all just a downscaled video being sent. The PS3 does all the processing on its end.
Ummm, I hate to break it to you, but your derision of it for running through an emulator is kind of absurd, since there's no real alternative to that when you're moving to such massively different scales in size, and are using an entirely different media. you want the PSP to be CD player sized to accommodate your old discs so they won't be "ripped and converted"? That aside, the PS3's RemotePlay of PS1 games technically runs the original disc, on the original PS1 chip, and just streams it over the network to the PSP... So no ripping, conversion, or even emulation (well, depending on which PS3 you have. Some of them do have to emulate it, but I happen to have one of the models which doesn't). Though coming back to the ripped, converted, or emulated PS1 games, what are you expecting from backward compatibility? The 360 can't play the entire Xbox library either, and the Wii's virtual console is essentially nothing more than a bunch of licensed emulators and ROMs. So... what was your complaint again?
You CAN play PS1 games on the PS3 through the PSP. Additionally, you can in theory play PS3 games through the PSP too, but the issue is that the controls of the PSP are different than the PS3 controller, so you'd be missing 4 keys right off the bat (R2, R3, L2, ad L3), as well as the second analog stick. Most PS1 games are made for the original PS1 controller though, which didn't have any analogue sticks. As such, you can bind the D-Pad to the PSP's analog stick and use the D-Pad as R2 and L2, or keep the D-Pad and bind them to the Analog Stick itself. PS3 developers are, however, capable of making games interact with the PSP via Remote Play, and even playable entirely via RemotePlay. They just haven't taken advantage of it yet.
Yeah! Sony's wasting their time with this stuff when they should instead allow the PSP to play PS1 games!
Oh wait, the PSP has been able to play PS1 games for years now, and can even move saved games between the PS3 and PSP... and if you put a PS1 disc into the PS3, you can use the same Remote Play program to play the PS1 game, or you can just buy it again as a digital download from the Playstation Store...
You'd think someone would look to see if their suggestion had already been taken care of years ago before making it...
Does that mean there are people out there who think that iPhone compatible headphones can download and run apps from the app store?
You, and whoever modded you insightful, need to look up the definition of the word compatible.
I can't help but wonder if people modded you flamebait because of the anger in your post or because they didn't think you were correct.
If the latter, then I'd like to point out to the people modding you that IBM was indeed the provider for the tracking software used at the concentration camps and labor camps of the Third Reich. The numbers tattooed on Jews weren't just decoration, they were tied to a punch card system IBM developed and maintained for the Third Reich. The numbers represented what "crime" you were arrested for (Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual, etc), your point of origin, and the camp you were assigned to. And this wasn't like a modern system where IBM can say they only sold it and didn't know its use. The systems which were used would've required constant on-site maintenance by IBM employees, which means there's no way they couldn't have seen what was being done to the prisoners held there. Additionally, contracts, internal memos, and other paperwork still exists showing that IBM's headquarters in the US was well aware of what was going, and what their equipment was being used for. They simply didn't care.
Sadly, web-designers are forced by their clients and managers to try to stay compatible with IE which in turn makes it good enough for to view the web most people.
Well for one thing, Google's plugin can automatically or programatically switch between embedding using flash and embedding it natively. Additionally, Adobe has discontinued their support for the SVG plugin for IE, since Adobe owns Flash now. This Google plugin also works on ALL browsers using JavaScript, and Flash for rendering. So the user doesn't have to install a separate plugin for SVG, like IE had to, and it brings more support for SMIL, which Firefox can't do natively yet, as well as the HTML5 audio and video elements, which Microsoft currently have no plans to support.
This has the potential to do things like allow you to use the HTML5 video tag indiscriminately, and have it render natively where it's supported, and have it default to Flash where it's not. And finally, if you've ever done a lot of work with SVG, you'd notice that the Adobe plugin often renders scenes in drastically different ways than native implementations. Basically, it was to SVG what IE6 was to the web: a broken implementation. Google's project is still in it's early incarnation and already surpasses the Adobe plugin. Hopefully in the next year or so, it'll match native implementations well enough to allow web developers to use SVG and SMIL, and not have to worry about legacy browser compatibility.
And if you'd watched the one minute video running through it, you'd know most of this:P
Internet Explorer's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping it away from mainstream use on the web.
