Sure, it may not be written in the constitution, but a lot of things weren't written in the constitution that have since become law. The founding fathers weren't perfect, and they lived during the 18th century, therefor, the original constitution wasn't perfect for our time... for god sake, it condoned slavery!
Anyway, that's beside the point.
A government exists, in the minds of the people of a country, for ONE purpose, to help to protect the people of the nation against various threats (natural, manmade, ecconomic, or otherwise) that require much more capital and attention than any one individual can give. We have a law enforcement and judicial system to protect individuals from eachother, we have a military to protect individuals from outside threats, SUPPOSEDLY we have FEMA to repond and protect people who are in natural emergancy situations, we have countless ecconomic legal procedures in place to protect (and balance) the ecconomic interests of both individuals and businesses. The whole point of a democratic system of governing, though, is that it's up to the people to decide how and what is most important to protect themselves from. A government is not simply an institution, it is supposed to act as representives of the people, and carry out the balanced goals of the nation; to prioritize spending to most effectively help the greater good of our society.
So, how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security? If that doesn't qualify as a job for our government, I don't know what does. The question is, do the people care enough to put their money toward this cause? Generally, people realize that there are thousands of different ways their money can be used, and should to be given to. Like a good investment banker, we don't put all our money in one place. Even if the injury was inflicted by carelessness... then why do we have bankruptcy declarations for businesses who have injured their assets? Do we cease to provide medical assistance to those who choose not to flee a natural desaster area? (okay, so maybe we don't, but we're sure as hell supposed to)
So, while you are entitled to B) having moral qualms against federal funding on medical research, there is simply no justification for A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals. It's perfectly acceptable for you to prioritise other things over scientific research, but don't drag everyone else into it by trying to pass the idea off as unconstitutional. Personally, I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending. I believe if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field, while at the same time, increase the productivity of the military from a medical and surgical standpoint, thus making back almost all the military spending cuts we would have made in other ways.
So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research. No administration has ever argued against it, some have prioritised it more than others, but not even Bush, the great anti-intellectual, would agree with you there. Hell, NASA still gets billions for non-military related space exploration, and the national benefit to such a program is much less clear than neurological medical research. Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research. If he were here right now, he'd tell you to shut up, kick your ass, and probably steal with your girlfriend/wife!;)
I've had quite a few computers over the years, Mac & PC, a few years ago I bought a TiBook because I was getting disgusted at my PC desktop and needed a Mac for my audio work. Within about 2 weeks I completely switched over and used my desktop for only one thing: as a glorified stereo system and music organizer. Not too long after, it died a horrible death, and I didn't care. Still, after about two and a half years, my TiBook feels brand new, and I can safely say, it is far and away the best computer (in comparison to other computers of it's generation) I've ever owned, and mobility being a large (though not the only) reason for this. Suddenly it's possible for me to do things I'd never before even considered, like taking my work to places that I actually feel are PRODUCTIVE work environments, being able to share files on the go, always having my work (and play) with me at all times. It's truly wonderful. I've never once thought of going back.
As for the keyboard, I got used to it within about the first week. I've worked on it for hours at a time, without the slightest bit of muscle strain (it feels better to me than most normal keyboards). The trackpad has proved to be a lot more reasonable input device than I first expected, but for those long, stationary sessions, I bought a $30 logitech dongle mouse, which has proven to be the only unergonimic device in my setup (fixed cheaply by buying a $10 mousepad with a wrist rest). Currently, after 2 years, I'll admit, my battery life is down to about 90 minutes, but I'm rarely away from a plugin long enough for that to be an issue, especially since I got a 110v adaptor for my car (which I almost never use), if it became a problem, I could always drop a bit of dough for an additional battery, but considering the maintenenced upgrades I've had to do with my previous computers, that is NOTHING. So, I've designed my entire work life around a mac laptop, and I have to say, I've never been happier with a setup than I am now, and have no intention on changing that anytime soon. My next computer will be a laptop when this one finally bites it (and by the way things are going, I think it'll be a while).
So yeah, to me it seems reasonable that desktops should fade away. I think there's always room for those who need them as workhorse mainframes, with a laptop as its front end (for me, for instance, I might set one up to do complex softsynth processing, but use DP4 and Pro Tools on my laptop, outputting midi via ethernet). Render boxes rule, but they're nothing I'd want to sit and work on. As for games, computer gaming is too expensive anyway, I use consoles instead, but that's another thread/debate/flamewar entirely.
Sure, balloons can reach high altitudes, but they still work on "lighter-than air" principals, out of the atmosphere, they're not lighter than a vacuume, thus, no lift, so while theoretically correct within the atmophere (a technical implaussibility using static balloons to hold a multi-sectioned teather in place, however, due to air movement, maintenance, etc.), you're back to square one once you get outside the atmophere, which makes up a large majority of the space elivator distance.
--Eric
Sure, it's not been brought up, because it doesn't need to be. Most communications satalites are in geosynchronus, geostationary orbits over the equator, that is, they stay in the same position relative to a position on the ground. It's actually getting to be a bit of a concern, because satalites need to be at a specific height (around 35 thousand kilometers above sea level), and there are getting to be so many, it's getting fairly crowded (and by crowded, I'm guessing this means within a few hundred miles of eachother). Since this thing requires much more mass, its counterweight will be about twice as far out. obviously, this doesn't preclude a non GEO satalite from running into the teather, but since GEO satalites don't move, you can count them out as a problem.
As for the rest of the satalites (mostly non communications satalites), they tend follow predictable and repeatitive orbits, though if someone can elaborate on this, it would be greatly appreciated. In any case, even satalites like the early ones of the 60s (Sputnik, etc.) there's so much space up there, there is probably more of a mathmatically likely chance of us running into a planet changing astroid than this thing getting hit by one.
--Eric
Igor and his fans always loved to wear the riot as a badge of honor, but as great as The Rite of Spring was, the riot, it is now known, is almost entirely owed to Nijinsky, the choreographer for Diaghilev's Ballet Russe (the company for which The Rite of Spring was written for and performed by).
It should also be noted that The Rite of Spring, while not being a traditionally "tonal" work, is most definitely not considered "atonal", as Stravinsky's love for "tonal centers" follows him throughout the first half of his musical career (only giving in to atonality during the second half of his Parisian period and into his Hollywood period). The work is decidedly "modal" in nature, owing more similarity to Bartok or Debussy than to Schoenberg's free atonality or serialism.
The fact is, turn of the century Paris was extremely "Russia Happy", and instantly entertained almost any new Russian music or dance, mostly to great success. The Rite of Spring, musically, was extremely popular with the Parisians. The dance, on the other hand, was one of the major turning points from traditional ballet to modern dance, with little "point" work and a lot of jarring movements (of which did injure dancers in practice, btw). This is what caused the riot, between the traditionalists and the progressives. It should also be noted, however, that turn of the century Paris was constantly LOOKING for things to get all worked up over, a good riot was one of the most beloved passtimes of Parisians... so the extent of the "hatred", even toward the choreography, is always in question.
Neither was the theme of ritual suicide very riské at the time (as some have theorized), in fact, Stravinsky's previous ballet, "Petrushka", was much more shocking in it's concept: the whole work is meant to build up the lovable "Punch" character of traditional puppetry fame, only to kill him off to the audience's dismay in a very post-modern presentation (where there is an audience within the ballet which is supposed to represent the reactions of the real audience). Even with this, quite possibly, more out-going concept, Petrushka enjoyed immense popularity among Parisian audiences.
Quite possibly the two soully "musical" examples that caused commotion of this magnitude were from one of Paris's own Ravel, with Balero, a proto-minimalist work of which Ravel is quoted as saying, "Look, I have written a masterpiece and it contains no music." The other example is of Shoenberg's first atonal premier, his second string quartet, (conducted by Mahler, if I remember correctly), in Vienna, which caused enough commotion that the second half of the concert was drowned out by audience.
