Not to mention that while you can tell which button you're clicking on a mouse because you're using a different finger for each, you're only using the side of one thumb for all your laptop-trackpad clicking needs. Even varying the texture of the additional buttons would only help a little, since the side of the thumb isn't all that sensitive.
Anyway, any GUI that requires multiple buttons and doesn't give you alternate means of accessing their functionality is a poorly-designed one indeed.
Don't forget that with the iMac you will be replacing the mouse, and if you have carpal tunnel the keybord (not a huge deal, but still...).
The big reason I dislike the iMac is the built-in monitor. The monitor is one of the few upgrade durable parts of a system. Get a good one an it isn't a big deal to keep it for a decade. The iMac takes that away.
You won't be replacing the new keyboards, as they're full-sized. The new mouse is better, but yeah, you might want more than one button. All new iMacs except the $799 one have a VGA port, so they don't take away the option of using a second monitor.
For who? The pro-porn candidate? The problem with morality laws like this is that they can effectively never be repealed. No one is ever going to run on a platform of 24-hour liquor stores, legal prostitution, and a strip joint in every neighborhood.
However, it does sound like the professors who brought the challenge shouldn't have any problem getting the required approval from their department heads, plus I imagine they have their own offices, so as long as the law doesn't mandate installing filtering software, they should be okay.
My point in this is that we -- humankind -- cannot and will not agree on such issues as this. Better not to try to come to a societal decision (and let individuals think for themselves) than come to a group decision which infringes on individual liberties
But leaving it up to individuals is a societal decision already. One which I happen to support, but I think there's a compelling group interest in having some level of treatment/services publically available, whether it's needle exchanges or methadone clinics or whatever. If we don't pay for those, we'll be paying in other ways -- emergency room costs, crime (a broke junkie will steal even if heroin is cheap and legal), etc. Or we keep it all criminalized and pay even more for all these prisons and court systems.
Those are the three choices. There's no ignoring the issue because there's no way of not paying for it. I'm for the first, you seem to be for the second. We can come to a compromise involving the amount of and kind of services to provide without infringing on anyone's liberties. The pro-criminalization folks... well, fuck 'em.
Where you read "we all HAVE to agree" (which is not what the poster said in the first place) try substituting "we all need to agree on a mutually-acceptable, if not personally optimal, compromise." This is the nature of society. And name-calling ("groupthink") does not constitute a rebuttal.
What the hell are you disagreeing with, anyway? Is it the libertarian position that drug users should be imprisoned?
Re:We need to be more like the Europeans
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
No, it's like demanding that chamomile tea be made legal to buy from the corner grocer. I don't know why you're dragging the NHS into it.
"I get me brain medications from th' National 'Ealth!"
Clones were supposed to grow the MacOS's marketshare, and all they did was poach Apple sales.
Apple could've revised its licensing strategy to prevent clone boxes in direct competition with Apple products. Apple doesn't want to market a tower with six PCI slots and room for eight drives anymore? Let someone else do it. Likewise with subnotebooks, "monitorless iMac" pizza boxes, etc. No product overlap, no conflict, no lost sales for Apple.
Nuclear rockets. Too messy. The NERVA program made real progress, but open-cycle nuclear reactors spray radioactive waste. Closed-cycle ones are too heavy, and messy if they crash land. Orion, the A-bomb powered spacecraft, was even worse in that regard. Still, if you launched from, say, halfway between Cape Horn and Antartica, where South Africa once tested an A-bomb without bothering anybody, it might work.
I don't think the idea was ever to launch them from the Earth's surface using nuclear engines. More like assemble them in orbit or on the moon and then fire them up.
Re:I disagree with one point here.
on
3D GUI Project
·
· Score: 1
You forget about the time it takes to decipher a million stupid little icons, not to mention all the screen real estate they take up. What's an icon for "despeckle" supposed to look like? For a good example of toolbar abuse, well, fire up MS Office.