Since when is IE NOT mainstream? They have over 90% of the market? I get it.. they don't follow the rules and IE sux and everyone should use firefox or opera but to call IE not mainstream is if nothing else a bit odd.
Ok, now try READING the summary instead of skimming it.
They're saying IE's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping SVG from mainstream use.
The only people that need, want or even aware of what background apps are tend to be tech savvy nerds. I don't understand the huge hype about being able to run apps in the background
Multi-tasking is kind of like broadband internet, multiple desktops, and, really, smartphones in general, in that it's often difficult to see the appeal until you've used it and realized how much easier it makes your life. Palm's implementation is especially satisfying and intuitive to use imo, whereas Android's default implementation still feels a bit clunky. If the iPhone ever does get proper multi-tasking I'd be very curious to see how Apple goes about implementing it.
You sort of invalidate yourself, but yet you want to be taken with a degree of seriousness.
I'm speaking seriously, but I admit that my personal observations of the people I know may not be reflective of iPhone users as a whole, but obviously there are some others who share their perspective. It's called being honest;)
I don't understand the huge hype about being able to run apps in the background, only because i treasure my battery life. Even if I wasn't an iPhone user, it's pretty ridiculous to tell me that carrying around spare batteries is a solution.
Ummm, the "solution" is unnecessary. Unless you're running something like multiple processor intensive games at the same time, the battery life is a moot point. It really doesn't take as much of a hit on battery life as Apple says it would. This is a case where the "barrier" to this feature is pretty much a myth, in that "most users" would never notice the difference in battery life;).
The real flaws with the iPhone have... everything to do with everyday foibles that most of us iPhonites have just put up with.
... Such as? If you're going to argue your point, it might help if you actually gave some examples:P
Java is the language of banking and financial systems... that's it really, nobody else uses it.
That's not quite true. First off, most colleges and universities teach Java nowadays in lieu of C++. Second, a friend of mine actually uses Java for work quite often, and he works for a defense contractor, so there are other industries which use it. I do agree though that the interesting case is going to be WebOS, since they're going after an already existing pool of developers, much like Yahoo! Widgets/Konfabulator does.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm a Pre owner and pretty much everyone I know is an iPhone owner. The reason the iPhone's been so successful thus far is that it's really lacked any competition. The G1 was both aesthetically and technically inferior to the iPhone, and Android itself has been taking it's sweet damn time growing into a powerful mobile OS. It's only now, in the latter half of 2009 that we're seeing it grow into something really worthwhile, especially with the coming explosion of new hardware for it.
But I digress. All of my iPhone owning friends have played with my Pre for a bit and have conceded that it is indeed a decent rival, technically speaking, to the iPhone, but the conversation didn't stop there. Pretty much all of them agreed that their current iPhone would be the last one they own. Why? A few reasons. Some feel the hardware's appearance is beginning to look dated, especially compared to the Pre and HTC Hero, others are sick of waiting for a decent multitasking solution for it, which both Android and WebOS already have, some are sick of AT&T's horrible network, and still others are just tired of being forced into using iTunes, which in recent years has become an immensely bloated app in it's own right.
Admittedly, none of these people are Apple fanatics, though some do own Apple computers. Their primary reasons for using an iPhone, as I said, were because until recently, there wasn't much in the way of competition that could even approach the iPhone's usefulness and usability. I'll be the first to admit that my personal friends, family, and acquaintances are likely far removed from the average cross-section of iPhone owners, but they brought up valid points, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the next iteration of the iPhone doesn't sell nearly as well unless Apple begins looking into some pretty big ways of updating the device, something they failed to do with the 3GS imo. It's kind of telling when WebOS, which is still very much in it's infancy, is already being seen as a legitimate threat to the iPhone by CNet and others, even though Apple has had such a huge head start with both their OS and hardware, and that in a similar time span, Android has gone from a crawl to a run, with each new OS update bringing tons of new features, and with handset manufacturers building some amazingly slick interfaces on top of it.
More control for one. Flash is essentially a self contained program running in your browser. HTML5 will allow things like audio volume per tab, or per domain, more interaction between the page itself, the content, and the user.