This wonderfull debate, I feel, owes it's existance to the mid 80s. I'd like to site the "accident" that made video game series' what they are today, the whole Mario 2 fiasco.
A sequal to the smash-hit Super Mario Bros. was released to Japan, but it was simply an alternate level set to the original game, (later released to America as "The Lost Levels"), but quickly got a high amount of criticism from for being too difficult, and Nintendo realized it would be a bad move to ship the floundering game to America. To supply America with a sequal to the smash hit of Super Mario Bros. 1, they simply sold them another game, "Doki Doki Panic" under the same name, with alternate "mario-esque" character sprites.
This lead to an interesting side effect, though. Notice that most games previous to Mario 2 (mario itself, if you count Mario2j), were simply alternate level sets built off the same engine as the first. But in this case, since a new engine had been completely developed for a new series, lead to the expectation that every sequal in a series had to have some fairly drastic changes to be able to sell.
Consider the movie industry. Even today, the bulk of sequals are rehashes of the same plot done with a slight twist. They're the same tried-and-true formuals with one change in the mix. Some sequals are more guilty than others, you have the abysmal mass-market kids movie like Home Alone 2, which have the same plot, minute-to-minute as their predicessor... whereas you do have some incredibly brilliant sequals like Godfather 2, which do take the narrative in a new direction, and are an attempt by the director to actually out-do or match the quality of the original. Sadly, however, the movie industry's over standards for sequals is quite low, and 95% aren't even worth watching, even if the original was exceptional.
It seems, however, that the gaming industry does not suffer the same problems. Where-as the movie industry suffers from lack of inspiration in series, games seem to thrive off their sequals, in a similar fashion to the music industry, in which many musicians achieve lasting success while honing their skills. Rarely do I look back on a video game series and consider the first game to be the best.
It's my belief that this is due, to a fair amount, to this shift in sequal behavior during the NES's mid-life, which I believe owes itself, to a large extent, to the Mario 2 fiasco.
Now every Zelda game has a completely altered feel, which gives the series incredible deapth and variety. There's something for everybody. The only game in the series to be built off the same engine as a previous game was Majora's Mask... interestly, probably the most "unique" game in the series, do to the fact that the team had to wildly alter gameplay, story, and mood in order to overcome the fact that it was based off the same engine and would take flack for this.
As for Wind Waker? I loved the graphics, they really brought back the feeling of innocence that had been left behind during the N64 era (though leading to two incredible sequals). However, I was incredibly dissapointed in most of the other aspects of the game. Even though the engine and mood had changed, all the other elements were extremely similar to Ocarina. Pacing was widly inconsistant, and at some times the game slows to an incredible crawl while sailing back and forth between ends of the map. The Donky Kong/Mairo/Zelda team have always been some of the biggest movers and shakers in the gaming industry,
I play and love their games because of the inspired feel of each release. While WW did offer some of it's new elements, it was one of the less ambitious offerings from them.
I'm excited by this new release not because of the graphics, but because from the things I'm hearing, they've been giving a lot of thought into radically changing gameplay and story elements, coming up with unique ideas and entering new territories that have yet to be treversed.
There is one thing that really pisses me off about Apple's “one size fits all” business model: it's only reasonable for certain styles of music. What about contemporary art music, progrock, or jazz (styles of music I listen to heavily) where a 15-20 minute track is not an uncommon occurence? Hell, some of my favorite CDs have something like 3 tracks ($3) and 50 minutes worth of music. Are you telling me they're worth less than a punk album with 20 tracks ($20) and the same amount of actual music? As a composer, most of my works are 8min+, how does this benefit me? Had this price model been around during the mid 70s, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have gone broke, or would have been forced to put out cookie-cutter 3 minute tracks like every other shitty pop artist. Under this price model, punk artists become millionares, and art music professionals go broke. I've devoted my entire life to learning about, and teaching myself how to write better music; spending, litterally, THOUSANDS of hours on my own or in conservatory. Why is this suddenly a bad thing, and shunned by both popular culture and the corporate model?
Apple, I love you to death, but fuck you're business model; price by the second, not by the track!
Also, don't get me started on “The Death of the Album”, I couldn't be unhappier to see artists forced to write soully on a song-to-song basis because chances are that listeners won't buy their whole albums. I was just getting really happy seeing artists coming back to writing whole albums that work together as one body of work, to see it destroyed by the new revolution.
Sure, this model puts pressure on artists to raise the level of quality from a song-to-song basis, but it also gives them an incentive to write MORE and SHORTER songs, since, “if I split the track in two, I'll make more money,” right?
I dunno, it seems I haven't had the bad experiences with movie going that most have. Once every 3 or 4 movies you get someone talking a little bit, once in a blue moon you have a cell phone going off (oooh, 3 seconds of distraction, scary). But then again, at home, during the evening you've got the phone ringing off the hook from telephone cillisitors.
Food & Drinks:
Screw 'em. If you're seeing a movie a 9:00, chances are, you've just eatten anyway. I never understood this. Most of you are just feeding your faces cuz it's tradition, which is a bad reason to eat in the first place. Oooh, and we all gaze, dumbfounded, as expterts tell us that America is getting fatter—gee, I wonder why. I'd be really happy if theaters could find a way of making money without selling food or drinks AT ALL, I'd even be willing to go to a theater that charged a few bucks more. They dirty theaters, are a source of noise themselves, plus: when you drink one of those large sodas, you've gotta run to the bathroom every 5 minutes (another source of distraction), and when you eat that much popcorn you have to drink soda every 10 seconds (I hate eating popcorn for this very reason).
I never understood why a bunch of friends and I would go out to dinner, go over the the theater-plex, and they'd immediately get back in line for more candy and drinks... why? Am I missing something here. Are movies so bad that they have to be combined with tastes just to be decent? (sometimes they are... I tend to be good at avoiding those though).
As for rugrats. I haven't had much problems either in Ohio or Alaska (where I've spent a lot of time). Both places I frequent regularly are Regal cinemaplexes with cumfy, well-maintained bleecher-style seating (high angle, so you can see over the top of Shaqiel O'Neal, who's in front of you). I tend to go to a lot of movies that kids don't like, but even when I do, I tend to have little problems, and one dirty look will usually shut them up.
I guess for the rest of you, at least for rated R movies, all the cinema companies should get a short video of Chris Rock telling all the little ones to "Shut the Fuck Up!" and for the yuppies with cellphones. Have a 10 second moment of silence with nothing but a black screen with the phrase, "Turn your cellphone off... Do it now", with obnoxious Jepordy-style music playing in the background.
Or how about this? Cell-phone reception sheilding? Shouldn't be that hard, hell, many buildings end up doing it by accident anyway. Just put in some material to block cell-phone transmissions going in and out of the theatre. Maybe even a trasmitter that would garble incoming signals would be able to do that.
That would make for an awful tribute, in my opinion. Moog pioneered and championed analog, imperfect, and continuously variable signals. MIDI is all about crisp, quantized, digital, perfectly sequencable and recordable signals.
That's not entirely acurate actually, Bob Moog is invaluably connected to MIDI. It was Bob who actually published the first public article detailing the MIDI standard (developed by Yamaha, Roland, and a consortion of other synth companies from 1980-83) in Keyboard Magazine, in 1983. This was, as it was meant to be, the final call, making MIDI the universal interface standard. The man himself was so reveared that when he said that there needed to be one universal interface standard, and that MIDI was that standard, everyone simply had to listen to him. If he hadn't done so, it's quite possible that no one interface standard would have been solidified, and synths would be no more compatable than today's computers.
