I didn't think it was a joke either. Google's goal isn't really to take down Yahoo! (although Yahoo! is definitely caught squarely in their sites). No, their real target is MS.
You must be joking, right? Ever heard of something called Calculus? I can't imagine that these Megacorp Music Co.'s aren't employing statisticians, financiers, and mathematicians to calculate quite precisely just where their sweet spot is for maximized profits.
Volume sales can replace the money lost from reducing prices.
Only to a certain extent. Remember those math word problems (story problems?): "You are selling apples. If you raise your price you sell fewer apples. If you lower your price you sell more. Calculate the best price to volume ratio to maximize your profit." I remember doing these all the freakin' time in junior high and high school.
You're assuming that there is nothing wrong with the model. I argue that there are problems inherent in any model which necessarily trickle down into what you build.
Software engineering will not come of age until a single software construction model is universally adopted
I'm not following your logic here. Again, you're assuming that one model can solve all software engineering problems. What if new, unforeseen problems arise? What then? Do you update the existing model? You will inevitably get two camps then: the purists who insist that there's nothing wrong with the old model, and the progressives who insist on change (not to mention rogue groups of engineers that don't believe in either method).
Remember the old addage: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." The world is full of things that aren't nails.
My proof is incomplete, but my theory is (hopefully) clear.
Is it just me, or does that media recognition window look eerily like the one in Windows XP? The longer I use KDE, the more it feels like Windows. I don't want it to feel like Windows. It seems to me that the Linux community doesn't have a creative bone in its collective body when it comes to GUI design. Can't we do better than just emulating Windows or Mac OS X?
Mac OS X in no way prevents you from using a multi-button mouse. If you're still not convinced, go to Logitech and check out their Logitech Control Center for OS 8, 9, or X.
You're missing the point. With the Optimus, it doesn't matter if you have 104, 105, or 1 million keys. Every single key can be independently mapped and the character that is displayed on each one of these keys can be changed to reflect that mapping. It doesn't matter if there are 4 keys to the right of the T key or 40 because the T key doesn't have to be tied to any one spot on the keyboard. You could have 105 T keys for cryin' out loud! You can make it so that the enter key is mapped to the 5th key in the 14th row on every 3rd Saturday in every other leap year because the whole freakin' thing is controlled by software. What I'm saying is that a QWERTY designation is irrelevent.
the german 105 key keyboard has 11 keys in the lowest row (above the spacebar), this optimus board has 12 keys there
Yes, but QWERTY refers to a letter pattern on the keys in which the Q, W, E, R, T, and Y keys are in sequence in the upper-left-hand corner of the keyboard. So, any non-English or non-standard layout keyboard cannot technically be called a QWERTY keyboard. The Optimus, being logical-layout independent can be a QWERTY keyboard but is not necessarily so.
So it's not physical-layout independent, but it is logical-layout independent.
Uh...not only is it non-QWERTY, it's layout independent.
I guess I don't understand your logic. The uses for this keyboard are practically endless. Think about the academic applications. For instance, my dad is currently working on his doctorate in Septuagint studies. He could click a button and instantly switch his keyboard over to Koine Greek and back to English instead of having to remember what English letters are mapped to which Greek letters.
Let's say you use Photoshop. You could eliminate all of the letter keys and map all your keys to Photoshop functions. It basically eliminates the need for "specialty" keyboards. Plus it has the "neato" factor with animated hotkeys.
Its different sized buttons threw me off, the shoulder buttons depressed too far, and the d-pad is awkward to use for any extended period of time.
That's because you're used to the counter-intuitive Dual Shock controller.
The difference in the button sizes is very logical: the A button is larger because it's the most used. They are also different sizes so that you can instantly tell via tactile feedback which button you're pressing. The shoulder buttons can be depressed that far because they're analog meaning they have various levels of sensitivity. This is in stark contrast to the Dual Shock's "we need x number of buttons. Where the hell are we gonna put 'em" layout scheme. And who in their right mind uses shapes as a naming convention?
All told, the Gamecube controller design is very logical and intuitive. I can't say the same for the Dual Shock.
Touche. However, you appear to be assuming I'm younger than I actually am. The first game system I owned was a NES, but I've played on quite a few of the other old-school systems: Colecovision, TurboGFX16, Sega Master System, and the original Atari.
There's a reason stuff like those "Retrocon" and Hori 2D GameCube controllers are still popular, you know...
Yeah, for the same reason you can now find 3 1/4" G.I. Joes, He-Man, Transformer, My Little Pony, and Strawberry Shortcake toys onb store shelves: it's called "nostalgia".
i think this guy is just some over-caffeinated sony-fan-boy.
I couldn't agree more. The Dual Shock is perhaps the most uncomfortable controller I have ever used. By far, the most comfortable, intuitive controller is the Gamecube's. Second is the Xbox S controller. If you'll notice the sidebar on the Dual Shock, you'll see that they contradict themselves on their rating of said Sony controller. Go figure...
