Ok, I'll admit, I was a bit lazy about spelling the WYSIWYG acronym correctly. At the time I didn't care.
My argument wasn't so much age base (according to your non-sequitur about user numbers), but rather my experience in fiddling around with all of these systems. I don't like WYSIWYG editors because it is often a pain to write a complex equation, write in all of the variable, and edit it should it need changes. In my uses of a WYSIWYG I often have to search through a series of mouse clicks for basic functions and symbols, e.g. summation, product, rho, pi, lambda, etc. I have a practical need for such symbols as they convey very specific meanings in their contexts and using a simple alpha character wouldn't suffice. In LaTeX or OO, I can simply type out the name of the things I need. The next challenge is getting the equation to look right. For instance, a summation can have its parameters on the top or off to the side. A WYSIWYG editor usually does not have the functionality to change up these kinds of display features easily and it's either buried or nonexistent. Again, with Math editors, I can simply specify how the parameters should be displayed. LaTeX and TeX are particularly useful in this task in that they provide the ability to write macros. This enables me to take apart a function and write it's components separately to be discussed. I would need to perform some additional fiddling to resize the sub-equation in a WYSIWYG editor.
I don't hate WYSIWYG editors, I just don't think that they are currently the write tool for writing and editing an equation. WYSIWYG editors are great for just dumping out text and applying a handful of operations: font changes, bold, italicize, underline, etc. They fail at writing equations because Math is a language unto itself and our current keyboards do not support expressing ideas in that language. So, I use macros and markups because it's ultimately less time consuming that wrestling with the visual controls of an editor.
I thought that math was actually pretty reasonable in OO. I usually use it to write short equations, but I found that it was convenient to have the functionality to program a math function rather than deal with some wissywig editor. If I needed to write any moderately complex equations though, I'd probably go with LaTeX hands down. Learning it is a pain, but you have a bit more control when dealing with various markups and macros.
If I go to watch a movie in the theaters, I'm going/paying for the better quality sound and video as well as the bigger screen. If a movie is good I don't mind paying the extra money to see a high quality version rather than wait for a camcorder or dvd version to come out. Thing is, if producers can't make a product worth the paper or plastic it's print on, then no one will want to pay for it or spend time downloading it.
Ya but Steve Jobs is pretty much the reason why Apple is so successful. He applies his stringent standards of quality and emits the Steve-aura and this makes Apple generate products which appear a notch above the rest. If he did get hit by a bus or cancer, I doubt Apple would be able to maintain the momentum it currently has. Now, while his well-being may drastically affect the well being of the company, I still do not think it is right on any level for stock holders to demand the disclosure of his medical records. Unless the medical information directly affects others' physical(not monetary) well-being, like a leading governmental official, then it should be kept private as it could be used abusive fashion (though I'm not sure about the how).
Tron while an oddity in the 1980's is iconic now. There have been a LOT of popular shows have referenced this material in one form or another such that it has become popular among the general public (even if they've never seen the movie). So, I don't think getting to step 4 is that far fetched.
I'm pretty sure that with hybrids, you recharge the car by plugging it into a compatible wall socket somewhere. The nice thing about that is you might be able to consolidate the inefficiencies at one sight (a power plant) instead of across thousands to millions of individual vehicles.
Hmmm... I think I read on a previous article that a number of big companies were consolidating their patents together with the possible intent of avoiding legal battles and patent trolls. To that degree, I think it might also be in these companies' interests if they fight for the little guy on obvious patents against trolls such that it doesn't set a precedent in the court system and reach them. It might even been cheaper to fight it off at an early stage. Of course, another useful consequence of fighting these stupid legal battles for the little guy is that losing holds little consequence to the big company and they gain experience to learn where they went wrong if they do lose. If they win, they get all of the bonuses that go with that.
Well sure, but my point was that E3 didn't seem targeted towards gamers considering how admittance was structured. I remember some years back (before E3 for Everyone) that game developers got in for free (or had their fees subsidized by their company), journalists had discounts, and regular people had to pay ~300$. For a regular gamer at the time, ages 10-20, this cost would be too prohibitive to attend. Even the definition, according to wikipedia states that it is not targeted at gamers but at peers in the industry:
The E3 Media and Business Summit, formerly known as Electronic Entertainment Expo and commonly known as E3, is an annual trade show for the computer and video games industry presented by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). It is used by many video game developers to show off their upcoming games and game-related hardware.