So, the man is almost as important to MIDI as he is to the synthesizer. He invented neither, but in both cases brought them into a stage where they could be much more usable and commercially viable.
Honestly, I do agree that violence (not sex) in games AND IN FILM does highten our appathy toward violence in life. And not just in kids, I think kids are really no more malliable than adults in this case, but it's the adults doing the study, and they want their violent TV, so whatever.
But I think the more pressing concern is the fact that American video game companies are profitting off the bigger issue, one we seem to refuse to look in the eye: that our society is completely infatuated with voilence, and to the point where children would rather spend their money on a game that's violent as apposed to one that's not. GTAIII was, if I remember correctly, the best selling game in the US, outsellng The Sims and Myst (the two next best selling games at the time). THAT'S something to be alarmed at, the fact that people are screaming for it, not that it's available.
We always blame the Media and Entertainment industries when all they're doing is giving us what we want. Our first mistake is in our thought-processes behind the blaming of enetertainment. We only get worried, and start making acqusations, after a person has crossed the threshhold and committed a violent act, and then we hide behind a curtin with claims like, but I can distinguish fantasy from reality”. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. These are NOT copy-cat crimes, these are not adults and children who are dillusional about reality. These are children who are being told by everyone in their lives: from the things they see on TV, from the other children they see beat up in school, from their parants fighting, even from the the rising tension due to polarized politics in our country (children aren't stupid), from ALL of these things, it's no wonder they get the impression that violence is just a way of life, because to a certain extent, in our country, IT IS.
Let's quit with all the studies being used to put the blame on everything but our own violent lifestyles, it just allows people to project their own problems on everything else. America has the highest crime rate of any fully industrialized nation, these games are marketted everywhere (and usually flop), as is hollywood, so it's time to wake up, and face the reality that it's our way of life that's causing the problems, and not our entertainment.
When Mommy get's a big SUV because it makes her “feel” more secure, and Daddy buys a pistol because he feels he needs to protect his family from the outside world, little Billy's gonna get the impression that fear is a healthy, normal part of life.
Get a laptop pack then! That's all I've ever had, they practically gave me one with my PowerBook. If what you're saying about 90% of weight being re-distributed to your waist, then a 5lb laptop in a pack is about.6lbs of pressure on your shoulders. Sounds like a LOT cheeper and more elegant solution than gutting a laptop of all it's usefull hardware, all of which, people would then have to lug around in external form in their bags.
Consider this... what do laptops on planes get used for most? Watching movies. For that, you either need a DVD drive or take the time to rip all your DVDs to the HD. So, it would end up that most people would buy this 3lb laptop, and then have to carry around a 2lb firewire DVD drive, of which you have cables to worry about and uses up more power, so you have to bring an extra battery as well.
Folks, is 3lbs here and there really worth crippling a computer? If you can't handle it, maybe you should start lifting weights or something. I have little sympathy for people complaining that they want 3lbs off something they carry on their back. I've carried 50lbs for 5 days over a mountain pass, and so could most everyone else here.
My normal outfit is a 6lb PowerBook, a ~6lb LaCie firewire drive, 2 power bricks. Most of the time I'm carrying these along with either a pair of studio headphones and a DigiDesign MBox, or a GameCube with 4 controllers and games, or a bunch of text books. And still, the last thing I care about is 3lbs off my laptop.
Regarding the timing the intial fold-over should remain folded when the mouse is in place at the edge of a window instead of reverting after 0.5s. Then timing wouldn't be an issue. Just positioning of the mouse.
Possibly, that would solve one problem, but create another: it would activate any time you dragged between two windows. Of course, it could be made to activate only when the cursor hovers over the edge for about 500ms, as with spring-loaded folders and "auto-focus" windows. By this point, however, the process becomes needlessly slow, with the same result being achieved faster by numerous other implementations: Exposé or taskbar dragon-drop. Not to mention, I think the "slide and resize" used by Exposé is a more universally intuitive concept, as windows already move around and change shape on the screen.
I'm all for the improvement and innovation of interface design. Making a design intuitive increases productivity, even among power users who may do a particular action only once among a few thousand, and may not have it as ingrained as expected. That said, there are some major drawbacks to this design that may serve to make it less productive and even less intuitive.
Counter-Intuitive Metaphors
Metaphorical abstractions for computer objects only work if they have a clear representation of being similar to object they represent. While some windows (text boxes, for example) have a clear similarity to being a leaf of paper, many others do not; directory windows seem fairly unrelated to 2d objects: they contain multiple objects inside of them, likening them more to being a box or drawer, some 3d abstraction. Thus it is not only counter-intuitive to "fold-over" an object which has depth, but also brutally forcing a metaphor onto an object of which could suggest a completely alien mental abstraction from the one a user original envisioned. For this reason, almost all interface references to real-world objects are either extremely obvious or very broad in definition. The "focus" metaphor works, for instance, because you can bring any object (one with depth or no depth) and put it on top of another object, thus bringing it into "focus" or plain-sight; it is an extremely simple and all-encompassing concept.
Temporality and Spacial Complexity
The second problem with this method is its inherent temporality. Most GUI operation requires no timing, and in the rare cases that timing is required (ie: double-clicking, hovering over spring loaded folder), the operation is extremely simple and requires no precision. The one exception is double-clicking, and you can witness its result by watching any surface user fail to open a folder because they can't keep the mouse still while clicking the left mouse button. The folding operation illustrated here, on the other hand, is an extremely complex operation that takes some very precise timing. Even I, an experienced computer user (as we all are), had to practice it many times to double-back on my mouse movement fast enough to correctly "fold-over" a window. Since windows move and change in organization, the operation is slightly different each time it is performed. I can already tell that even if it the operation becomes somewhat natural, I'll always continue to miss on occasion because of it's complexity. And if I'm having trouble with it, I can't imagine what it would be like for my parents!
UPDATE: I had my mother test it out to see if a surface user could cope with it, and after struggling with it for a few minutes, finaly gave up.
Accidents and Set-backs
The third problem I for-see is that folding can easily occur unintentionally and is difficult to undo. Spring loaded folders and "snap-to" focusing work well because their actions inherently require a very specific action: going over a folder and waiting for about a half a second for the window to pop up. Since the cursor is going to be generally moving while dragging objects, a half-second wait over a folder or partly obscured window is abnormal and requires intentionality. Even then, it is as easily (if not more easily) reversed as it done by simply moving off the newly focused window. With folding, on the other hand, it's easy to see how any quick movement during a drag could activate the effect, and when the process of folding is started, it takes an even more complex spacial action to set it back, that being the looping around and back onto the fold from the other side.
Just a few thoughts on intuitive interface design, using this as an example of what works and what doesn't.
Let me speak as a trained composer who has also done his share of arrangements.
The difference between an original composition and a remix (I HATE that term, btw, what's wrong with the term "arrangement"?) is really not as big as it seems. All original compositions are, are compilations of other material (be it musical ideas or music inspired by other things), MOSTLY other musical ideas.
Just listen to classical music, for instance. A good 60 years of music that can all be catagorized by exactly the same theoretical devices! You can study a piece by Hydan, Mozart, or CPE Bach, and practically follow the same concise pattern. You don't really think that they were all writing in the same style by accident, do you? Sure the material was different, but the compositional techniques used by all the composers of the day were static. The sonata form (symphony), the minuet & trio, the rondo: all of these were templates in which to imprint your own "original" material (all of which were derived by the same inbread motifs). Not to put down classic-era music, but it just goes to show that the practice of re-using material was running rampent then, as it is now, as it always has been.