While I will say that your opinions are interesting, they are rather heartless. How do you figure that the government is entitled to the wealth a person has worked an entire lifetime to get moreso than that person's family?
I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that my family is the sole recipient of my wealth when I die. I have three kids that will inherit whatever I leave behind.
I believe that the death tax should be completely abolished. The government has no right to my money. My own bloodline does.
If I were in Tolkien's shoes, I would much rather see my family get the money than some hollywood executive that didn't think the movies would pan out in the first place.
Also, I believe you have a too-narrow definition of production. Production, according to your definition, is measured by a tangible thing (in this case a movie). However, there are thousands of companies world-wide that measure their production purely in currency (it could be argued that this is the goal of all companies and that the trinkets and gadgets are merely the means to an end). Investment firms don't actually ship products. They are in the business of producing money. Just like GM buys gears and plastics to make their automobiles so investment firms buy shares of companies to make their money. So, a Wall Street investor is to Merril Lynch what Joe Assemblyline is to GM.
Birthrites are very powerful social mechanisms, and I don't agree that they should be done away with.
Or, if you followed the development of the atomic bomb, give someone $2 billion and a dedicated team of brilliant theoreticians and physicists/chemists. Forget that whole 100 years bit.
Of course, the discoveries in physics that led up to the invention of the atomic bomb go back at least a good 100 years prior to its completion. But let's not split atoms...
Based on what information? Here's a common scenario (based on news coverage):
U.S. Army discovers roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army decides that roving bands of insurgents is not a good thing. U.S. Army decides to destroy roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army sends 1,000 soldiers with M-16s, 5 M-1 Bradleys, and 3 Apache attack helicopters to engage the roving band of insurgents. They meet somewhere out in the desert.
Results:
Insurgents killed: 50 - 100 out of about 300.
American Soldiers killed: none, but one guy sprained his ankle and another one got a migraine
By far, the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq are because of IEDs. The insurgents know by now that they flat out cannot win a face-to-face firefight.
In conclusion, how do you figure it's better to be on the Ts?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think it was a joke either. Google's goal isn't really to take down Yahoo! (although Yahoo! is definitely caught squarely in their sites). No, their real target is MS.
You think you're joking...
You must be joking, right? Ever heard of something called Calculus? I can't imagine that these Megacorp Music Co.'s aren't employing statisticians, financiers, and mathematicians to calculate quite precisely just where their sweet spot is for maximized profits.
Volume sales can replace the money lost from reducing prices.
Only to a certain extent. Remember those math word problems (story problems?): "You are selling apples. If you raise your price you sell fewer apples. If you lower your price you sell more. Calculate the best price to volume ratio to maximize your profit." I remember doing these all the freakin' time in junior high and high school.
What about Magnetbox?
the browser isn't a rumor...
You're assuming that there is nothing wrong with the model. I argue that there are problems inherent in any model which necessarily trickle down into what you build.
Software engineering will not come of age until a single software construction model is universally adopted
I'm not following your logic here. Again, you're assuming that one model can solve all software engineering problems. What if new, unforeseen problems arise? What then? Do you update the existing model? You will inevitably get two camps then: the purists who insist that there's nothing wrong with the old model, and the progressives who insist on change (not to mention rogue groups of engineers that don't believe in either method).
Remember the old addage: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." The world is full of things that aren't nails.
My proof is incomplete, but my theory is (hopefully) clear.
I guess I can laugh at my brother for buying a $300 DDR dance mat that won't work with a PS3
Did he buy the mat specifically for the PS3 or did he buy it for the PS2? Goodness. I just don't follow your logic.
Uhhhh...maybe it's because it's a test site (i.e. most likely not residing on a production server) and it got hit simultaneously by 50,000 /.'ers.
No wonder they call it the "Mighty Mouse", it's Force-sensitive (look at the picture of it. The side "buttons" are labeled "Force-sensing").
Thank you! I'm not the only one then that thought, "WTF are those? GAH!!!!" THose really are creepy hands.
The real highlight is storage media reconizing.
Is it just me, or does that media recognition window look eerily like the one in Windows XP? The longer I use KDE, the more it feels like Windows. I don't want it to feel like Windows. It seems to me that the Linux community doesn't have a creative bone in its collective body when it comes to GUI design. Can't we do better than just emulating Windows or Mac OS X?
What about Apple?
Mac OS X in no way prevents you from using a multi-button mouse . If you're still not convinced, go to Logitech and check out their Logitech Control Center for OS 8, 9, or X.
While that sounds good in theory, in practice that could be disastrous. Inevitably someone would decide that it's okay to watch pr0n mid-flight.
You're missing the point. With the Optimus, it doesn't matter if you have 104, 105, or 1 million keys. Every single key can be independently mapped and the character that is displayed on each one of these keys can be changed to reflect that mapping. It doesn't matter if there are 4 keys to the right of the T key or 40 because the T key doesn't have to be tied to any one spot on the keyboard. You could have 105 T keys for cryin' out loud! You can make it so that the enter key is mapped to the 5th key in the 14th row on every 3rd Saturday in every other leap year because the whole freakin' thing is controlled by software. What I'm saying is that a QWERTY designation is irrelevent.
the german 105 key keyboard has 11 keys in the lowest row (above the spacebar), this optimus board has 12 keys there
So leave one of them blank.