E3 for everyone was just being a tad schizoid because it was trying to serve two very different audiences: game developers and game players. As such, developers would complain about the cost of making flamboyent booths for gamers when they just need to attract the attention of vendors and distributors. This is why I specified that PAX would be appropriate for one audience and GDC for another. PAX could have extravagant booths to drum up PR while GDC presenters could survive with a simple computer and projector to demo their product. In this manner, they could decide which event is more appropriate to attend according to their state in the development cycle (ie no more showing products in alpha as playable games).
PAX is not E3. PAX was never meant to be E3. It's simply a (huge)gathering of like-minded people who enjoy playing games. In fact, if they experienced the same problems that E3 is: discouraged vendors, they wouldn't give a damn, simply because it isn't about fanfare or showing up the competition. Now, if you want to look for an E3 replacement, the Game Developers Conference (GDC) seems more appropriate. It's oriented more around the development of games rather than the playing of them. The booths are less extravagant, the keynotes are about the technical/business aspects of the industry, and there's even a space for amateur developers to show off their work. It sounds like E3 started out as a game developers conference but has since turned into a PR event. If developers want to drum up hype, they should spend money and probably attend PAX (word of mouth does quite a bit for game advertisement). If developers want to do more research on their craft and see what their peers are doing, they should attend the GDC.
Hmmm...I wonder how long it will be then, until we see isp's whining about how we're clogging up their inter-tubes. If the wait time to view a streaming video is reduced, I imagine that it will increase the preference or desire to see such a video online versus not watching it or seeing it through some other medium.
Every now and then I visit gametrailers to check out the new games and those that aren't hyper-realistic (even those that don't try to be) are modded the fuck down with a list of comments saying how crappy the graphics are. I find this a little annoying, particularly with games that aren't trying to be realistic because they are attempting a more artistic flare. Consider WoW (I don't play), most people now think the graphics are crap, but they fail to notice that the low resolution graphics makes the game run smoother and they actually have a certain artistic style to them. I think we've gotten to the state where there are just waaay too many people are trying to be elitist by acting jaded over reasonably good graphics. As a consequence they fail to acknowledge the other features that make a game good: novelty, innovative gameplay, detailed stories, etc. and what we're left with is a bunch of fps clones:P.
But this isn't a question about reducing poverty. I'm simply pointing out that if we cannot develop a sustainable environment, then the mission will be burdened with the need to continually supply resources. This becomes prohibitively expensive as you expand further into space because you'll need to send a continuous stream of ships just to maintain the mission. A machine doesn't have the need for human contact, food, water, or respiratory gases. Consequently, you don't have to continually provide supplies and you can plan for one way observation trips.
We don't need to solve poverty, but developing an environment where the human astronaut can provide for their own needs would go a long way to making extensive space trips feasible.
Ya multiple desktops is one of the reasons I've moved to Linux (that and the ability to program on the fly).
This may be a little off topic, but I'd also would like to see Windows Office tools support ODF, though I doubt they will produce anything that isn't purposely crippled. The only reason I want this is so I work in Linux while being able to collaborate with Windows users with minimal hassle.
Few things are worse than seeing Windows maul a perfectly good document with auto formatting and file conversion.
I dunno. Most of the science that we can do and should do, do not currently require manned expeditions to mars. Those include developing a sustainable living environment (which we have trouble doing here on earth) and faster modes of transportation (otherwise your asking for people to spend up to 10 years in space with minimal human contact). Like all good science, before we start performing experiments involving humans, we should perform our initial studies using lesser organisms or no organisms if at all possible. This will end up yielding similar results with less risk to the humans or financial stability of the program. I'm sure the "No manned space program!" supporters are only saying that because it will lead to more practical and attainable advances without leaving the space program subject to shifts in the political landscape.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll admit, I was a bit lazy about spelling the WYSIWYG acronym correctly. At the time I didn't care.