Even the best material written his it's origins. From Jimi's version of the National Anthem to Vaghn William's "Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis", we would never think to remove the credit these musicians have in these renditions. An arrangement/remix is simply stating your influence outright. This is nothing new, and is no more prevolent today than it ever has been. I guess maybe the 20th century was so hung up on the contrivencies of being "original", that it somewhat stifled the notion, which is probably why we see it as a new thing. Really, I believe this philosophy of "ultra-originalism" to be the annomoly, a general product of the 1930s-1990s. When western art music ceased to be music for the masses, beginning with the expressionists like Schoenberg and Webern, these cynics took their music underground and began to push this notion of pure originality as a way of building an ivory tower. It was THIS that drove away the masses, not so much the technical aspects of their music.
It's taken a good 80 years, but I think we're slowly seeing it give way with the advent of modern technology. As much as I, personally, am fairly unversed in hip-hop, I will credit it for bridging the gap between the masses and art music once again. And I think this partially because of it's use of borrowing and remixing. It's good to see this notion of ultra-orinality fall away, as it was a fairly immature, not to mention, in-artistic, notion to begin with.
Ok, so I'm probably not the only one here who's dissapointed in finding that NASAs next big plan looks and sounds really BORING. But if we're really serious about space exploration, then what's most important is what it can do to further that progress, not how it does it. Now, my big gripe is that "progress" itself doesn't seem all that important in this design as Congress keeps whining about space program employment and timeline crunches, but if this is the quickest and cheapest way to improve the space program, I'm all for it. It'll be the plan that probably gets humans to mars, after all... probably late in it's lifetime (probably no sooner than 2025, I forget the timeline).
But strangely enough, it looks like R&D for new space technologies is on the backburner at NASA to fund the actual program, while new private enterprises such as SpaceShipOne and LiftPort research and develop contemporary technologies that can achieve things like reusable, horizontal takeoff space planes and the space elevators. Problem is, the last 30 years have seemed to be fairly unproductive in terms of designing new space transportation oriented technologies. There have been numerous "space plane" projects, yet none of them have been able to produce a viable plan that is both doable and cost-effective. So, it's no wonder that NASAs cheepest solution is to basically make a new plan that simply reuses older technologies. That said, with the new companies mentioned, as well as many more in their early stages, this next generation of space transportation will see a much higher amount of R&D. Come 2040 (or whenever the new space shuttle fleet retires), there will be much more new space transportation technologies for NASA to steel. Until then, it looks like sexy spacecraft are more destined for private enterprise.
BTW: reading up on the concept of a "Space Elevator", the implications of such an installation are immense. I'm picturing a private enterprise like LiftPort completing one by 2020. Suddenly NASA turns around and realizes that they can completely skip earth to orbit spacecraft and scrap their current fleet to create space-specific craft which are more fuel efficiant than airplanes. Whoops! Leave the bottle rockets to kids.
Well, why haven't we heard anything about the Winamp Media Library as well? Sure, the WAML isn't the default window to popup in a WinAmp player, the default controller is very similar to iTunes' collapsed window player, but you're always one click away (or simply a change in default settings) from the Winamp Media Library, an interface that is identical to all the listed requirements claimed by the patent, in every way. The WAML was built into WinAmp circa 1999 with WinAmp 2.0 (I think, don't quote me on these dates though). Let's also keep in mind that iTune's default setup only has ONE scrollable field, the multipul fields at the top are brought into view only when the option is enabled, where-as the WAML shows these windows (artsist, album, etc.) by default and cannot be removed, though the individual fields themselves can be changed, if I remember correctly.
Here's a comparison of the current WinAmp 5.09 Media Library, though this window has remained more or less unchanged since it's conception:
Now, I'm not possitive, but I think the multipul field iTunes option was implemented when iTunes was ported to MacOS X, which was LONG after the WinAmpML was implemented. Nullsoft, on the other hand, has never filed suit or even complaint against apple in their interface design, although I'd be far more willing to bet that Apple would have been influenced by the largest music playing software (at the time) then by a non-working mockup by an underground company.
Plus, why isn't Contois suing Nullsoft? For one thing, Nullsoft actually is selling a version of their product (not all versions), where-as Apple's iTunes is a free download of which they do not directly profit off of. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Apple has been targetted after a long line of similar products have already come out, Apple just being one link in a chain of similar interfaces all influecing each other.
There is one instance in which iTunes CAN be used to play a player piano... and I've actually done it myself. This is in using a MIDI interface, which since iTunes can play.mid files, it can utilize (if setup properly), someone can use iTunes to trigger the action of a Yamaha Disclaviar which is basically an acoustic player piano that interperets MIDI data to play it instead of wind-hole piano rolls.
To say that this has anything to do with iTunes' intended use is beyond a stretch, though, for ANY program that can play a.mid file has the potential of playing back on any MIDI controller, even one used to trigger an acoustic instrument.
Their lawyers are going to have to do some pretty amazing arguements to support this, especially since a vital componant of playback of any MIDI controlled device is a "MIDI Controller", of which Apple doesn't even produce, let alone take responsibility in tying in with iTunes. The openned-ended architecture of todays computer environments simply allows for a variety of things. It's as if Apple sued Microsoft over "stikies" because they claim users can use folder names to leave notes for yourself on WindowsXP; sure this is true, but it has nothing to do with the intended use.
Dude, the guy looked at a sunflower and it reminded him of a computer monitor, he then went on to design the 2nd gen iMac (with the monitor on a stalk), one of apple's best selling computers. Yeah... I think dropping acid was a good thing.
plus, find me a Reedy who didn't drop acid... DURING THE 70s!!!
Now, I'm not a big advocate for speech recognition these days, mostly because the technology, while out there, hasn't been implemented very well yet. But a labelling style file system coupled with speech recognition could be absolutely beautiful. I was thinking about the one drawback to labelling, and that is that since typing is a bit slower than speech for most people, end users would be hesitant to meta-label their documents with more than one or two descriptive words, fogetting that as they build up more documents in their computer, searches will become more complex.
Once commerically available speech recognition gets to the point that uses can simply say a word and it is printed on the screen with reasonable accuracy (especially after identifying the individual's unique phonetic cues), a labelling system could be as simple as the following.
To label a specific Finale Music Notation file, say: "Label this file as 'Business' 'Warner Brothers' 'Composition' 'Film' 'Action' 'Red Hot Warriors' 'Parts' 'Cello' 'Second Draft'"
A transparant dialog box appears in the middle of the screen, and as each word is spoken, it is added to a list of labels in the box.
To open the file again, prompt the computer then say: "Open music document Red Hot Warriors, cello, part, second draft."
While this is being said, a transparant box appears in the middle of your screen, after each word is spoken, it prints each label being said, to make sure that it's transcribing your voice correctly, and a list of all files that could fall under that catagory.
Since the file type is "mus", a finale music file, it is redundant to add this label, since the computer knows it's a music file to begin with (as long as Finale does this automatically, and for anyone out there who knows MakeMusic, you know they'll be the first pro company to forget to do something like that).
It isn't perfect, but most people don't mind saying a few words, while typing 8-10 labels for every single file may feel exhausting after a while, espcially after working with lots of little files. I'm not saying that speech will make the keyboard obsolete, I think it always needs to be there for more "computer oriented" things like coding, naming files, or when the speech program fails, but a good GUI maes a lot of analogies to real world applications, therefor, we should use whatever technology is available to make more rudementary computer tasks seemless with our environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Also included is a scene of Mace Windu raping Jar-jar:
Sorry, I can't think of anything more un-PC, but I just had to do it.
Sure, it may not be written in the constitution, but a lot of things weren't written in the constitution that have since become law. The founding fathers weren't perfect, and they lived during the 18th century, therefor, the original constitution wasn't perfect for our time... for god sake, it condoned slavery!