A better solution is to allow the user to add certain commonly used filters/combos/macros to the top of the menu (instead of just the one most recent filter) or a separate "Actions" floater tab, which is what Photoshop has had since 5.0.
1. Each frame is shown twice, not three times. Imax may be different.
2. "Temporal anti-aliasing?" I think you mean "motion blur," which varies with the camera's shutter angle (roughly equivalent to a still camera's exposure time), but yeah, it does smooth things out.
Imagine a two-d universe. Flat as a paper.
Now construct an animal that eats, digests, and excretes. Draw it on paper.
Too bad it literally falls apart.
For information on this case, you should read the great book Game Over by David Scheff. In a nutshell, Atari(Tengen) claimed Nintendo had infringed on one of their patents. This enabled them to look at Nintendo's patents. They then used information from those patents to create a bypass chip that would allow them to create cartridges for the NES without using Nintendo's technology.
That doesn't make any sense. What was keeping Atari from examining Nintendo's patents in the first place?
Or do you mean "trade secrets?"
The poster didn't claim that there was a hazard, just that there might be one that hasn't yet been validated. Something can be true without having been proven, just as a man can be guilty of a crime before being declared so by a jury. By your logic, nuclear fission didn't exist before 1939.
Furthermore, Occam's Razor assumes that a significant amount of data from which to draw a conclusion is present. Otherwise, the "simplest explanation" of why volcanoes erupt would still be "because God is mad at us." I think the poster was more supporting caution until more results are in than Chicken-Littling.
You're not really stuck with the horrid QuickTime Player that comes with QT4. You can use the Movieplayer application from QT3 and get an interface so clean it makes Media Player 6 look like RealPlayer. As a matter of fact, any application can utilize QuickTime and make it look any way it wants.
4:If this is true, then why didnt the soviets shoot down our spy satellites? Why dont the iraquis? why dont we shoot down the russians?clearly we have the capability.National territory only goes up so far, something like 160 km, since there will be a tower 50km of that way, there isnt too much room for movement, and even then, why would you want to do it?
National territory extends upwards indefinitely, to the limit of the ability of the nation in question to enforce it. We do _not_ have the ability to shoot down satellites, and even if we developed it, the Iraqis and Russians would still be a loong way from having that tech trickle down to them. Before Francis Gary Powers got shot down, the Soviet Union couldn't call U2 flights incursions into their territory. Later, the UN passed an Outer Space Treaty which placed some Antarctica-style limits on the uses of orbital and outer space. (Note that any variants of the Strategic Defense Initiative that involve orbiting ABM nukes violate this treaty as well as the 1972 ABM treaty, and in this case, the argument that the USSR has ceased to exist doesn't invalidate the treaty, since it's a U.N. agreement.)
Anyway, the original point about being allowed to shoot down anything within ten miles of your border is fatuous to begin with. At sea national boundaries extend twelve miles out, wnd then only when they don't conlict with anyone else's limit. On land and in the air, a border is a border.
The Gamblers' Fallacy only holds for events that can truly be considered "random," such as dice roll results or coin flips. The physical distribution of asteroids (combined with the other factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of a convergence with our own coordinates) is not purely random. In a purely random distribution, it would be possible for all belt asteroids to exist in one tight cluster, whereas in real life such a distribution would be so unstable that it would either coalesce into a single body or more likely break apart into a more entropic distribution in short order.
I don't know how apt an analogy this is, but: Think of two consecutive poker hands separated by a significant shuffle. Since the more ordered groupings that result from the first hand are returned to the deck intact and then shuffled, it is far less likely that you'll draw a hand identical to any of the first dealt hands than it would be to draw the given hand from a fresh deck. Hence the cards do have a memory of sorts, or perhaps more accurately, a short-term amnesia.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of console games that do this, usually racing and sports games where actual sponsors buy "billboards" by the side of the track.
Not to mention that while you can tell which button you're clicking on a mouse because you're using a different finger for each, you're only using the side of one thumb for all your laptop-trackpad clicking needs. Even varying the texture of the additional buttons would only help a little, since the side of the thumb isn't all that sensitive.