I actually think this is a better HTML5 example than the article. There you have video transparency, which can be a variable, you can selective audio based on the last thing you clicked, it can be moved, rotated, and resized freely by dragging the corners, etc. You can pause, play, mute, and adjust volume to each one completely independently of the other (though the volume control is blocked by the draggable corners, remember you can right click the video and click Show Controls in firefox). I once even saw a demo where the edges of video were distortable, allowing you to skew it, etc, and it was smoothly done too, better than most compiled applications I've seen. Not to mention effects like reflecting video content below the video in real-time (like it's on a glassy surface).
What'll be really impressive is when SVG is finally fully implemented, because that'll give us an open standard for filters and many other things (you can alter colors in a video on the fly, generate images, gradients, and effects dynamically, etc, as well as animations without any javascript at all.
What it comes down to is changing the notion of what's possible with just a browser... If you think that AJAX webapps are impressive now, just you wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Under the Page Layout Tab, there's a dropdown called "Breaks" in the Page Setup group. I've never used it in Office 2007 yet and it was in the first place I looked. To be perfectly honest, I actually thought it'd take me longer to find it than it did :P
The typical human being can only process approximately 7 menu items at a time, plus or minus 2. The toolbars would be something you skim to find what you're looking for, and we all just memorized the various dropdown menus over the years. The new system simplifies this immensely, and groups them by functional similarity. As well as replacing full menus with quick selection boxes, like the margins selector in Word. Clicking on it displays about 5 common margin defaults, and a "custom" option. This is better design, as the number of people who'll need to use non-standard margins is minuscule. These, and other similar changes, are a part of a much improved design, and does help you make common layout changes faster, organizes it better psychologically, etc. This is especially better for novice users as it prevents information overload.
There are other specifics but I don't feel like going into them at 3:30AM right now. Does that answer your question?
My parents both worked over 60 hour weeks as we were quite poor, so I was pretty much on my own with it :P
I wouldn't be so sure. I remember when I was little my family was pretty poor, and I used to spend all my time reading (the only tv we had was an old black and white tv with dials and bad reception. This was 1995 mind you...)
My dad bought me a really cheap telescope which is really crappy by the standards of the Galileoscope and I still managed to enjoy it. You could see Saturn and Jupiter decently well enough to just barely make out some of their moons, and seeing the amount of detail on Earth's moon was enjoyable too. It really helped get me into science. Yeah, a lot of kids might be bored by it, but I think a lot might enjoy it too.
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong here. Previously used conventions are a major part of UI design, but abandoning old conventions for better ones is both a major and necessary risk at times. By your definition, how intuitive a system is depends entirely on the person using it, and the results of testing would have no objective value. The fact is that old Office menus were complete garbage, and we only liked them because we'd been using them for the better part of almost 2 decades.
I remember my heuristics professor once telling us how she was at CES one year and there was this black device at one of the booths. It just looked like a box, and had no buttons or anything, and she stood there for a while trying to figure out how to turn it on. It never occurred to her to just touch it. When she did, it immediately lit up and exposed interactive elements on it's surface.
Something being intuitive is not what you describe it to be. It is the ability of a system to be learned and adapted to quickly. Prior knowledge of other systems can either help or hinder this scenario, but the baseline is from the perspective of one who's never interacted with this sort of technology before. If you are accustomed to other systems for the same task, but which function differently, this will be an obvious hindrance as your mind subconsciously begins looking for the same conventions, which are notably lacking. The real measure of its worth is how long it takes to relearn how to use the new system.
I was personally hesitant to try it as well, and put it off for about two years, but found it surprisingly comfortable to use when I finally capitulated. Additionally, it's very obvious that the ribbon's real purpose is actually to provide a common interface for legacy, and potential future touch screen displays, with its use of large buttons and more area.
Oh god, wow, where to begin. First of all, you have your dates wrong. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687, so by the time GR surpassed it, it'd only been around for ~230 years or so, not 300 (so you're off by like 23%, which is a significant margin of error :P). I'll call your dates on GR close enough though, since it's only a little over a decade off.
Second, every major breakthrough was NOT "because people were ho hum and looking through some theory where they expected to find a result, and didn't." Most breakthroughs, especially in the earlier years, were due to people observing phenomenon that the current models had no explanation for, and could not account for. Hubble's expanding universe is one such phenomenon, as is GR itself, since Newtonian motion fails to account for different points of observation entirely, and is based on a static observer.