Anyway, that's beside the point.
A government exists, in the minds of the people of a country, for ONE purpose, to help to protect the people of the nation against various threats (natural, manmade, ecconomic, or otherwise) that require much more capital and attention than any one individual can give. We have a law enforcement and judicial system to protect individuals from eachother, we have a military to protect individuals from outside threats, SUPPOSEDLY we have FEMA to repond and protect people who are in natural emergancy situations, we have countless ecconomic legal procedures in place to protect (and balance) the ecconomic interests of both individuals and businesses. The whole point of a democratic system of governing, though, is that it's up to the people to decide how and what is most important to protect themselves from. A government is not simply an institution, it is supposed to act as representives of the people, and carry out the balanced goals of the nation; to prioritize spending to most effectively help the greater good of our society.
So, how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security? If that doesn't qualify as a job for our government, I don't know what does. The question is, do the people care enough to put their money toward this cause? Generally, people realize that there are thousands of different ways their money can be used, and should to be given to. Like a good investment banker, we don't put all our money in one place. Even if the injury was inflicted by carelessness... then why do we have bankruptcy declarations for businesses who have injured their assets? Do we cease to provide medical assistance to those who choose not to flee a natural desaster area? (okay, so maybe we don't, but we're sure as hell supposed to)
So, while you are entitled to B) having moral qualms against federal funding on medical research, there is simply no justification for A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals. It's perfectly acceptable for you to prioritise other things over scientific research, but don't drag everyone else into it by trying to pass the idea off as unconstitutional. Personally, I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending. I believe if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field, while at the same time, increase the productivity of the military from a medical and surgical standpoint, thus making back almost all the military spending cuts we would have made in other ways.
So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research. No administration has ever argued against it, some have prioritised it more than others, but not even Bush, the great anti-intellectual, would agree with you there. Hell, NASA still gets billions for non-military related space exploration, and the national benefit to such a program is much less clear than neurological medical research. Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research. If he were here right now, he'd tell you to shut up, kick your ass, and probably steal with your girlfriend/wife! ;)
--EricI've had quite a few computers over the years, Mac & PC, a few years ago I bought a TiBook because I was getting disgusted at my PC desktop and needed a Mac for my audio work. Within about 2 weeks I completely switched over and used my desktop for only one thing: as a glorified stereo system and music organizer. Not too long after, it died a horrible death, and I didn't care. Still, after about two and a half years, my TiBook feels brand new, and I can safely say, it is far and away the best computer (in comparison to other computers of it's generation) I've ever owned, and mobility being a large (though not the only) reason for this. Suddenly it's possible for me to do things I'd never before even considered, like taking my work to places that I actually feel are PRODUCTIVE work environments, being able to share files on the go, always having my work (and play) with me at all times. It's truly wonderful. I've never once thought of going back.
As for the keyboard, I got used to it within about the first week. I've worked on it for hours at a time, without the slightest bit of muscle strain (it feels better to me than most normal keyboards). The trackpad has proved to be a lot more reasonable input device than I first expected, but for those long, stationary sessions, I bought a $30 logitech dongle mouse, which has proven to be the only unergonimic device in my setup (fixed cheaply by buying a $10 mousepad with a wrist rest). Currently, after 2 years, I'll admit, my battery life is down to about 90 minutes, but I'm rarely away from a plugin long enough for that to be an issue, especially since I got a 110v adaptor for my car (which I almost never use), if it became a problem, I could always drop a bit of dough for an additional battery, but considering the maintenenced upgrades I've had to do with my previous computers, that is NOTHING. So, I've designed my entire work life around a mac laptop, and I have to say, I've never been happier with a setup than I am now, and have no intention on changing that anytime soon. My next computer will be a laptop when this one finally bites it (and by the way things are going, I think it'll be a while).
So yeah, to me it seems reasonable that desktops should fade away. I think there's always room for those who need them as workhorse mainframes, with a laptop as its front end (for me, for instance, I might set one up to do complex softsynth processing, but use DP4 and Pro Tools on my laptop, outputting midi via ethernet). Render boxes rule, but they're nothing I'd want to sit and work on. As for games, computer gaming is too expensive anyway, I use consoles instead, but that's another thread/debate/flamewar entirely.
—Eric
Sure, balloons can reach high altitudes, but they still work on "lighter-than air" principals, out of the atmosphere, they're not lighter than a vacuume, thus, no lift, so while theoretically correct within the atmophere (a technical implaussibility using static balloons to hold a multi-sectioned teather in place, however, due to air movement, maintenance, etc.), you're back to square one once you get outside the atmophere, which makes up a large majority of the space elivator distance. --Eric
Sure, it's not been brought up, because it doesn't need to be. Most communications satalites are in geosynchronus, geostationary orbits over the equator, that is, they stay in the same position relative to a position on the ground. It's actually getting to be a bit of a concern, because satalites need to be at a specific height (around 35 thousand kilometers above sea level), and there are getting to be so many, it's getting fairly crowded (and by crowded, I'm guessing this means within a few hundred miles of eachother). Since this thing requires much more mass, its counterweight will be about twice as far out. obviously, this doesn't preclude a non GEO satalite from running into the teather, but since GEO satalites don't move, you can count them out as a problem. As for the rest of the satalites (mostly non communications satalites), they tend follow predictable and repeatitive orbits, though if someone can elaborate on this, it would be greatly appreciated. In any case, even satalites like the early ones of the 60s (Sputnik, etc.) there's so much space up there, there is probably more of a mathmatically likely chance of us running into a planet changing astroid than this thing getting hit by one. --Eric
Bingo,
Igor and his fans always loved to wear the riot as a badge of honor, but as great as The Rite of Spring was, the riot, it is now known, is almost entirely owed to Nijinsky, the choreographer for Diaghilev's Ballet Russe (the company for which The Rite of Spring was written for and performed by).
It should also be noted that The Rite of Spring, while not being a traditionally "tonal" work, is most definitely not considered "atonal", as Stravinsky's love for "tonal centers" follows him throughout the first half of his musical career (only giving in to atonality during the second half of his Parisian period and into his Hollywood period). The work is decidedly "modal" in nature, owing more similarity to Bartok or Debussy than to Schoenberg's free atonality or serialism.
The fact is, turn of the century Paris was extremely "Russia Happy", and instantly entertained almost any new Russian music or dance, mostly to great success. The Rite of Spring, musically, was extremely popular with the Parisians. The dance, on the other hand, was one of the major turning points from traditional ballet to modern dance, with little "point" work and a lot of jarring movements (of which did injure dancers in practice, btw). This is what caused the riot, between the traditionalists and the progressives. It should also be noted, however, that turn of the century Paris was constantly LOOKING for things to get all worked up over, a good riot was one of the most beloved passtimes of Parisians... so the extent of the "hatred", even toward the choreography, is always in question.
Neither was the theme of ritual suicide very riské at the time (as some have theorized), in fact, Stravinsky's previous ballet, "Petrushka", was much more shocking in it's concept: the whole work is meant to build up the lovable "Punch" character of traditional puppetry fame, only to kill him off to the audience's dismay in a very post-modern presentation (where there is an audience within the ballet which is supposed to represent the reactions of the real audience). Even with this, quite possibly, more out-going concept, Petrushka enjoyed immense popularity among Parisian audiences.
Quite possibly the two soully "musical" examples that caused commotion of this magnitude were from one of Paris's own Ravel, with Balero, a proto-minimalist work of which Ravel is quoted as saying, "Look, I have written a masterpiece and it contains no music." The other example is of Shoenberg's first atonal premier, his second string quartet, (conducted by Mahler, if I remember correctly), in Vienna, which caused enough commotion that the second half of the concert was drowned out by audience.