Anyway, any GUI that requires multiple buttons and doesn't give you alternate means of accessing their functionality is a poorly-designed one indeed.
Don't forget that with the iMac you will be replacing the mouse, and if you have carpal tunnel the keybord (not a huge deal, but still...).
The big reason I dislike the iMac is the built-in monitor. The monitor is one of the few upgrade durable parts of a system. Get a good one an it isn't a big deal to keep it for a decade. The iMac takes that away.
You won't be replacing the new keyboards, as they're full-sized. The new mouse is better, but yeah, you might want more than one button. All new iMacs except the $799 one have a VGA port, so they don't take away the option of using a second monitor.
"department heads" should read "agency heads."
For who? The pro-porn candidate? The problem with morality laws like this is that they can effectively never be repealed. No one is ever going to run on a platform of 24-hour liquor stores, legal prostitution, and a strip joint in every neighborhood.
However, it does sound like the professors who brought the challenge shouldn't have any problem getting the required approval from their department heads, plus I imagine they have their own offices, so as long as the law doesn't mandate installing filtering software, they should be okay.
The silliest thing is that he's defending this law based on the fact that it's a law.
My point in this is that we -- humankind -- cannot and will not agree on such issues as this. Better not to try to come to a societal decision (and let individuals think for themselves) than come to a group decision which infringes on individual liberties
But leaving it up to individuals is a societal decision already. One which I happen to support, but I think there's a compelling group interest in having some level of treatment/services publically available, whether it's needle exchanges or methadone clinics or whatever. If we don't pay for those, we'll be paying in other ways -- emergency room costs, crime (a broke junkie will steal even if heroin is cheap and legal), etc. Or we keep it all criminalized and pay even more for all these prisons and court systems.
Those are the three choices. There's no ignoring the issue because there's no way of not paying for it. I'm for the first, you seem to be for the second. We can come to a compromise involving the amount of and kind of services to provide without infringing on anyone's liberties. The pro-criminalization folks... well, fuck 'em.
Where you read "we all HAVE to agree" (which is not what the poster said in the first place) try substituting "we all need to agree on a mutually-acceptable, if not personally optimal, compromise." This is the nature of society. And name-calling ("groupthink") does not constitute a rebuttal.
What the hell are you disagreeing with, anyway? Is it the libertarian position that drug users should be imprisoned?
No, it's like demanding that chamomile tea be made legal to buy from the corner grocer. I don't know why you're dragging the NHS into it.
"I get me brain medications from th' National 'Ealth!"
He says in the FAQ that he'll release any info he finds to the MAME team.
Clones were supposed to grow the MacOS's marketshare, and all they did was poach Apple sales.
Apple could've revised its licensing strategy to prevent clone boxes in direct competition with Apple products. Apple doesn't want to market a tower with six PCI slots and room for eight drives anymore? Let someone else do it. Likewise with subnotebooks, "monitorless iMac" pizza boxes, etc. No product overlap, no conflict, no lost sales for Apple.
So; TOTALLY legal to sell a used book. Just not legal to sell a used book that has been defaced or re-bound.
No, illegal to sell an unused book that's been defaced or rebound.
Nuclear rockets. Too messy. The NERVA program made real progress, but open-cycle nuclear reactors spray radioactive waste. Closed-cycle ones are too heavy, and messy if they crash land. Orion, the A-bomb powered spacecraft, was even worse in that regard. Still, if you launched from, say, halfway between Cape Horn and Antartica, where South Africa once tested an A-bomb without bothering anybody, it might work.
I don't think the idea was ever to launch them from the Earth's surface using nuclear engines. More like assemble them in orbit or on the moon and then fire them up.
You forget about the time it takes to decipher a million stupid little icons, not to mention all the screen real estate they take up. What's an icon for "despeckle" supposed to look like? For a good example of toolbar abuse, well, fire up MS Office.
A better solution is to allow the user to add certain commonly used filters/combos/macros to the top of the menu (instead of just the one most recent filter) or a separate "Actions" floater tab, which is what Photoshop has had since 5.0.
