No, a rotating element changes its orientation, not it's place or position.
But a change in orientation is also a change in position. The molecules that make up the object have moved to a new position.
Is it safe to assume your argument has now devolved to "Because I said so?" since that seems to be all I can draw from your last comment.
No,. It's not because I say so, it's because of how the real, physical world is. Something that is rotating is moving. Its moplecules are moving. Only an extremely ignorant person would argue otherwise - or someone who was deliberately trolling. Which seems fairly likely from the bizarre arguments on this thread, and the mod-stalking going on.
If you aren't trolling, I'd like to know - how do you rotate an object without moving its molecules?
The company I work for was founded by two young entrepreneurs that grew up in the age where knowledge was free and they learned that masturbation won't cause hair to grow on your hands or your dick to fall off. They learned that the D.A.R.E. cop that told them the story of the young man who died from ONE hit from a joint was LYING. They realized that nobody else they grew up with believed this horseshit anymore either. They only care about your skill and your work ethic. As the younger generations start to take back this world it will become a better place to live because of the global community and available, simple worldwide communication.
I dunno. The guys you are talking about probably grew up in the 60s or 70s, when idealism was very strong. This current generation of young people is scarily conservative, but even worse, they seem to be corporate whores. I wouldn't expect many of them to rock the boat in substantial ways. Sure, they may have their dyed hair, tattoos and their genital piercings, but that's just the new conformity - it doesn't demonstrate actual rebellion or subversion. Even those idealists from the 70s sold themselves out pretty quickly. I think much of the younger generation is already sold out - they just stick to the corporate-accepted level of "flair" and naughty behavior they are allowed as long as they keep buying the products.
As an example, you mention drugs. When I was using marijuana, we protested for legalization, we had organizations to promote the truth about drugs. I don't see many kids doing that now. Instead of pushing to change the laws, they know they can get away with it if they are discreet with their usage or know the right people. In many ways it is regaining its "taboo" status, and is consumed with a wink and a nod, not in proud defiance.
This generation thinks less of a person who has a web presence that indicates no social life.
That's a pretty stupid way for them to think. It's perfectly possible to have an active and fun social life, without being self-centered enough to want to document it on the web. It also raises the question - if you are really having so much fun, then why are you devoting such an inordinate amount of time to documenting it, rather than just living it?
Remember that old saying about the 60s/70s? "If you can remember it, you weren't there." Has that been reversed to "If it's not on MySpace or Flickr, it never happened"?
You'll find some criticism but with it you'll also find a lot of people with similar interests, problems, and lives. You'll find friends and lovers. You may even find a good job.
Or maybe you won't get any criticism, and people will just ignore you because they don't give a shit. This whole trend seems pretty egotistical and shallow. Rather than deep, dark secrets, much of it seems to be trivia and superficiality. Kind of like a reality TV show.
Personally, I'd rather my government cut down on gangs and violent crime than, say, littering or jaywalking.
I think the two are probably quite related. Littering shows a deep disrespect for the outside world, and litterers probably have tendencies to other antisocial crimes. Also, have you seen thugs and violent criminals out in public? They are constantly littering - perhaps the worst litterers I have ever seen.
I think there's something to be said for the "broken windows-esque" idea that a society that does not permit littering and anti-social behaviour, will also not tolerate violence and other more extreme forms of anti-social behaviour. It's also amazing how many violent criminals get picked up because they break smaller laws - like speeding or fare evasion - where they otherwise would never have been caught.
The real question our philosophers and ethicists are yet to answer, is: Is 100% effective law-enforcement desirable?
Well, I would love to see more enforcement of littering laws, as they are among the most just and important laws, and people almost never get prosecuted for it. It might have an amazing effect on society if people realized that their actions affect others, and the planet is not their personal trash can. A little prompting from a speaking camera might be all it takes.
As mentioned in the article, you might not even need to "enforce" the law, because interrupting someone in the course of the crime might be enough to stop them doing it.
