And why, pray tell, did you include Guevarra in your little list? (Hint: Read your own link)
I'm not sure whether you could call him a psychopath in medical terms, but he was certainly violent with questionable morals. For example, he was a self-confessed Stalinist, and spent a time in charge of a prison and oversaw the execution of over 150 Batista regime officials.
A quote from the Wikipedia article: "He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his.32(7.65mm) caliber pistol."
I understand what you're saying about voltage, but a cmaller chip requires less current. Unless you increase the voltage, the power required decreases... Ohm's law.
...it makes it harder for said something to dissipate the heat,...
Smaller versions of the same design require less power to make them work, so less heat has to be dissipated. There's no net effect. Increased heat dissipation requirements come from higher power consumption.
How that will be effected by a change from current chip designs to these nano-tubes I don't know, but it's sure to take a long time for manufacturers to get a handle on the technology even once the basic science is sorted out.
Because after a while distributuin will degrade on tape.
Industry bodies are also making a bigger fuss about mp3s than analogue copies because people are able to distribute them near-anonymously on a massive scale.
Bully gets a huge slightly defective laptop, rebuilt by the same company, that's ever-so-slightly homocidal.
Original kid goes about business with rebuilt laptop, but better than before.
Kid gets too close to the truth about the company that rebuilt the laptops.
Company finds out the kid has been sniffing around and sets its henchmen, along with the Bully and his laptop on the kid again.
Kid and slightly re-broken laptop triumph against all odds and defeat the company that made them who they were, in order to come to terms with their identity.
My physics isn't what it used to be either, but what I understood from the article makes me think that you'd have to send particles into the Black Hole before you were able to do this "negative information" operation. So if it did have an effect, you would've had to increase the size before you decreased it.
You're right to point out that military motives have in the past driven a lot of significant technological development. However that's not a valid justification for starting a politically explosive policy of space militarisation.
Yes, space has value. It's the ultimate "high ground". That doesn't mean it's a good idea for every country with the capability to throw as many weapons up there as possible... or were you thinking that only the USA would have weapons in space?
While the raw maths is pretty simple by itself, when you factor in stereo image processing to see a ball, work out it's speed and trajectory, and move potentially hundreds of muscles into the correct position to catch the ball, you realise just how powerful the human brain is and how well it can adapt.
While I'm not knocking the brain, I'd be surprised if it used the same mathematical equations we'd use if we were calculating trajectories by hand or computer.
The trial-and-error learning process and the practice required to maintain hand-eye co-ordination make me think the brain is more likely to be using memory rather than calculus.
Just think, if you can find a straight line near our solar system that passes through two black holes, with a bit of work you might be able to create the biggest telescope ever... assuming the lens geometry works. Okay, okay, there's loads of impracticalities and the issue of lens geometry, but it's a nice idea.
I'm no expert on this-- can anyone offer ways it could or couldn't work?
The human eye works in a similar way. The first layer of optic nerve after the retina recognise dots. The next layers recognise contrast and patterns in the previous layers, i.e. lines, edge recognition, etc. By the time it gets to the brain it's already broken down into basic shapes, at which point there are nerves that have been taught to look for certain combinations of shape and colour are triggered, causing the sensation of recognition.
I assumed some pattern recognition would already work like this. Could be wrong though.
One button is one half of the mouse, the other is the other half. The scroll "wheel" is, for all intents and purposes, the dividing line. You can click the scroll wheel, and you can squeeze the mouse for a fourth button. You don't have to know exactly where the buttons are, since all but the scroll wheel have such a large "click area."
But how would you know? You either have to read the instructions (how many computer users read the instructions?) or you have to use experience (missing the entire point of accessiblity) or you have to use trial and error, which as anyone who's used a computer knows can end up with deleted files, mistakenly sent emails, etc. etc.
Again, my point is not that this mouse is no good. It has a bunch of good features that I would use. However, as someone who 'does' usability for a living, this product is something I would never allow out of my department.
Seriously, all it takes is some lines on the mouse, or some lights under the surface, or something to fix the button location issue. For other issues, see other posts in this tree.
1) It's configurable per user. Not a new concept but done well.
Per-user settings are a super-user feature. This isn't what I'm talking about. My entire point has been about people who aren't super-users. We both admit that per-user configuration is useful, and we both admit that this functionality existed before, so this is a non-issue.
2) It doesn't confuse one button use with two visible buttons-- one button use is the same as it always has, and so is two button use. In no other way would this be possible without electrostatic technology. Brilliant.