Also, in what way, exactly, is the thermonuclear fusion reaction in the sun an "edge case of newtonian physics", or even blalckbody radiation for that matter? You realize that newtonian physics says pretty much nothing about either of these, right?
No, again, you really, REALLY don't get it. Being proven wrong just rules out a theory, it does not necessarily make new ones, as Rutherford's experiment did. Finding gravity waves would help confirm GR, confirm that out understanding of gravity is solid, at least for now, and give us more data to work with in mathematical models as well as allowing us to make more potential observations. Quite the contrary to what you say actually, being proven wrong doesn't do anything useful, as it only leaves us back at square one. No gravity waves means either GR is incorrect, that we're measuring them in a bad way, again, or, that there's some weird exception that prevents them from forming. If in the case that GR is proven wrong, well, then what? There's no other theory that even comes close to rivaling it's explanations for phenomenon which we have observed, and the explanation for what gravity really is, according to GR, is pretty damned elegant if you actually understand it.
You realize that for physics to be in "confirmation mode" is a good thing right? That means we're on the right track, and that we haven't been "wasting money" at all, quite the contrary, it means we've been using it effectively to learn more about the universe. That is the end goal. Not to "shake up science" or to "make breakthroughs," but to actually learn something.
No, you really, really, don't get it. It's not like someone one day decided there are gravity waves, and conned people into spending millions on tests for them.
Eintein's theory of General Relativity (GR) predicts that gravity waves exist, and GR has already made several other verified predictions. It's a bit like a boat in the water. What we've verified with GR already is that the boat displaces water, this is the distortion that objects with mass cause to occur on spacetime. Gravity waves would be the wake the boat leaves behind as it moves through the water.
This is expected to be most evident in binary star systems, as the stars rotating around one another have a relatively high angular momentum, as well as the large masses required to make gravity waves easier to detect.
Now, your analogy to Santa Claus is pretty bad, what with Santa being based on myth and all, but if we ignore that for a second and ran with it, it'd be saying something like this:
We can see a flying sled, pulled by reindeer in the sky between December 24th and 25th. Also, any house this sled visits finds mysteriously delivered presents under their Christmas tree, which no one in the house placed there. We haven't seen anyone in the sled, but we believe that the sled is related to the presents appearing on that particular night. So now we're looking for the little man in the sled (maybe it's an elf, maybe it's Santa, maybe it's Jack Skellington for all we know) that we believe is dropping off the presents. For the last experiment, we looked for things at eye level, but saw no one. Therefore, if there is someone coming into the house from the sled, they must be shorter than 6', thereby ruling out Jack Skellington. We have now developed a new tests that will look two foot above, and two foot below our eye level.
Science isn't just about observing events and figuring out the cause. It's also about attempting to make predictions based on existing knowledge, and verifying those predictions with experiments.
PS - Wow, that analogy was painful to continue running with <.<
I meant I don't know how it handles turn by turn alerts. No matter what, even if on a phone call, I could always switch to viewing the GPS app during the call. It's just a matter of whether it'd continue announcing the directions...
Depends on your phone. My Palm Pre just has a notifications area that you can click to in order to see an event. Whatever app is running takes precedence. I can even listen to music on it with the GPS running, and it lowers the music volume to like 10% to announce the directions and street names. My old dedicated GPS didn't even do street names. Plus, with the card view, the GPS just keeps running in the background, even if you do switch to something else, so you don't have to restart it or anything. I haven't used it enough to know how it handles call when you pick up though, as I usually try not to take calls while driving :/
I'm referring to the Sprint Navigation App fyi, since it has turn-by-turn directions, unlike Google Maps.
They probably uploaded the wrong build image to their repository. WebOS Doctor, the app which caused the leak, is meant to basically reflash the OS onto the phone. It's not inconceivable that some intern or something copied over the wrong files to the repo. It's not like it's been like this since launch, this likely happened in the most recent update of the repo.
You can play the entire PS3 game Lair via RemotePlay on the PSP. Or you could, if it had more buttons. It works, you just can't do certain necessary actions due to this limitation.
All RemotePlay is is essentially a streaming video that sends your controller movements back to the PS3. Running a PS3 game would be no different than running a PS1 game, or playing a video from the video library. It's all just a downscaled video being sent. The PS3 does all the processing on its end.