My argument wasn't so much age base (according to your non-sequitur about user numbers), but rather my experience in fiddling around with all of these systems. I don't like WYSIWYG editors because it is often a pain to write a complex equation, write in all of the variable, and edit it should it need changes. In my uses of a WYSIWYG I often have to search through a series of mouse clicks for basic functions and symbols, e.g. summation, product, rho, pi, lambda, etc. I have a practical need for such symbols as they convey very specific meanings in their contexts and using a simple alpha character wouldn't suffice. In LaTeX or OO, I can simply type out the name of the things I need. The next challenge is getting the equation to look right. For instance, a summation can have its parameters on the top or off to the side. A WYSIWYG editor usually does not have the functionality to change up these kinds of display features easily and it's either buried or nonexistent. Again, with Math editors, I can simply specify how the parameters should be displayed. LaTeX and TeX are particularly useful in this task in that they provide the ability to write macros. This enables me to take apart a function and write it's components separately to be discussed. I would need to perform some additional fiddling to resize the sub-equation in a WYSIWYG editor.
I don't hate WYSIWYG editors, I just don't think that they are currently the write tool for writing and editing an equation. WYSIWYG editors are great for just dumping out text and applying a handful of operations: font changes, bold, italicize, underline, etc. They fail at writing equations because Math is a language unto itself and our current keyboards do not support expressing ideas in that language. So, I use macros and markups because it's ultimately less time consuming that wrestling with the visual controls of an editor.
I thought that math was actually pretty reasonable in OO. I usually use it to write short equations, but I found that it was convenient to have the functionality to program a math function rather than deal with some wissywig editor. If I needed to write any moderately complex equations though, I'd probably go with LaTeX hands down. Learning it is a pain, but you have a bit more control when dealing with various markups and macros.
If I go to watch a movie in the theaters, I'm going/paying for the better quality sound and video as well as the bigger screen. If a movie is good I don't mind paying the extra money to see a high quality version rather than wait for a camcorder or dvd version to come out. Thing is, if producers can't make a product worth the paper or plastic it's print on, then no one will want to pay for it or spend time downloading it.
I dunno. I thought the other 4 were just bots from the first, sending out viruses and scams.
Ya but Steve Jobs is pretty much the reason why Apple is so successful. He applies his stringent standards of quality and emits the Steve-aura and this makes Apple generate products which appear a notch above the rest. If he did get hit by a bus or cancer, I doubt Apple would be able to maintain the momentum it currently has. Now, while his well-being may drastically affect the well being of the company, I still do not think it is right on any level for stock holders to demand the disclosure of his medical records. Unless the medical information directly affects others' physical(not monetary) well-being, like a leading governmental official, then it should be kept private as it could be used abusive fashion (though I'm not sure about the how).
I'm pretty sure Stanford and Berkeley are to the West...
T hat is unless you live in Southern California.
Tron while an oddity in the 1980's is iconic now. There have been a LOT of popular shows have referenced this material in one form or another such that it has become popular among the general public (even if they've never seen the movie). So, I don't think getting to step 4 is that far fetched.
Hold on while I make an xkcd strip of that last statement.
Don't you mean three-armed man? If not, I have something to make his member bigger.
That raises an interesting question:
Do you come with a return policy?
Your post was not as funny as previously advertised.
I'm pretty sure that with hybrids, you recharge the car by plugging it into a compatible wall socket somewhere. The nice thing about that is you might be able to consolidate the inefficiencies at one sight (a power plant) instead of across thousands to millions of individual vehicles.
Hmmm... I think I read on a previous article that a number of big companies were consolidating their patents together with the possible intent of avoiding legal battles and patent trolls. To that degree, I think it might also be in these companies' interests if they fight for the little guy on obvious patents against trolls such that it doesn't set a precedent in the court system and reach them. It might even been cheaper to fight it off at an early stage. Of course, another useful consequence of fighting these stupid legal battles for the little guy is that losing holds little consequence to the big company and they gain experience to learn where they went wrong if they do lose. If they win, they get all of the bonuses that go with that.
Santa has prior art and if you say otherwise, he'll put you on his naughty list, find where you are sleeping, and gun you down.
The E3 Media and Business Summit, formerly known as Electronic Entertainment Expo and commonly known as E3, is an annual trade show for the computer and video games industry presented by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). It is used by many video game developers to show off their upcoming games and game-related hardware.