Agreed, two equally prioritised buttons might confuse the issue unnecessarily. However, good two button mice these days don't lend equal priority to the buttons. This mouse doesn't show you where any of the buttons are, how many there are, how big they are, doesn't give hard feedback when you press them, and (I'm guessing) don't require a significant minimum force (allowing you more accidental clicks). Everything would be fine if it wasn't for the electrostatic technology that's been included purely for aesthetic reasons.
3) A 360 degree scrollwheel. Finally taking a trackball and making it useful for scrolling while keeping the precision most people enjoy about a mouse.
Nice feature. If it works as well as a regular scroll wheel I think all mice should adopt it. I'd have to use it to be sure though. Regular scroll wheels have tactile feedback that tell you exactly how far you're about to scroll before the microswitch kicks in, and auditory feedback once it does. Does this one?
4) The 4th button requires a press on both sides of the mouse to ensure good ergonomics.
This takes prior knowledge (as opposed to pressing a single button which is hardwired into anyone over the age of three) and also requires a minimum level of co-ordination. Good UI design should take the minimum amount of prior knowledge, and this mouse fulfils that requirement poorly.
5) Wintel folks finally escaping Windows for OS X will have a familiar 2 button design done the Apple way.
I'm discussing this rationally in terms of the usability of each feature, and the interface as a whole. If you're going to talk about "escaping Windows" you can't expect anyone except a Mac fanatic to take you seriously.
I'm not saying this mouse is rubbish. I'm saying it's not very accessible.
so what, it takes 5 seconds to realise that and then you know it for the next 50 years. anyone who is too stupid to work out an Apple mouse is too stupid for computers.
Once you've done that you have to figure out how to manipulate on-screen elements using a single mouse button. This can be done in the following ways.
Holding down keys while you click. This is no longer a single, simple click, but requires two hands and prior knowledge.
Holding the button for different lengths of time. This requires motor co-ordination that not everyone has. It also requires prior knowledge.
Double, or triple clicking. Same as above.
I've yet to see a mouse interface that didn't have flaws, but the two-button "right-click for context menu" is actually a very good solution. It allows you to manipulate objects in any number of ways armed only with one piece of knowledge and a single finger.
There's a huge variety of people out there who want to use computers for a huge variety of reasons. They should have the freedom to do that.
Apple's single button mouse is the easiest mouse on the market. this is in addition to that one, NOT a complete replacement, so why is it a problem for them that you don't like this particular one?
You state that Apple's single-button mouse is the easiest to use on the market. I'd actually debate that point, since the 'button' doesn't look like a button. I've watched plenty of people try to press the little grips at the sides before figuring out that the entire top surface of the mouse is clickable. Do you have any research to back up your assertion, or is it just your opinion?
My opinion is that Apple give greater weight to their graphic designers than to their UI designers. It's a perfectly viable way of doing things. They're used all the time by people who like aesthetics and 'cool', for example Hollywood prop departments.
I'm just saying that if they want to increase their share of the home and business markets they need to broaden their appeal, even if it means trading a bit of visual impact for a bit of accessibility.
The only problem is... I don't. I RTFA, but I still lack the background on how this all works, between ministers, and parliaments, and councils, what a "directive" is, and who listens to who. Could one of our EU slashdotters enlighten?
Well, Ministers sit on the Councils, and the Councils take it in turns to decide who makes the tea. The tea leaves are then read by a team of experts (The EU Commission) who turn them into official Directives/prophecies.
is it really so hard to NOT buy it and/or NOT associate with people-who-don't-understand-computers-but-need-to- use computers-right-now-and-don't-have-their-own-compu ter-and-don't-know-how-to-ask-how-to-use-the-mouse -and-don't-know-how-to-use-the-keyboard-instead?
It's very easy for me not to buy this product. The issue is really one for Apple. If they ever want to break out of the "computers for designers" stereotype then they're going to have to take usability for the masses (including the less computer-literate) seriously. They've made a bunch of good innovations in this field, but this mouse is not one of them.
then once you've located the buttons I supposed some sort of note is needed to remember, either a post-it stuck to your monitor or just a mental note if you're feeling particularly non-retarded.
Sure, if you buy the mouse you can read the bumf on the packaging, figure it out, then your done. That's not the be-all and end-all of situations though.
What happens when you use someone else's machine at work, or your gran tries to use your iBook, or the cute girl you pulled last night tries to read her email the morning after, or (like my mother) you're trying to teach kids with learning difficulties how to use IT equipment. The situations where something like this could be an unnecessary pain the butt are endless.