Ummm, I hate to break it to you, but your derision of it for running through an emulator is kind of absurd, since there's no real alternative to that when you're moving to such massively different scales in size, and are using an entirely different media. you want the PSP to be CD player sized to accommodate your old discs so they won't be "ripped and converted"? That aside, the PS3's RemotePlay of PS1 games technically runs the original disc, on the original PS1 chip, and just streams it over the network to the PSP... So no ripping, conversion, or even emulation (well, depending on which PS3 you have. Some of them do have to emulate it, but I happen to have one of the models which doesn't). Though coming back to the ripped, converted, or emulated PS1 games, what are you expecting from backward compatibility? The 360 can't play the entire Xbox library either, and the Wii's virtual console is essentially nothing more than a bunch of licensed emulators and ROMs. So... what was your complaint again?
You CAN play PS1 games on the PS3 through the PSP. Additionally, you can in theory play PS3 games through the PSP too, but the issue is that the controls of the PSP are different than the PS3 controller, so you'd be missing 4 keys right off the bat (R2, R3, L2, ad L3), as well as the second analog stick. Most PS1 games are made for the original PS1 controller though, which didn't have any analogue sticks. As such, you can bind the D-Pad to the PSP's analog stick and use the D-Pad as R2 and L2, or keep the D-Pad and bind them to the Analog Stick itself. PS3 developers are, however, capable of making games interact with the PSP via Remote Play, and even playable entirely via RemotePlay. They just haven't taken advantage of it yet.
Yeah! Sony's wasting their time with this stuff when they should instead allow the PSP to play PS1 games!
Oh wait, the PSP has been able to play PS1 games for years now, and can even move saved games between the PS3 and PSP... and if you put a PS1 disc into the PS3, you can use the same Remote Play program to play the PS1 game, or you can just buy it again as a digital download from the Playstation Store...
You'd think someone would look to see if their suggestion had already been taken care of years ago before making it...
Does that mean there are people out there who think that iPhone compatible headphones can download and run apps from the app store?
You, and whoever modded you insightful, need to look up the definition of the word compatible.
I can't help but wonder if people modded you flamebait because of the anger in your post or because they didn't think you were correct.
If the latter, then I'd like to point out to the people modding you that IBM was indeed the provider for the tracking software used at the concentration camps and labor camps of the Third Reich. The numbers tattooed on Jews weren't just decoration, they were tied to a punch card system IBM developed and maintained for the Third Reich. The numbers represented what "crime" you were arrested for (Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual, etc), your point of origin, and the camp you were assigned to. And this wasn't like a modern system where IBM can say they only sold it and didn't know its use. The systems which were used would've required constant on-site maintenance by IBM employees, which means there's no way they couldn't have seen what was being done to the prisoners held there. Additionally, contracts, internal memos, and other paperwork still exists showing that IBM's headquarters in the US was well aware of what was going, and what their equipment was being used for. They simply didn't care.
Fixed that for you...
Well for one thing, Google's plugin can automatically or programatically switch between embedding using flash and embedding it natively. Additionally, Adobe has discontinued their support for the SVG plugin for IE, since Adobe owns Flash now. This Google plugin also works on ALL browsers using JavaScript, and Flash for rendering. So the user doesn't have to install a separate plugin for SVG, like IE had to, and it brings more support for SMIL, which Firefox can't do natively yet, as well as the HTML5 audio and video elements, which Microsoft currently have no plans to support.
:P
This has the potential to do things like allow you to use the HTML5 video tag indiscriminately, and have it render natively where it's supported, and have it default to Flash where it's not. And finally, if you've ever done a lot of work with SVG, you'd notice that the Adobe plugin often renders scenes in drastically different ways than native implementations. Basically, it was to SVG what IE6 was to the web: a broken implementation. Google's project is still in it's early incarnation and already surpasses the Adobe plugin. Hopefully in the next year or so, it'll match native implementations well enough to allow web developers to use SVG and SMIL, and not have to worry about legacy browser compatibility.
And if you'd watched the one minute video running through it, you'd know most of this
Ok, now try READING the summary instead of skimming it.
They're saying IE's lack of built-in support for SVG was keeping SVG from mainstream use.
WinMo botches a lot of other things too. Just because they screw something up doesn't mean their competitors do too.