Well I guess I may be a little coloured by my exposure to mathematics, but none of my friends would refer to a rotating body as "moving", but they're mostly physicists and computer scientists,
Are they stupid mathematicians or computer scientists? And why would a computer scientist know about motion from their studies, anyway? Most computer components don't move, apart from cooling fans and hard drive platters. but then again, in electronics, a rotating hard drive platter is known as a "moving part" rather than a solid-state component.
So I'll offer up some references:
motion (m'shn)
n.
1. The act or process of changing position or place.
Right. A rotating element changes its place. Therefore it is moving. Q.E Fucking D!
The discussion isn't about the cmd-w, but about the 'x' on the tabs on their web browser. I'm used to having the 'x' in the same place all the time, not have it move around all over the place depending on which tab and how many tabs I'm looking at.
Well, that's not really about muscle memory, because your brain still needs to interact with the screen to hit the target. It's more about a UI convention/habit.
The other examples of issues I have trouble with are: 1) menu bar at the top of the screen, 2) click to focus, and 3) clicking brings window to foreground. There's no way to change these 'features' to what I'm used to.
Well, you can change the "click to focus" behavior, not sure about the others, though. It's fairly irrelevant though. Every system has conventions that are difficult to change or work around. It seems that the Mac conventions have lasted the longest - with most desktops today copying Apple conventions. After all, MacOS was around long before Linux, and systems including Windows and Linux have taken inspiration from it. You don't have to use it.
I must say that I find it ironic that a *nix user is complaining about a GUI behavior - as it is typically those users who bemoan using a GUI at all, saying that real users use the keyboard.
Actually, there's one fictional movie that seemed fairly accurate. I think it was called "Windows XP." It was pretty scary though. None of the icons looked realistic, either. And they had this application suite called "Office." Nobody would use that in real life. The TV series The Office seemed more realistic than this mythical "Microsoft Office."
You are such an asshole. I was going to mention Wargames, too! You bastard!
Sure, some stuff was inaccurate, but it was much more in the spirit of how technology was used at the time than most of the movies we get these days. Even the speech interface was entirely plausible at the time. A computer simulating wargames was plausible. It was technically possible for the computer to launch warheads, but in reality, probably would not have been allowed. But even that base was covered, by the plausible scenario set-up by the film's introduction, where human operators failed to launch a missile - and bureaucrats decided that it would be more efficient to bypass humans and give a computer the control. After all, computers never make mistakes.
The major flaw in Wargames, though, was how Matthew Broderick was some kind of local hero for being good at arcade games - like some sort of sports jock being cheered on by the townspeople, and scoring a hot chick.
however in common parlance, the boat is not "moving", it's rocking.
Do you have any cites for this "common parlance" in which "rocking" does not involve movement? Or in which rotation doesn't involve movement? I don't know of anyone who would subscribe to this "common" parlance. They'd have to be pretty damn stupid to say that something which is rocking or rotating is not moving.
Well I'd argue that its not undergoing motion since its position isn't changing as it's rotating about its local axes... Hence it would be rotating but not moving.
That's just fucking retarded. Motion does not just involve a displacement of the co-ordinates of the center-of-gravity of an object, it involves any part of it moving, or it moving about a rotational axis.
Personally I don't know anything about the sixaxis, but if it only detects changes in orientation it's not a motion sensor per se.
Once again, fucking retarded, as changes of orientation are - by definition - movement.
Another poster has also suggested that the sixaxis does in fact detect linear motion. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is beside the point, as rotation is motion. How else does the videogame respond with movement when you change the rotation of the device?
Yeah, we seem to have stumbled onto some kind of bizarro world, where "motion" doesn't mean "motion." For example, where a reply to one of my posts says that the "street" definition of motion doesn't include rotation. As if the average person in the street doesn't consider their car's wheels to be in motion because they are simply rotating at high speed. Or where an obnoxious AI is modded insightful, while a simple correction is modded as a troll.
I'm not sure what your point is, because I was speaking with a Mac user - where CMD-W works perfectly, and is the standard shortcut.
It's just another example of Apple thinking they know better than I how my muscles work.
No, it's just an example of a different system than you are used to, not active contempt. You could always reconfigure your shortcuts to suit your muscle memory, if you were to use a Mac.
Because the everyday "street" definition of motion (as opposed to the actual definition), is synonymous with linear motion.