Slashdot Mirror
And why, pray tell, did you include Guevarra in your little list? (Hint: Read your own link)
I'm not sure whether you could call him a psychopath in medical terms, but he was certainly violent with questionable morals. For example, he was a self-confessed Stalinist, and spent a time in charge of a prison and oversaw the execution of over 150 Batista regime officials.
A quote from the Wikipedia article: "He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32(7.65mm) caliber pistol."
I have yet to master the art of 10x zoom by changing the shape of my eye ..
You need two lenses
It makes the design work "less well".
I understand what you're saying about voltage, but a cmaller chip requires less current. Unless you increase the voltage, the power required decreases... Ohm's law.
Smaller versions of the same design require less power to make them work, so less heat has to be dissipated. There's no net effect. Increased heat dissipation requirements come from higher power consumption.
How that will be effected by a change from current chip designs to these nano-tubes I don't know, but it's sure to take a long time for manufacturers to get a handle on the technology even once the basic science is sorted out.
Why is this not modded funny?
Blackdog I mean, tell us its great but show us some piccies
Here's a picture of blackdog. Couldn't find a better one.
If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.
Absolutely right.
It's not as if the site in question needs pixel-perfect layout or complicated Javascript (if any).
With a what?!!??
Still, I would think that this book might appear "imcomplete" to PHBs and the likes.
I always laugh when I read the acronym "PHB" used like this. To me it always meant "Psycho Hose Beast", a.k.a. bunny boiler.
Because after a while distributuin will degrade on tape.
Industry bodies are also making a bigger fuss about mp3s than analogue copies because people are able to distribute them near-anonymously on a massive scale.
Isn't this just US Amazon getting behind the times?
A 10-metre DVI cable and a USB repeater cable are much cheaper than one of these cases
You're missing the hidden cost there. A quiet PC case is much cheaper than buying another room.
My physics isn't what it used to be either, but what I understood from the article makes me think that you'd have to send particles into the Black Hole before you were able to do this "negative information" operation. So if it did have an effect, you would've had to increase the size before you decreased it.
You're right to point out that military motives have in the past driven a lot of significant technological development. However that's not a valid justification for starting a politically explosive policy of space militarisation.
Yes, space has value. It's the ultimate "high ground". That doesn't mean it's a good idea for every country with the capability to throw as many weapons up there as possible... or were you thinking that only the USA would have weapons in space?
While the raw maths is pretty simple by itself, when you factor in stereo image processing to see a ball, work out it's speed and trajectory, and move potentially hundreds of muscles into the correct position to catch the ball, you realise just how powerful the human brain is and how well it can adapt.
While I'm not knocking the brain, I'd be surprised if it used the same mathematical equations we'd use if we were calculating trajectories by hand or computer.
The trial-and-error learning process and the practice required to maintain hand-eye co-ordination make me think the brain is more likely to be using memory rather than calculus.
Just think, if you can find a straight line near our solar system that passes through two black holes, with a bit of work you might be able to create the biggest telescope ever... assuming the lens geometry works. Okay, okay, there's loads of impracticalities and the issue of lens geometry, but it's a nice idea.
I'm no expert on this-- can anyone offer ways it could or couldn't work?
The human eye works in a similar way. The first layer of optic nerve after the retina recognise dots. The next layers recognise contrast and patterns in the previous layers, i.e. lines, edge recognition, etc. By the time it gets to the brain it's already broken down into basic shapes, at which point there are nerves that have been taught to look for certain combinations of shape and colour are triggered, causing the sensation of recognition.
I assumed some pattern recognition would already work like this. Could be wrong though.
One button is one half of the mouse, the other is the other half. The scroll "wheel" is, for all intents and purposes, the dividing line. You can click the scroll wheel, and you can squeeze the mouse for a fourth button. You don't have to know exactly where the buttons are, since all but the scroll wheel have such a large "click area."
But how would you know? You either have to read the instructions (how many computer users read the instructions?) or you have to use experience (missing the entire point of accessiblity) or you have to use trial and error, which as anyone who's used a computer knows can end up with deleted files, mistakenly sent emails, etc. etc.
Again, my point is not that this mouse is no good. It has a bunch of good features that I would use. However, as someone who 'does' usability for a living, this product is something I would never allow out of my department.
Seriously, all it takes is some lines on the mouse, or some lights under the surface, or something to fix the button location issue. For other issues, see other posts in this tree.
1) It's configurable per user. Not a new concept but done well.
Per-user settings are a super-user feature. This isn't what I'm talking about. My entire point has been about people who aren't super-users. We both admit that per-user configuration is useful, and we both admit that this functionality existed before, so this is a non-issue.
