People have posted a few good arguments against using your eyes as the mouse cursor. The biggest one for me is that I don't always want to be looking at the thing I am clicking.
Just as I don't want to look at the keyboard while I'm typing, or sometimes even at the screen (say, looking at some notes on my desk) I don't always want the mouse cursor where I'm looking.
That doesn't make any difference. Someone has to be paying them and getting a return. And so the same argument applies.
If I wanted advertisement, and you offered to post one trillion of them for me neatly on the inside of a sewer pipe for one hundredth of a cent per add. Guess how many I'd have you post.
I've asked this question in Slashdot before, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
There are 7633 messages in my gmail spam folder. Now let's suppose I'm new to the internet, and I read spam message #1. Do I want Viagra? No thanks. Message #2, still don't want Viagra. #3 no thanks, I'm fine.
Well, I didn't buy that stuff the first 7633 times you asked me THIS MONTH, but maybe if you ask me REALLY nicely with a few misspellings just once more, then I'll cave into my male inadequacies and buy prescription medicine from a sketchy online source.
Now I'm going to pretend I'm a spammer. I want lots of money. What benefit is there to me to send a single address more than say... 5 messages? (not per month. EVER) If it didn't make it through the filters the first time, it won't the 800th time, and the more messages I send, the more likely my recipients will learn to evade them. More importantly, a jaded audience won't be receptive to buy.
I can imagine that the newer scams could be useful. Like the ones pretending to be your bank. I've only received a few of those, and it took some thinking to realize that the facts didn't add up. But the normal viagra spam should only be useful in the very limited cases where a brand new user (8 years old?) who hasn't been exposed to it ever before reads one of the first messages and decided that it's a worthwhile endeavour.
My hypothesis are: 1) Spam is not used in the effort of making money, but as a way of crippling the internet for sport. OR 2) The majority of spam is sent by poor, hungry and stupid script kiddies who are as of now still poor, hungry and stupid.
Interestingly. 10 kelvin != 10 degrees. The unit is 'kelvins' not 'degrees kelvin.' A degree means an increment between one extreme to another, which made sense for the Fahrenheit system (100 increments between the likely lowest and highest temperatures generally experienced in the environment the system was made in) and it made sense for the Centigrade system (100 increments between the freezing point and the boiling point of water at standard pressure.)
That's why degrees are also used in angles. 360 increments around a circle.
As the kelvin scale is absolute, referring to them as degrees isn't correct.
Where are they? I figured at least one or two Pidgin developers would troll slashdot. I want to see em battle it out for the eighth time here for the enjoyment of all to watch.
Hmmm. That's interesting. You're right. Perhaps the CPU and the GPU are too different to play nicely on the same die.
A little simpler then. If CPU processing power does continue to increase exponentially (regardless of need) then one clever way to speed up a processor may be to introduce specialized processing cores. The differences might be small at first. Maybe some cores could be optimized for 64bit applications while others are still backwards compatible with 32bit. (No. I have no idea what sort of logistical nightmare this would be. )
... core processor? I don't understand the author's logic. Now, suppose it's 2012 or so and multiple core processors have gotten past their initial growing pains and computers are finally able to use any number of cores each to their maximum potential at the same time.
A logical improvement at this point would be to start specializing cores to specific types of jobs. As the processor assigns jobs to particular cores, it would preferentially assign tasks to the cores best suited for that type of processing.
I agree with AC. The tendrils are not for power generation.
The craft generates electricity using the solar panels which powers an electron gun. The electron gun gets rid of electrons allowing the entire spacecraft (solar sail tendrils included) to become positively charged and then catch the solar wind for propulsion.
The electron gun can also provide a tiny amount of thrust. A very tiny amount of thrust.
Well. The Gross Domestic Product is a monetary measure of how strong the economy is and it is measured (roughly speaking) by how much money moves into the hands of businesses within the country in a given amount of time (say. a year). It's just a measure that's easy to tally because businesses have to report revenue.
So if your neighbour gives you a boost, and even if you pay him for his trouble, there's no record of this transaction and so it isn't tallied, and doesn't contribute to the GDP.