Excuse me, but WTF? If you are sitting on tyhe deck of a rocking boat, wouldn't the average person conclude that they are moving? If you were tied to a wagon wheel and spun around, I don't think the average person off the street would conclude that they were stationary.
When you're rotating the controler, in "everyday" vocabulary, its not moving.
That's pretty dang stupid.
While you are correct in your statement, all you're doing is arguing sementics.
No, I'm not. Motion means motion - there's no room for semantic wriggle-room there.
Big freagin deal. Just correct them and be on your way. No need to cry wolf.
That's exactly what I intended to do. But for some reason, others decided to argue with the facts. I had no idea I would even get a reply. I believe the "crying wolf" was on the part of the original poster - who deliberately used inaccurate terminology to stir up slashdot anti-Sony sentiment. Now, there's nothing wrong with anti-Sony sentiment, but there is something wrong with using misinformation and trying to appeal to popularity. It's so easy to be anti-Sony and stick to facts, why the need for FUD appeals?
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone
on
Inside Apple's iPhone
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perfectly simple UI, dial and send. All the features I wanted, placed calls. I already have a PDA, my PDA plays MP3s. I already have a digital camera. I don't want or need GPS in my phone; if I wanted a GPS receiver, I'd buy one.
But when you get a phone that "has every feature (one) could ever want" then the UI becomes very important. I don't want a PDA, I want a phone with better calendar and contact features, for example.
I want a phone that works well as a phone, and nothing else.
Well, I'm pretty happy with that. But the GGP post was talking about a phone with every feature imaginable, and a great UI. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I get around this problem mostly by using my computer as the interface for entering data, via bluetooth. But I'd still like to see a better UI for navigating the data on the phone, for when I am away from my bluetooth-enabled computers. A laser-projection qwerty keyboard would be great for sending text messages, I hate entering alphanumeric via the numeric keypad. Heck, even the ability to plug in a USB keyboard would be a great improvement on most phones.
Even if you just want a telephone with no extra features, sometimes it's nice to look up numbers from your address book if you haven't memorized the phone numbers. Most phones seem to make this simple feature an unnecessarily clunky task.
He says that there is no motion-sensing and then states that the gyros can detect the tilt. He's clearly drawing a distinction between the two types of motion.
No, he's not clearly drawing a distinction between anything. He's deliberately obfuscating the truth. Remember, the title he gave the thread is "wrong, wrong wrong" - and the statement that he is calling wrong is that the PS3 has motion-sensing technology. Which it clearly does.
If he was drawing a clear distinction, he would say "The PS3 detects rotational movement, but not linear position."
Yes, you're right, the controller detects rotation, but a lot of the cool uses of these controllers comes from detecting linear accelearations and getting spatial information.
Which I agree with. but why did the AC have to lie to make this point? Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the "idiot Sony fanboys" comment?
This argument is dumb. We're arguing about what an AC said. Good day to you, sir!
Indeed. but the fact that the AC was modded up for misinformation is reason enough to refute his post. Especially as non-ACs defended the post. It's pretty clear it was a troll from some other sort of fanboy.
I don't like Sony, I don't really care about consoles, I certainly won't be buying a PS3. But misinformation being treated as informative insight annoys the hell out of me.
Re:Cell providers are the problem, not the phone
on
Inside Apple's iPhone
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?
Re:I wonder what they'll use DRM-wise.
on
Inside Apple's iPhone
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can't help but think of how Apple's iTunes cripples the MP3 industry by restricting use with proprietary formats.
MP3 is itself a proprietary format. And iTunes (and iPod) fully supports MP3. So how can iTunes be crippling the "MP3 industry" when it supports MP3?
When he was talking about the lack of MEMS accelerometers, he was complaining about the lack of linear motion sensing because MEMS accelerometers detect linear acceleration.
So why did he say it lacked motion sensing ability? That is what is known as a lie (if deliberate) or being wrong (if accidental or out of ignorance).
The PS3 can only detect rotation, while the Wii detects rotation, linear acceleration and can detect position using the sensor bar.