This wonderfull debate, I feel, owes it's existance to the mid 80s. I'd like to site the "accident" that made video game series' what they are today, the whole Mario 2 fiasco. A sequal to the smash-hit Super Mario Bros. was released to Japan, but it was simply an alternate level set to the original game, (later released to America as "The Lost Levels"), but quickly got a high amount of criticism from for being too difficult, and Nintendo realized it would be a bad move to ship the floundering game to America. To supply America with a sequal to the smash hit of Super Mario Bros. 1, they simply sold them another game, "Doki Doki Panic" under the same name, with alternate "mario-esque" character sprites. This lead to an interesting side effect, though. Notice that most games previous to Mario 2 (mario itself, if you count Mario2j), were simply alternate level sets built off the same engine as the first. But in this case, since a new engine had been completely developed for a new series, lead to the expectation that every sequal in a series had to have some fairly drastic changes to be able to sell. Consider the movie industry. Even today, the bulk of sequals are rehashes of the same plot done with a slight twist. They're the same tried-and-true formuals with one change in the mix. Some sequals are more guilty than others, you have the abysmal mass-market kids movie like Home Alone 2, which have the same plot, minute-to-minute as their predicessor... whereas you do have some incredibly brilliant sequals like Godfather 2, which do take the narrative in a new direction, and are an attempt by the director to actually out-do or match the quality of the original. Sadly, however, the movie industry's over standards for sequals is quite low, and 95% aren't even worth watching, even if the original was exceptional. It seems, however, that the gaming industry does not suffer the same problems. Where-as the movie industry suffers from lack of inspiration in series, games seem to thrive off their sequals, in a similar fashion to the music industry, in which many musicians achieve lasting success while honing their skills. Rarely do I look back on a video game series and consider the first game to be the best. It's my belief that this is due, to a fair amount, to this shift in sequal behavior during the NES's mid-life, which I believe owes itself, to a large extent, to the Mario 2 fiasco. Now every Zelda game has a completely altered feel, which gives the series incredible deapth and variety. There's something for everybody. The only game in the series to be built off the same engine as a previous game was Majora's Mask... interestly, probably the most "unique" game in the series, do to the fact that the team had to wildly alter gameplay, story, and mood in order to overcome the fact that it was based off the same engine and would take flack for this. As for Wind Waker? I loved the graphics, they really brought back the feeling of innocence that had been left behind during the N64 era (though leading to two incredible sequals). However, I was incredibly dissapointed in most of the other aspects of the game. Even though the engine and mood had changed, all the other elements were extremely similar to Ocarina. Pacing was widly inconsistant, and at some times the game slows to an incredible crawl while sailing back and forth between ends of the map. The Donky Kong/Mairo/Zelda team have always been some of the biggest movers and shakers in the gaming industry, I play and love their games because of the inspired feel of each release. While WW did offer some of it's new elements, it was one of the less ambitious offerings from them. I'm excited by this new release not because of the graphics, but because from the things I'm hearing, they've been giving a lot of thought into radically changing gameplay and story elements, coming up with unique ideas and entering new territories that have yet to be treversed.
There is one thing that really pisses me off about Apple's “one size fits all” business model: it's only reasonable for certain styles of music. What about contemporary art music, progrock, or jazz (styles of music I listen to heavily) where a 15-20 minute track is not an uncommon occurence? Hell, some of my favorite CDs have something like 3 tracks ($3) and 50 minutes worth of music. Are you telling me they're worth less than a punk album with 20 tracks ($20) and the same amount of actual music? As a composer, most of my works are 8min+, how does this benefit me? Had this price model been around during the mid 70s, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have gone broke, or would have been forced to put out cookie-cutter 3 minute tracks like every other shitty pop artist. Under this price model, punk artists become millionares, and art music professionals go broke. I've devoted my entire life to learning about, and teaching myself how to write better music; spending, litterally, THOUSANDS of hours on my own or in conservatory. Why is this suddenly a bad thing, and shunned by both popular culture and the corporate model?
Apple, I love you to death, but fuck you're business model; price by the second, not by the track!
Also, don't get me started on “The Death of the Album”, I couldn't be unhappier to see artists forced to write soully on a song-to-song basis because chances are that listeners won't buy their whole albums. I was just getting really happy seeing artists coming back to writing whole albums that work together as one body of work, to see it destroyed by the new revolution.
Sure, this model puts pressure on artists to raise the level of quality from a song-to-song basis, but it also gives them an incentive to write MORE and SHORTER songs, since, “if I split the track in two, I'll make more money,” right?
—EricI dunno, it seems I haven't had the bad experiences with movie going that most have. Once every 3 or 4 movies you get someone talking a little bit, once in a blue moon you have a cell phone going off (oooh, 3 seconds of distraction, scary). But then again, at home, during the evening you've got the phone ringing off the hook from telephone cillisitors.
Food & Drinks:
Screw 'em. If you're seeing a movie a 9:00, chances are, you've just eatten anyway. I never understood this. Most of you are just feeding your faces cuz it's tradition, which is a bad reason to eat in the first place. Oooh, and we all gaze, dumbfounded, as expterts tell us that America is getting fatter—gee, I wonder why. I'd be really happy if theaters could find a way of making money without selling food or drinks AT ALL, I'd even be willing to go to a theater that charged a few bucks more. They dirty theaters, are a source of noise themselves, plus: when you drink one of those large sodas, you've gotta run to the bathroom every 5 minutes (another source of distraction), and when you eat that much popcorn you have to drink soda every 10 seconds (I hate eating popcorn for this very reason).
I never understood why a bunch of friends and I would go out to dinner, go over the the theater-plex, and they'd immediately get back in line for more candy and drinks... why? Am I missing something here. Are movies so bad that they have to be combined with tastes just to be decent? (sometimes they are... I tend to be good at avoiding those though).
As for rugrats. I haven't had much problems either in Ohio or Alaska (where I've spent a lot of time). Both places I frequent regularly are Regal cinemaplexes with cumfy, well-maintained bleecher-style seating (high angle, so you can see over the top of Shaqiel O'Neal, who's in front of you). I tend to go to a lot of movies that kids don't like, but even when I do, I tend to have little problems, and one dirty look will usually shut them up.
I guess for the rest of you, at least for rated R movies, all the cinema companies should get a short video of Chris Rock telling all the little ones to "Shut the Fuck Up!" and for the yuppies with cellphones. Have a 10 second moment of silence with nothing but a black screen with the phrase, "Turn your cellphone off... Do it now", with obnoxious Jepordy-style music playing in the background.
Or how about this? Cell-phone reception sheilding? Shouldn't be that hard, hell, many buildings end up doing it by accident anyway. Just put in some material to block cell-phone transmissions going in and out of the theatre. Maybe even a trasmitter that would garble incoming signals would be able to do that.
That would make for an awful tribute, in my opinion. Moog pioneered and championed analog, imperfect, and continuously variable signals. MIDI is all about crisp, quantized, digital, perfectly sequencable and recordable signals.
That's not entirely acurate actually, Bob Moog is invaluably connected to MIDI. It was Bob who actually published the first public article detailing the MIDI standard (developed by Yamaha, Roland, and a consortion of other synth companies from 1980-83) in Keyboard Magazine, in 1983. This was, as it was meant to be, the final call, making MIDI the universal interface standard. The man himself was so reveared that when he said that there needed to be one universal interface standard, and that MIDI was that standard, everyone simply had to listen to him. If he hadn't done so, it's quite possible that no one interface standard would have been solidified, and synths would be no more compatable than today's computers.
So, the man is almost as important to MIDI as he is to the synthesizer. He invented neither, but in both cases brought them into a stage where they could be much more usable and commercially viable.