2) It doesn't confuse one button use with two visible buttons-- one button use is the same as it always has, and so is two button use. In no other way would this be possible without electrostatic technology. Brilliant.
Agreed, two equally prioritised buttons might confuse the issue unnecessarily. However, good two button mice these days don't lend equal priority to the buttons. This mouse doesn't show you where any of the buttons are, how many there are, how big they are, doesn't give hard feedback when you press them, and (I'm guessing) don't require a significant minimum force (allowing you more accidental clicks). Everything would be fine if it wasn't for the electrostatic technology that's been included purely for aesthetic reasons.
3) A 360 degree scrollwheel. Finally taking a trackball and making it useful for scrolling while keeping the precision most people enjoy about a mouse.
Nice feature. If it works as well as a regular scroll wheel I think all mice should adopt it. I'd have to use it to be sure though. Regular scroll wheels have tactile feedback that tell you exactly how far you're about to scroll before the microswitch kicks in, and auditory feedback once it does. Does this one?
4) The 4th button requires a press on both sides of the mouse to ensure good ergonomics.
This takes prior knowledge (as opposed to pressing a single button which is hardwired into anyone over the age of three) and also requires a minimum level of co-ordination. Good UI design should take the minimum amount of prior knowledge, and this mouse fulfils that requirement poorly.
5) Wintel folks finally escaping Windows for OS X will have a familiar 2 button design done the Apple way.
I'm discussing this rationally in terms of the usability of each feature, and the interface as a whole. If you're going to talk about "escaping Windows" you can't expect anyone except a Mac fanatic to take you seriously.
I'm not saying this mouse is rubbish. I'm saying it's not very accessible.
so what, it takes 5 seconds to realise that and then you know it for the next 50 years. anyone who is too stupid to work out an Apple mouse is too stupid for computers.
Once you've done that you have to figure out how to manipulate on-screen elements using a single mouse button. This can be done in the following ways.
I've yet to see a mouse interface that didn't have flaws, but the two-button "right-click for context menu" is actually a very good solution. It allows you to manipulate objects in any number of ways armed only with one piece of knowledge and a single finger.
There's a huge variety of people out there who want to use computers for a huge variety of reasons. They should have the freedom to do that.
Apple's single button mouse is the easiest mouse on the market. this is in addition to that one, NOT a complete replacement, so why is it a problem for them that you don't like this particular one?
You state that Apple's single-button mouse is the easiest to use on the market. I'd actually debate that point, since the 'button' doesn't look like a button. I've watched plenty of people try to press the little grips at the sides before figuring out that the entire top surface of the mouse is clickable. Do you have any research to back up your assertion, or is it just your opinion?
My opinion is that Apple give greater weight to their graphic designers than to their UI designers. It's a perfectly viable way of doing things. They're used all the time by people who like aesthetics and 'cool', for example Hollywood prop departments.
I'm just saying that if they want to increase their share of the home and business markets they need to broaden their appeal, even if it means trading a bit of visual impact for a bit of accessibility.
The only problem is... I don't. I RTFA, but I still lack the background on how this all works, between ministers, and parliaments, and councils, what a "directive" is, and who listens to who. Could one of our EU slashdotters enlighten?
Well, Ministers sit on the Councils, and the Councils take it in turns to decide who makes the tea. The tea leaves are then read by a team of experts (The EU Commission) who turn them into official Directives/prophecies.
is it really so hard to NOT buy it and/or NOT associate with people-who-don't-understand-computers-but-need-to- use computers-right-now-and-don't-have-their-own-compu ter-and-don't-know-how-to-ask-how-to-use-the-mouse -and-don't-know-how-to-use-the-keyboard-instead?
It's very easy for me not to buy this product. The issue is really one for Apple. If they ever want to break out of the "computers for designers" stereotype then they're going to have to take usability for the masses (including the less computer-literate) seriously. They've made a bunch of good innovations in this field, but this mouse is not one of them.
then once you've located the buttons I supposed some sort of note is needed to remember, either a post-it stuck to your monitor or just a mental note if you're feeling particularly non-retarded.
Sure, if you buy the mouse you can read the bumf on the packaging, figure it out, then your done. That's not the be-all and end-all of situations though.
What happens when you use someone else's machine at work, or your gran tries to use your iBook, or the cute girl you pulled last night tries to read her email the morning after, or (like my mother) you're trying to teach kids with learning difficulties how to use IT equipment. The situations where something like this could be an unnecessary pain the butt are endless.
All it takes is a little thought.