Sure, but they both detect motion. They can both detect acceleration. The difference is that the Wii can detect position. So, why did he say the PS3 could not detect motion, when it can? What he should have said is that it does not detect position.
The PS3 can only detect rotation, while the Wii detects rotation, linear acceleration and can detect position using the sensor bar. That is the difference the (now) GGP was trying to make about how the PS3 controller isn't as neat as the Wii.
So, why did he say the PS3 didn't detect motion? And why are you defending an innacurate post? I agree that the Wii's controller is cooler - but that does not make "The PS3 can't detect motion" a true statement. I'm not sure why a totally inaccurate post was upmodded, when it is most likely intended to be deceptive FUD.
No, the GP said it did not detect motion if he was complaining about the lack of linear motion sensing, he would have said that it did not sense linear motion. Does rotational movement somehow not count as motion? Why are you reading things into the GP post that weren't actually written?
You know, you don't have to record the 12 hours of footage in a single take. You could even, you know, recharge the batteries and shoot the next scene later, after you have spent the time setting up the location/set/lighting. Gosh, you could even buy more than one battery pack!
Slashdot Mirror
But a change in orientation is also a change in position. The molecules that make up the object have moved to a new position.
Is it safe to assume your argument has now devolved to "Because I said so?" since that seems to be all I can draw from your last comment.No,. It's not because I say so, it's because of how the real, physical world is. Something that is rotating is moving. Its moplecules are moving. Only an extremely ignorant person would argue otherwise - or someone who was deliberately trolling. Which seems fairly likely from the bizarre arguments on this thread, and the mod-stalking going on.
If you aren't trolling, I'd like to know - how do you rotate an object without moving its molecules?
And they'll make him look faaabulous.
I dunno. The guys you are talking about probably grew up in the 60s or 70s, when idealism was very strong. This current generation of young people is scarily conservative, but even worse, they seem to be corporate whores. I wouldn't expect many of them to rock the boat in substantial ways. Sure, they may have their dyed hair, tattoos and their genital piercings, but that's just the new conformity - it doesn't demonstrate actual rebellion or subversion. Even those idealists from the 70s sold themselves out pretty quickly. I think much of the younger generation is already sold out - they just stick to the corporate-accepted level of "flair" and naughty behavior they are allowed as long as they keep buying the products.
As an example, you mention drugs. When I was using marijuana, we protested for legalization, we had organizations to promote the truth about drugs. I don't see many kids doing that now. Instead of pushing to change the laws, they know they can get away with it if they are discreet with their usage or know the right people. In many ways it is regaining its "taboo" status, and is consumed with a wink and a nod, not in proud defiance.
That's a pretty stupid way for them to think. It's perfectly possible to have an active and fun social life, without being self-centered enough to want to document it on the web. It also raises the question - if you are really having so much fun, then why are you devoting such an inordinate amount of time to documenting it, rather than just living it?
Remember that old saying about the 60s/70s? "If you can remember it, you weren't there." Has that been reversed to "If it's not on MySpace or Flickr, it never happened"?
The type that thinks of drunkeness as a badge of honor, as a sign of being an adult. Frat boys, basically. That kind of moron.
Or maybe you won't get any criticism, and people will just ignore you because they don't give a shit. This whole trend seems pretty egotistical and shallow. Rather than deep, dark secrets, much of it seems to be trivia and superficiality. Kind of like a reality TV show.
I think the two are probably quite related. Littering shows a deep disrespect for the outside world, and litterers probably have tendencies to other antisocial crimes. Also, have you seen thugs and violent criminals out in public? They are constantly littering - perhaps the worst litterers I have ever seen.
I think there's something to be said for the "broken windows-esque" idea that a society that does not permit littering and anti-social behaviour, will also not tolerate violence and other more extreme forms of anti-social behaviour. It's also amazing how many violent criminals get picked up because they break smaller laws - like speeding or fare evasion - where they otherwise would never have been caught.
FYI: There are Queens in America, too.
Well, I would love to see more enforcement of littering laws, as they are among the most just and important laws, and people almost never get prosecuted for it. It might have an amazing effect on society if people realized that their actions affect others, and the planet is not their personal trash can. A little prompting from a speaking camera might be all it takes.