E3 for everyone was just being a tad schizoid because it was trying to serve two very different audiences: game developers and game players. As such, developers would complain about the cost of making flamboyent booths for gamers when they just need to attract the attention of vendors and distributors. This is why I specified that PAX would be appropriate for one audience and GDC for another. PAX could have extravagant booths to drum up PR while GDC presenters could survive with a simple computer and projector to demo their product. In this manner, they could decide which event is more appropriate to attend according to their state in the development cycle (ie no more showing products in alpha as playable games).
Ya, they did get close with the bat nipples. However, it was more of a S&M dark than a gritty noir dark.
mrrrrrr..... (Think green or I'll eat your brains)
Or you could just use a lifesaver :).
PAX is not E3. PAX was never meant to be E3. It's simply a (huge)gathering of like-minded people who enjoy playing games. In fact, if they experienced the same problems that E3 is: discouraged vendors, they wouldn't give a damn, simply because it isn't about fanfare or showing up the competition. Now, if you want to look for an E3 replacement, the Game Developers Conference (GDC) seems more appropriate. It's oriented more around the development of games rather than the playing of them. The booths are less extravagant, the keynotes are about the technical/business aspects of the industry, and there's even a space for amateur developers to show off their work. It sounds like E3 started out as a game developers conference but has since turned into a PR event. If developers want to drum up hype, they should spend money and probably attend PAX (word of mouth does quite a bit for game advertisement). If developers want to do more research on their craft and see what their peers are doing, they should attend the GDC.
Hmmm...I wonder how long it will be then, until we see isp's whining about how we're clogging up their inter-tubes. If the wait time to view a streaming video is reduced, I imagine that it will increase the preference or desire to see such a video online versus not watching it or seeing it through some other medium.
Every now and then I visit gametrailers to check out the new games and those that aren't hyper-realistic (even those that don't try to be) are modded the fuck down with a list of comments saying how crappy the graphics are. I find this a little annoying, particularly with games that aren't trying to be realistic because they are attempting a more artistic flare. Consider WoW (I don't play), most people now think the graphics are crap, but they fail to notice that the low resolution graphics makes the game run smoother and they actually have a certain artistic style to them. I think we've gotten to the state where there are just waaay too many people are trying to be elitist by acting jaded over reasonably good graphics. As a consequence they fail to acknowledge the other features that make a game good: novelty, innovative gameplay, detailed stories, etc. and what we're left with is a bunch of fps clones :P.
Does that mean we should hire more white people to offset the number of Indians and Asians brought in by H1B Visas? :)
And it'll probably come with a force-feedback codpiece for an enhanced gaming experience.
But this isn't a question about reducing poverty. I'm simply pointing out that if we cannot develop a sustainable environment, then the mission will be burdened with the need to continually supply resources. This becomes prohibitively expensive as you expand further into space because you'll need to send a continuous stream of ships just to maintain the mission. A machine doesn't have the need for human contact, food, water, or respiratory gases. Consequently, you don't have to continually provide supplies and you can plan for one way observation trips.
We don't need to solve poverty, but developing an environment where the human astronaut can provide for their own needs would go a long way to making extensive space trips feasible.
Ya multiple desktops is one of the reasons I've moved to Linux (that and the ability to program on the fly).
This may be a little off topic, but I'd also would like to see Windows Office tools support ODF, though I doubt they will produce anything that isn't purposely crippled. The only reason I want this is so I work in Linux while being able to collaborate with Windows users with minimal hassle.
Few things are worse than seeing Windows maul a perfectly good document with auto formatting and file conversion.
I dunno. Most of the science that we can do and should do, do not currently require manned expeditions to mars. Those include developing a sustainable living environment (which we have trouble doing here on earth) and faster modes of transportation (otherwise your asking for people to spend up to 10 years in space with minimal human contact). Like all good science, before we start performing experiments involving humans, we should perform our initial studies using lesser organisms or no organisms if at all possible. This will end up yielding similar results with less risk to the humans or financial stability of the program. I'm sure the "No manned space program!" supporters are only saying that because it will lead to more practical and attainable advances without leaving the space program subject to shifts in the political landscape.