- EricHonestly, I do agree that violence (not sex) in games AND IN FILM does highten our appathy toward violence in life. And not just in kids, I think kids are really no more malliable than adults in this case, but it's the adults doing the study, and they want their violent TV, so whatever.
But I think the more pressing concern is the fact that American video game companies are profitting off the bigger issue, one we seem to refuse to look in the eye: that our society is completely infatuated with voilence, and to the point where children would rather spend their money on a game that's violent as apposed to one that's not. GTAIII was, if I remember correctly, the best selling game in the US, outsellng The Sims and Myst (the two next best selling games at the time). THAT'S something to be alarmed at, the fact that people are screaming for it, not that it's available.
We always blame the Media and Entertainment industries when all they're doing is giving us what we want. Our first mistake is in our thought-processes behind the blaming of enetertainment. We only get worried, and start making acqusations, after a person has crossed the threshhold and committed a violent act, and then we hide behind a curtin with claims like, but I can distinguish fantasy from reality”. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. These are NOT copy-cat crimes, these are not adults and children who are dillusional about reality. These are children who are being told by everyone in their lives: from the things they see on TV, from the other children they see beat up in school, from their parants fighting, even from the the rising tension due to polarized politics in our country (children aren't stupid), from ALL of these things, it's no wonder they get the impression that violence is just a way of life, because to a certain extent, in our country, IT IS.
Let's quit with all the studies being used to put the blame on everything but our own violent lifestyles, it just allows people to project their own problems on everything else. America has the highest crime rate of any fully industrialized nation, these games are marketted everywhere (and usually flop), as is hollywood, so it's time to wake up, and face the reality that it's our way of life that's causing the problems, and not our entertainment.
When Mommy get's a big SUV because it makes her “feel” more secure, and Daddy buys a pistol because he feels he needs to protect his family from the outside world, little Billy's gonna get the impression that fear is a healthy, normal part of life.
And here this whole time I thought it was a BeBox running OS X.
Someone needs to hack the Microsoft update server to send out this message:
"Windows Update has noticed you are not using the latest version of Internet Explorer. The following update is available:
http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-1.0.6 &os=win&lang=en-US
Do you want Windows to download and update your web browser?
Yes | No
Get a laptop pack then! That's all I've ever had, they practically gave me one with my PowerBook. If what you're saying about 90% of weight being re-distributed to your waist, then a 5lb laptop in a pack is about .6lbs of pressure on your shoulders. Sounds like a LOT cheeper and more elegant solution than gutting a laptop of all it's usefull hardware, all of which, people would then have to lug around in external form in their bags.
Consider this... what do laptops on planes get used for most? Watching movies. For that, you either need a DVD drive or take the time to rip all your DVDs to the HD. So, it would end up that most people would buy this 3lb laptop, and then have to carry around a 2lb firewire DVD drive, of which you have cables to worry about and uses up more power, so you have to bring an extra battery as well.
Folks, is 3lbs here and there really worth crippling a computer? If you can't handle it, maybe you should start lifting weights or something. I have little sympathy for people complaining that they want 3lbs off something they carry on their back. I've carried 50lbs for 5 days over a mountain pass, and so could most everyone else here.
My normal outfit is a 6lb PowerBook, a ~6lb LaCie firewire drive, 2 power bricks. Most of the time I'm carrying these along with either a pair of studio headphones and a DigiDesign MBox, or a GameCube with 4 controllers and games, or a bunch of text books. And still, the last thing I care about is 3lbs off my laptop.
Possibly, that would solve one problem, but create another: it would activate any time you dragged between two windows. Of course, it could be made to activate only when the cursor hovers over the edge for about 500ms, as with spring-loaded folders and "auto-focus" windows. By this point, however, the process becomes needlessly slow, with the same result being achieved faster by numerous other implementations: Exposé or taskbar dragon-drop. Not to mention, I think the "slide and resize" used by Exposé is a more universally intuitive concept, as windows already move around and change shape on the screen.
Why should anyone listen to someone who can't even use correct grammar?
And to answer you're question: because I'm fresh out of college and broke as a joke.
I'm all for the improvement and innovation of interface design. Making a design intuitive increases productivity, even among power users who may do a particular action only once among a few thousand, and may not have it as ingrained as expected. That said, there are some major drawbacks to this design that may serve to make it less productive and even less intuitive.
Counter-Intuitive Metaphors
Metaphorical abstractions for computer objects only work if they have a clear representation of being similar to object they represent. While some windows (text boxes, for example) have a clear similarity to being a leaf of paper, many others do not; directory windows seem fairly unrelated to 2d objects: they contain multiple objects inside of them, likening them more to being a box or drawer, some 3d abstraction. Thus it is not only counter-intuitive to "fold-over" an object which has depth, but also brutally forcing a metaphor onto an object of which could suggest a completely alien mental abstraction from the one a user original envisioned. For this reason, almost all interface references to real-world objects are either extremely obvious or very broad in definition. The "focus" metaphor works, for instance, because you can bring any object (one with depth or no depth) and put it on top of another object, thus bringing it into "focus" or plain-sight; it is an extremely simple and all-encompassing concept.
Temporality and Spacial Complexity
The second problem with this method is its inherent temporality. Most GUI operation requires no timing, and in the rare cases that timing is required (ie: double-clicking, hovering over spring loaded folder), the operation is extremely simple and requires no precision. The one exception is double-clicking, and you can witness its result by watching any surface user fail to open a folder because they can't keep the mouse still while clicking the left mouse button. The folding operation illustrated here, on the other hand, is an extremely complex operation that takes some very precise timing. Even I, an experienced computer user (as we all are), had to practice it many times to double-back on my mouse movement fast enough to correctly "fold-over" a window. Since windows move and change in organization, the operation is slightly different each time it is performed. I can already tell that even if it the operation becomes somewhat natural, I'll always continue to miss on occasion because of it's complexity. And if I'm having trouble with it, I can't imagine what it would be like for my parents!
UPDATE: I had my mother test it out to see if a surface user could cope with it, and after struggling with it for a few minutes, finaly gave up.
Accidents and Set-backs
The third problem I for-see is that folding can easily occur unintentionally and is difficult to undo. Spring loaded folders and "snap-to" focusing work well because their actions inherently require a very specific action: going over a folder and waiting for about a half a second for the window to pop up. Since the cursor is going to be generally moving while dragging objects, a half-second wait over a folder or partly obscured window is abnormal and requires intentionality. Even then, it is as easily (if not more easily) reversed as it done by simply moving off the newly focused window. With folding, on the other hand, it's easy to see how any quick movement during a drag could activate the effect, and when the process of folding is started, it takes an even more complex spacial action to set it back, that being the looping around and back onto the fold from the other side.
Just a few thoughts on intuitive interface design, using this as an example of what works and what doesn't.
As usual, Americans are willing to sell their freedom for convenience.
Let me speak as a trained composer who has also done his share of arrangements.
The difference between an original composition and a remix (I HATE that term, btw, what's wrong with the term "arrangement"?) is really not as big as it seems. All original compositions are, are compilations of other material (be it musical ideas or music inspired by other things), MOSTLY other musical ideas.
Just listen to classical music, for instance. A good 60 years of music that can all be catagorized by exactly the same theoretical devices! You can study a piece by Hydan, Mozart, or CPE Bach, and practically follow the same concise pattern. You don't really think that they were all writing in the same style by accident, do you? Sure the material was different, but the compositional techniques used by all the composers of the day were static. The sonata form (symphony), the minuet & trio, the rondo: all of these were templates in which to imprint your own "original" material (all of which were derived by the same inbread motifs). Not to put down classic-era music, but it just goes to show that the practice of re-using material was running rampent then, as it is now, as it always has been.