As mentioned in the article, you might not even need to "enforce" the law, because interrupting someone in the course of the crime might be enough to stop them doing it.
Are they stupid mathematicians or computer scientists? And why would a computer scientist know about motion from their studies, anyway? Most computer components don't move, apart from cooling fans and hard drive platters. but then again, in electronics, a rotating hard drive platter is known as a "moving part" rather than a solid-state component.
So I'll offer up some references: motion (m'shn) n. 1. The act or process of changing position or place.Right. A rotating element changes its place. Therefore it is moving. Q.E Fucking D!
Well, that's not really about muscle memory, because your brain still needs to interact with the screen to hit the target. It's more about a UI convention/habit.
The other examples of issues I have trouble with are: 1) menu bar at the top of the screen, 2) click to focus, and 3) clicking brings window to foreground. There's no way to change these 'features' to what I'm used to.Well, you can change the "click to focus" behavior, not sure about the others, though. It's fairly irrelevant though. Every system has conventions that are difficult to change or work around. It seems that the Mac conventions have lasted the longest - with most desktops today copying Apple conventions. After all, MacOS was around long before Linux, and systems including Windows and Linux have taken inspiration from it. You don't have to use it.
I must say that I find it ironic that a *nix user is complaining about a GUI behavior - as it is typically those users who bemoan using a GUI at all, saying that real users use the keyboard.
Actually, there's one fictional movie that seemed fairly accurate. I think it was called "Windows XP." It was pretty scary though. None of the icons looked realistic, either. And they had this application suite called "Office." Nobody would use that in real life. The TV series The Office seemed more realistic than this mythical "Microsoft Office."
Sure, some stuff was inaccurate, but it was much more in the spirit of how technology was used at the time than most of the movies we get these days. Even the speech interface was entirely plausible at the time. A computer simulating wargames was plausible. It was technically possible for the computer to launch warheads, but in reality, probably would not have been allowed. But even that base was covered, by the plausible scenario set-up by the film's introduction, where human operators failed to launch a missile - and bureaucrats decided that it would be more efficient to bypass humans and give a computer the control. After all, computers never make mistakes.
The major flaw in Wargames, though, was how Matthew Broderick was some kind of local hero for being good at arcade games - like some sort of sports jock being cheered on by the townspeople, and scoring a hot chick.
Do you have any cites for this "common parlance" in which "rocking" does not involve movement? Or in which rotation doesn't involve movement? I don't know of anyone who would subscribe to this "common" parlance. They'd have to be pretty damn stupid to say that something which is rocking or rotating is not moving.
Well I'd argue that its not undergoing motion since its position isn't changing as it's rotating about its local axes... Hence it would be rotating but not moving.That's just fucking retarded. Motion does not just involve a displacement of the co-ordinates of the center-of-gravity of an object, it involves any part of it moving, or it moving about a rotational axis.
Personally I don't know anything about the sixaxis, but if it only detects changes in orientation it's not a motion sensor per se.Once again, fucking retarded, as changes of orientation are - by definition - movement.
Another poster has also suggested that the sixaxis does in fact detect linear motion. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is beside the point, as rotation is motion. How else does the videogame respond with movement when you change the rotation of the device?
Yeah, we seem to have stumbled onto some kind of bizarro world, where "motion" doesn't mean "motion." For example, where a reply to one of my posts says that the "street" definition of motion doesn't include rotation. As if the average person in the street doesn't consider their car's wheels to be in motion because they are simply rotating at high speed. Or where an obnoxious AI is modded insightful, while a simple correction is modded as a troll.
No, it's just an example of a different system than you are used to, not active contempt. You could always reconfigure your shortcuts to suit your muscle memory, if you were to use a Mac.
Excuse me, but WTF? If you are sitting on tyhe deck of a rocking boat, wouldn't the average person conclude that they are moving? If you were tied to a wagon wheel and spun around, I don't think the average person off the street would conclude that they were stationary.
When you're rotating the controler, in "everyday" vocabulary, its not moving.That's pretty dang stupid.