Yes, but QWERTY refers to a letter pattern on the keys in which the Q, W, E, R, T, and Y keys are in sequence in the upper-left-hand corner of the keyboard. So, any non-English or non-standard layout keyboard cannot technically be called a QWERTY keyboard. The Optimus, being logical-layout independent can be a QWERTY keyboard but is not necessarily so.
So it's not physical-layout independent, but it is logical-layout independent.
Uh...not only is it non-QWERTY, it's layout independent.
I guess I don't understand your logic. The uses for this keyboard are practically endless. Think about the academic applications. For instance, my dad is currently working on his doctorate in Septuagint studies. He could click a button and instantly switch his keyboard over to Koine Greek and back to English instead of having to remember what English letters are mapped to which Greek letters.
Let's say you use Photoshop. You could eliminate all of the letter keys and map all your keys to Photoshop functions. It basically eliminates the need for "specialty" keyboards. Plus it has the "neato" factor with animated hotkeys.
Think outside the QWERTY.
Not enough buttons.
You forgot Macs which haven't had floppy drives since '97.
Its different sized buttons threw me off, the shoulder buttons depressed too far, and the d-pad is awkward to use for any extended period of time.
That's because you're used to the counter-intuitive Dual Shock controller.
The difference in the button sizes is very logical: the A button is larger because it's the most used. They are also different sizes so that you can instantly tell via tactile feedback which button you're pressing. The shoulder buttons can be depressed that far because they're analog meaning they have various levels of sensitivity. This is in stark contrast to the Dual Shock's "we need x number of buttons. Where the hell are we gonna put 'em" layout scheme. And who in their right mind uses shapes as a naming convention?
All told, the Gamecube controller design is very logical and intuitive. I can't say the same for the Dual Shock.
Touche. However, you appear to be assuming I'm younger than I actually am. The first game system I owned was a NES, but I've played on quite a few of the other old-school systems: Colecovision, TurboGFX16, Sega Master System, and the original Atari.
There's a reason stuff like those "Retrocon" and Hori 2D GameCube controllers are still popular, you know...
Yeah, for the same reason you can now find 3 1/4" G.I. Joes, He-Man, Transformer, My Little Pony, and Strawberry Shortcake toys onb store shelves: it's called "nostalgia".
i think this guy is just some over-caffeinated sony-fan-boy.
I couldn't agree more. The Dual Shock is perhaps the most uncomfortable controller I have ever used. By far, the most comfortable, intuitive controller is the Gamecube's. Second is the Xbox S controller. If you'll notice the sidebar on the Dual Shock, you'll see that they contradict themselves on their rating of said Sony controller. Go figure...
While I will say that your opinions are interesting, they are rather heartless. How do you figure that the government is entitled to the wealth a person has worked an entire lifetime to get moreso than that person's family?
I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that my family is the sole recipient of my wealth when I die. I have three kids that will inherit whatever I leave behind.
I believe that the death tax should be completely abolished. The government has no right to my money. My own bloodline does.
If I were in Tolkien's shoes, I would much rather see my family get the money than some hollywood executive that didn't think the movies would pan out in the first place.
Also, I believe you have a too-narrow definition of production. Production, according to your definition, is measured by a tangible thing (in this case a movie). However, there are thousands of companies world-wide that measure their production purely in currency (it could be argued that this is the goal of all companies and that the trinkets and gadgets are merely the means to an end). Investment firms don't actually ship products. They are in the business of producing money. Just like GM buys gears and plastics to make their automobiles so investment firms buy shares of companies to make their money. So, a Wall Street investor is to Merril Lynch what Joe Assemblyline is to GM.
Birthrites are very powerful social mechanisms, and I don't agree that they should be done away with.
Or, if you followed the development of the atomic bomb, give someone $2 billion and a dedicated team of brilliant theoreticians and physicists/chemists. Forget that whole 100 years bit.
Of course, the discoveries in physics that led up to the invention of the atomic bomb go back at least a good 100 years prior to its completion. But let's not split atoms...
Based on what information? Here's a common scenario (based on news coverage):
U.S. Army discovers roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army decides that roving bands of insurgents is not a good thing. U.S. Army decides to destroy roving band of insurgents. U.S. Army sends 1,000 soldiers with M-16s, 5 M-1 Bradleys, and 3 Apache attack helicopters to engage the roving band of insurgents. They meet somewhere out in the desert.
Results:
Insurgents killed: 50 - 100 out of about 300.
American Soldiers killed: none, but one guy sprained his ankle and another one got a migraine
By far, the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq are because of IEDs. The insurgents know by now that they flat out cannot win a face-to-face firefight.
In conclusion, how do you figure it's better to be on the Ts?