Even the best material written his it's origins. From Jimi's version of the National Anthem to Vaghn William's "Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis", we would never think to remove the credit these musicians have in these renditions. An arrangement/remix is simply stating your influence outright. This is nothing new, and is no more prevolent today than it ever has been. I guess maybe the 20th century was so hung up on the contrivencies of being "original", that it somewhat stifled the notion, which is probably why we see it as a new thing. Really, I believe this philosophy of "ultra-originalism" to be the annomoly, a general product of the 1930s-1990s. When western art music ceased to be music for the masses, beginning with the expressionists like Schoenberg and Webern, these cynics took their music underground and began to push this notion of pure originality as a way of building an ivory tower. It was THIS that drove away the masses, not so much the technical aspects of their music.
It's taken a good 80 years, but I think we're slowly seeing it give way with the advent of modern technology. As much as I, personally, am fairly unversed in hip-hop, I will credit it for bridging the gap between the masses and art music once again. And I think this partially because of it's use of borrowing and remixing. It's good to see this notion of ultra-orinality fall away, as it was a fairly immature, not to mention, in-artistic, notion to begin with.
- EricOk, so I'm probably not the only one here who's dissapointed in finding that NASAs next big plan looks and sounds really BORING. But if we're really serious about space exploration, then what's most important is what it can do to further that progress, not how it does it. Now, my big gripe is that "progress" itself doesn't seem all that important in this design as Congress keeps whining about space program employment and timeline crunches, but if this is the quickest and cheapest way to improve the space program, I'm all for it. It'll be the plan that probably gets humans to mars, after all... probably late in it's lifetime (probably no sooner than 2025, I forget the timeline).
But strangely enough, it looks like R&D for new space technologies is on the backburner at NASA to fund the actual program, while new private enterprises such as SpaceShipOne and LiftPort research and develop contemporary technologies that can achieve things like reusable, horizontal takeoff space planes and the space elevators. Problem is, the last 30 years have seemed to be fairly unproductive in terms of designing new space transportation oriented technologies. There have been numerous "space plane" projects, yet none of them have been able to produce a viable plan that is both doable and cost-effective. So, it's no wonder that NASAs cheepest solution is to basically make a new plan that simply reuses older technologies. That said, with the new companies mentioned, as well as many more in their early stages, this next generation of space transportation will see a much higher amount of R&D. Come 2040 (or whenever the new space shuttle fleet retires), there will be much more new space transportation technologies for NASA to steel. Until then, it looks like sexy spacecraft are more destined for private enterprise.
BTW: reading up on the concept of a "Space Elevator", the implications of such an installation are immense. I'm picturing a private enterprise like LiftPort completing one by 2020. Suddenly NASA turns around and realizes that they can completely skip earth to orbit spacecraft and scrap their current fleet to create space-specific craft which are more fuel efficiant than airplanes. Whoops! Leave the bottle rockets to kids.
Well, why haven't we heard anything about the Winamp Media Library as well? Sure, the WAML isn't the default window to popup in a WinAmp player, the default controller is very similar to iTunes' collapsed window player, but you're always one click away (or simply a change in default settings) from the Winamp Media Library, an interface that is identical to all the listed requirements claimed by the patent, in every way. The WAML was built into WinAmp circa 1999 with WinAmp 2.0 (I think, don't quote me on these dates though). Let's also keep in mind that iTune's default setup only has ONE scrollable field, the multipul fields at the top are brought into view only when the option is enabled, where-as the WAML shows these windows (artsist, album, etc.) by default and cannot be removed, though the individual fields themselves can be changed, if I remember correctly.
Here's a comparison of the current WinAmp 5.09 Media Library, though this window has remained more or less unchanged since it's conception:
Contois Mockup / WinAmp Media LibraryNow, I'm not possitive, but I think the multipul field iTunes option was implemented when iTunes was ported to MacOS X, which was LONG after the WinAmpML was implemented. Nullsoft, on the other hand, has never filed suit or even complaint against apple in their interface design, although I'd be far more willing to bet that Apple would have been influenced by the largest music playing software (at the time) then by a non-working mockup by an underground company.
Plus, why isn't Contois suing Nullsoft? For one thing, Nullsoft actually is selling a version of their product (not all versions), where-as Apple's iTunes is a free download of which they do not directly profit off of. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Apple has been targetted after a long line of similar products have already come out, Apple just being one link in a chain of similar interfaces all influecing each other.
- EricThere is one instance in which iTunes CAN be used to play a player piano... and I've actually done it myself. This is in using a MIDI interface, which since iTunes can play .mid files, it can utilize (if setup properly), someone can use iTunes to trigger the action of a Yamaha Disclaviar which is basically an acoustic player piano that interperets MIDI data to play it instead of wind-hole piano rolls.
To say that this has anything to do with iTunes' intended use is beyond a stretch, though, for ANY program that can play a .mid file has the potential of playing back on any MIDI controller, even one used to trigger an acoustic instrument.
Their lawyers are going to have to do some pretty amazing arguements to support this, especially since a vital componant of playback of any MIDI controlled device is a "MIDI Controller", of which Apple doesn't even produce, let alone take responsibility in tying in with iTunes. The openned-ended architecture of todays computer environments simply allows for a variety of things. It's as if Apple sued Microsoft over "stikies" because they claim users can use folder names to leave notes for yourself on WindowsXP; sure this is true, but it has nothing to do with the intended use.
- EricDude, the guy looked at a sunflower and it reminded him of a computer monitor, he then went on to design the 2nd gen iMac (with the monitor on a stalk), one of apple's best selling computers. Yeah... I think dropping acid was a good thing.
plus, find me a Reedy who didn't drop acid... DURING THE 70s!!!
Now, I'm not a big advocate for speech recognition these days, mostly because the technology, while out there, hasn't been implemented very well yet. But a labelling style file system coupled with speech recognition could be absolutely beautiful. I was thinking about the one drawback to labelling, and that is that since typing is a bit slower than speech for most people, end users would be hesitant to meta-label their documents with more than one or two descriptive words, fogetting that as they build up more documents in their computer, searches will become more complex.
Once commerically available speech recognition gets to the point that uses can simply say a word and it is printed on the screen with reasonable accuracy (especially after identifying the individual's unique phonetic cues), a labelling system could be as simple as the following.
To label a specific Finale Music Notation file, say:
"Label this file as 'Business' 'Warner Brothers' 'Composition' 'Film' 'Action' 'Red Hot Warriors' 'Parts' 'Cello' 'Second Draft'"
A transparant dialog box appears in the middle of the screen, and as each word is spoken, it is added to a list of labels in the box.
To open the file again, prompt the computer then say:
"Open music document Red Hot Warriors, cello, part, second draft."
While this is being said, a transparant box appears in the middle of your screen, after each word is spoken, it prints each label being said, to make sure that it's transcribing your voice correctly, and a list of all files that could fall under that catagory.
Since the file type is "mus", a finale music file, it is redundant to add this label, since the computer knows it's a music file to begin with (as long as Finale does this automatically, and for anyone out there who knows MakeMusic, you know they'll be the first pro company to forget to do something like that).
It isn't perfect, but most people don't mind saying a few words, while typing 8-10 labels for every single file may feel exhausting after a while, espcially after working with lots of little files. I'm not saying that speech will make the keyboard obsolete, I think it always needs to be there for more "computer oriented" things like coding, naming files, or when the speech program fails, but a good GUI maes a lot of analogies to real world applications, therefor, we should use whatever technology is available to make more rudementary computer tasks seemless with our environment.
I hate to say it, but the only way to get peace is with a knife. Men must continue to die in order to preserve peace.
What about women? I think a fair share of them should die too.