Windows 3.1 - Perhaps the last version of Windows to actually contain some innovative stuff (TrueType springs to mind).
And TrueType was developed by Apple.
You mean dpi, not lpi. Lines Per Inch is used to measure halftone screens. Resolution is measured in Dots Per Inch.
Wow, two separate misuses of "begging the question" on the same day... please follow that link and get it straight once and for all. Thank you.
AFAIK, the last recorded quake in New York was ca. 1987 and registered something like a 4 on the Richter scale. I slept through it.
1. Each frame is shown twice, not three times. Imax may be different.
2. "Temporal anti-aliasing?" I think you mean "motion blur," which varies with the camera's shutter angle (roughly equivalent to a still camera's exposure time), but yeah, it does smooth things out.
Imagine a two-d universe. Flat as a paper.
Now construct an animal that eats, digests, and excretes. Draw it on paper.
Too bad it literally falls apart.
A.K. Dewdney's Planiverse describes a plausible two-dimensional physiology. Very interesting book.
That doesn't make any sense. What was keeping Atari from examining Nintendo's patents in the first place?
Or do you mean "trade secrets?"
The poster didn't claim that there was a hazard, just that there might be one that hasn't yet been validated. Something can be true without having been proven, just as a man can be guilty of a crime before being declared so by a jury. By your logic, nuclear fission didn't exist before 1939.
Furthermore, Occam's Razor assumes that a significant amount of data from which to draw a conclusion is present. Otherwise, the "simplest explanation" of why volcanoes erupt would still be "because God is mad at us." I think the poster was more supporting caution until more results are in than Chicken-Littling.
You're not really stuck with the horrid QuickTime Player that comes with QT4. You can use the Movieplayer application from QT3 and get an interface so clean it makes Media Player 6 look like RealPlayer. As a matter of fact, any application can utilize QuickTime and make it look any way it wants.
4:If this is true, then why didnt the soviets shoot down our spy satellites? Why dont the iraquis? why dont we shoot down the russians?clearly we have the capability.National territory only goes up so far, something like 160 km, since there will be a tower 50km of that way, there isnt too much room for movement, and even then, why would you want to do it?
National territory extends upwards indefinitely, to the limit of the ability of the nation in question to enforce it. We do _not_ have the ability to shoot down satellites, and even if we developed it, the Iraqis and Russians would still be a loong way from having that tech trickle down to them. Before Francis Gary Powers got shot down, the Soviet Union couldn't call U2 flights incursions into their territory. Later, the UN passed an Outer Space Treaty which placed some Antarctica-style limits on the uses of orbital and outer space. (Note that any variants of the Strategic Defense Initiative that involve orbiting ABM nukes violate this treaty as well as the 1972 ABM treaty, and in this case, the argument that the USSR has ceased to exist doesn't invalidate the treaty, since it's a U.N. agreement.)
Anyway, the original point about being allowed to shoot down anything within ten miles of your border is fatuous to begin with. At sea national boundaries extend twelve miles out, wnd then only when they don't conlict with anyone else's limit. On land and in the air, a border is a border.
The Gamblers' Fallacy only holds for events that can truly be considered "random," such as dice roll results or coin flips. The physical distribution of asteroids (combined with the other factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of a convergence with our own coordinates) is not purely random. In a purely random distribution, it would be possible for all belt asteroids to exist in one tight cluster, whereas in real life such a distribution would be so unstable that it would either coalesce into a single body or more likely break apart into a more entropic distribution in short order.
I don't know how apt an analogy this is, but: Think of two consecutive poker hands separated by a significant shuffle. Since the more ordered groupings that result from the first hand are returned to the deck intact and then shuffled, it is far less likely that you'll draw a hand identical to any of the first dealt hands than it would be to draw the given hand from a fresh deck. Hence the cards do have a memory of sorts, or perhaps more accurately, a short-term amnesia.
IANAM,
Ludwig