Multi-tasking is kind of like broadband internet, multiple desktops, and, really, smartphones in general, in that it's often difficult to see the appeal until you've used it and realized how much easier it makes your life. Palm's implementation is especially satisfying and intuitive to use imo, whereas Android's default implementation still feels a bit clunky. If the iPhone ever does get proper multi-tasking I'd be very curious to see how Apple goes about implementing it.
I'm speaking seriously, but I admit that my personal observations of the people I know may not be reflective of iPhone users as a whole, but obviously there are some others who share their perspective. It's called being honest ;)
Ummm, the "solution" is unnecessary. Unless you're running something like multiple processor intensive games at the same time, the battery life is a moot point. It really doesn't take as much of a hit on battery life as Apple says it would. This is a case where the "barrier" to this feature is pretty much a myth, in that "most users" would never notice the difference in battery life ;).
That's not quite true. First off, most colleges and universities teach Java nowadays in lieu of C++. Second, a friend of mine actually uses Java for work quite often, and he works for a defense contractor, so there are other industries which use it. I do agree though that the interesting case is going to be WebOS, since they're going after an already existing pool of developers, much like Yahoo! Widgets/Konfabulator does.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm a Pre owner and pretty much everyone I know is an iPhone owner. The reason the iPhone's been so successful thus far is that it's really lacked any competition. The G1 was both aesthetically and technically inferior to the iPhone, and Android itself has been taking it's sweet damn time growing into a powerful mobile OS. It's only now, in the latter half of 2009 that we're seeing it grow into something really worthwhile, especially with the coming explosion of new hardware for it.
But I digress. All of my iPhone owning friends have played with my Pre for a bit and have conceded that it is indeed a decent rival, technically speaking, to the iPhone, but the conversation didn't stop there. Pretty much all of them agreed that their current iPhone would be the last one they own. Why? A few reasons. Some feel the hardware's appearance is beginning to look dated, especially compared to the Pre and HTC Hero, others are sick of waiting for a decent multitasking solution for it, which both Android and WebOS already have, some are sick of AT&T's horrible network, and still others are just tired of being forced into using iTunes, which in recent years has become an immensely bloated app in it's own right.
Admittedly, none of these people are Apple fanatics, though some do own Apple computers. Their primary reasons for using an iPhone, as I said, were because until recently, there wasn't much in the way of competition that could even approach the iPhone's usefulness and usability. I'll be the first to admit that my personal friends, family, and acquaintances are likely far removed from the average cross-section of iPhone owners, but they brought up valid points, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the next iteration of the iPhone doesn't sell nearly as well unless Apple begins looking into some pretty big ways of updating the device, something they failed to do with the 3GS imo. It's kind of telling when WebOS, which is still very much in it's infancy, is already being seen as a legitimate threat to the iPhone by CNet and others, even though Apple has had such a huge head start with both their OS and hardware, and that in a similar time span, Android has gone from a crawl to a run, with each new OS update bringing tons of new features, and with handset manufacturers building some amazingly slick interfaces on top of it.
More control for one. Flash is essentially a self contained program running in your browser. HTML5 will allow things like audio volume per tab, or per domain, more interaction between the page itself, the content, and the user.
Here's a fantastic example of the sorts of things this'll make possible, which simply can't be done with flash:
http://www.double.co.nz/video_test/video.svg
I actually think this is a better HTML5 example than the article. There you have video transparency, which can be a variable, you can selective audio based on the last thing you clicked, it can be moved, rotated, and resized freely by dragging the corners, etc. You can pause, play, mute, and adjust volume to each one completely independently of the other (though the volume control is blocked by the draggable corners, remember you can right click the video and click Show Controls in firefox). I once even saw a demo where the edges of video were distortable, allowing you to skew it, etc, and it was smoothly done too, better than most compiled applications I've seen. Not to mention effects like reflecting video content below the video in real-time (like it's on a glassy surface).
What'll be really impressive is when SVG is finally fully implemented, because that'll give us an open standard for filters and many other things (you can alter colors in a video on the fly, generate images, gradients, and effects dynamically, etc, as well as animations without any javascript at all.
What it comes down to is changing the notion of what's possible with just a browser... If you think that AJAX webapps are impressive now, just you wait...