While you are correct in your statement, all you're doing is arguing sementics.No, I'm not. Motion means motion - there's no room for semantic wriggle-room there.
Big freagin deal. Just correct them and be on your way. No need to cry wolf.That's exactly what I intended to do. But for some reason, others decided to argue with the facts. I had no idea I would even get a reply. I believe the "crying wolf" was on the part of the original poster - who deliberately used inaccurate terminology to stir up slashdot anti-Sony sentiment. Now, there's nothing wrong with anti-Sony sentiment, but there is something wrong with using misinformation and trying to appeal to popularity. It's so easy to be anti-Sony and stick to facts, why the need for FUD appeals?
But when you get a phone that "has every feature (one) could ever want" then the UI becomes very important. I don't want a PDA, I want a phone with better calendar and contact features, for example.
I want a phone that works well as a phone, and nothing else.Well, I'm pretty happy with that. But the GGP post was talking about a phone with every feature imaginable, and a great UI. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I get around this problem mostly by using my computer as the interface for entering data, via bluetooth. But I'd still like to see a better UI for navigating the data on the phone, for when I am away from my bluetooth-enabled computers. A laser-projection qwerty keyboard would be great for sending text messages, I hate entering alphanumeric via the numeric keypad. Heck, even the ability to plug in a USB keyboard would be a great improvement on most phones.
Even if you just want a telephone with no extra features, sometimes it's nice to look up numbers from your address book if you haven't memorized the phone numbers. Most phones seem to make this simple feature an unnecessarily clunky task.
No, he's not clearly drawing a distinction between anything. He's deliberately obfuscating the truth. Remember, the title he gave the thread is "wrong, wrong wrong" - and the statement that he is calling wrong is that the PS3 has motion-sensing technology. Which it clearly does.
If he was drawing a clear distinction, he would say "The PS3 detects rotational movement, but not linear position."
Yes, you're right, the controller detects rotation, but a lot of the cool uses of these controllers comes from detecting linear accelearations and getting spatial information.Which I agree with. but why did the AC have to lie to make this point? Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the "idiot Sony fanboys" comment?
This argument is dumb. We're arguing about what an AC said. Good day to you, sir!Indeed. but the fact that the AC was modded up for misinformation is reason enough to refute his post. Especially as non-ACs defended the post. It's pretty clear it was a troll from some other sort of fanboy.
I don't like Sony, I don't really care about consoles, I certainly won't be buying a PS3. But misinformation being treated as informative insight annoys the hell out of me.
I haven't seen any phones with a "great UI." Come to think of it, I haven't even seen any with "every feature I could want." Which ones are you talking about?
MP3 is itself a proprietary format. And iTunes (and iPod) fully supports MP3. So how can iTunes be crippling the "MP3 industry" when it supports MP3?
So why did he say it lacked motion sensing ability? That is what is known as a lie (if deliberate) or being wrong (if accidental or out of ignorance).
The PS3 can only detect rotation, while the Wii detects rotation, linear acceleration and can detect position using the sensor bar.Sure, but they both detect motion. They can both detect acceleration. The difference is that the Wii can detect position. So, why did he say the PS3 could not detect motion, when it can? What he should have said is that it does not detect position.
The PS3 can only detect rotation, while the Wii detects rotation, linear acceleration and can detect position using the sensor bar. That is the difference the (now) GGP was trying to make about how the PS3 controller isn't as neat as the Wii.So, why did he say the PS3 didn't detect motion? And why are you defending an innacurate post? I agree that the Wii's controller is cooler - but that does not make "The PS3 can't detect motion" a true statement. I'm not sure why a totally inaccurate post was upmodded, when it is most likely intended to be deceptive FUD.
No, the GP said it did not detect motion if he was complaining about the lack of linear motion sensing, he would have said that it did not sense linear motion. Does rotational movement somehow not count as motion? Why are you reading things into the GP post that weren't actually written?
It only becomes the truth if you tell the lie 42 times.
You know, you don't have to record the 12 hours of footage in a single take. You could even, you know, recharge the batteries and shoot the next scene later, after you have spent the time setting up the location/set/lighting. Gosh, you could even buy more than one battery pack!