If you JUST look at the numbers, then clearly you're better off getting the tow truck. If you use a little common sense, you realize that software vendors are just a bunch of cry babies.
You're absolutely right! The standard example I've seen in economics classes is that if you pay for a tow company to come boost your car, you gain benefit from it, and this is reflected in the GDP (a monetary index of the quality of life... sorta). If instead, you get a boost from your neighbour, you also benefit, but the GDP does not increase.
This doesn't mean that paying for a service improves the national quality of life more than getting it for free. It simply means that money is a poor means by which to measure the quality of life.
Hmm. Yeah. It wasn't zoomed in this close when he posted it. However, you can also see that the left side isn't quite lined up. If you moved the infinity apple a little further to the left, it could fit a little better.
aside from that. If the fella 'punched it to the apple logo' he might not have done so perfectly.
Anyways. You're right. It's not as close as I first thought it was.
Wow. Apple may actually have a case here. One of the anonymous comments in TFA from a graphics designer is fantastic. I can't link to it, so I'll copy it.
Subject: Apples to Oranges, Image Attached! Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:16 am
I worked for many years as a graphic designer and found that most artists "borrow" good design. That is what we are taught to do. It's not blatant plagiarism, but used as the root in preliminary design and eventual fruit in this case, of the final design.
After comparing the two side by side, or rather overlayed one atop the other and turned into transparencies, it is clear the original apple logo was used as the basis for the design in question.
If you look closely you can see the greenNYC logo follows the exact curve of the apple and in fact may have been "cookie cut" from an actual Apple Inc. logo using special image editing tools.
You can go through thousands of clip art and dingbats and not come across the same curve. However, I have seen the Apple logo as a symbol in a couple typefaces presumably placed there by a dedicated fan.(???)
It is not uncommon to paste dozens of similar logos and symbols all over the work area to help along the process.
This artist took it a little too far and figured no one would notice. Some of us hear myths about changing a design by a certain percent makes it okay...well not quite.
The designer probably put a stylized letter "S", squashed it, flopped it, and punched it out of the Apple Inc. logo. Then tweaked the ends of the "S" and fused on the stem.
Then they grabbed the Apple Inc. leaf and flopped it and moved it slightly down and to the left.
I've been guilty of similar blunders, and was surprised when my client caught it...even though it had a different typeface, different colors, different markets AND my own Icon built from scratch!
Too similar he said...no go.
That's when I learned just placing elements the same as another can make you out as a copy cat even though the artwork is your own.
Go easy on the designer...
Probably up way too late, from way too many lattes for way too little money.
I guarantee you Apple Inc. paid more to challenge the design than the actual designer got paid in the first place.
There's just no money in it.
Sad but true.
Many so called design firms hire freelance that are often out of the country like India for mere pennies compared to established firms in the U.S.
You have a better chance of being a movie star than getting rich playing designer! Find a friend in the business and latch on, otherwise you're just another pretty fish.
My 2 cents anyway.
If you can't access the link above just click here or copy and paste the address into your address bar to view the image.
I REALLY hope Apple wins and NYC's logo is thrown out. There's no one better suited to start rolling back absurd property rights than a city full of pissed off politicians.
I was thinking of marrying Tanica, the new housemaking robot from the Serius Cybernetics Corporation. Sleek and good looking, and gives fantastic back massages.
Ultimately, I decided she was too high maintenance.
Cancer? What is it about magnetic fields you think can cause cancer? You know that every time you open your fridge, there's a changing magnetic field beneath your hand.
In broad terms, the only forms of radiation that can cause cancer are ionizing radiation. That means that individual photons can break a bond between two atoms. The reason this can cause cancer is that you can break a bond within a DNA strand which could be repaired incorrectly by the cell in such a way that it looses control over itself.
So starting from lowest energy and going up. Electric fields and magnetic fields (or RF waves) can't cause cancer. Infrared waves (heat) can't cause cancer Microwaves (cellphones) can't cause cancer Visible light can't cause cancer Ultra Violet rays are slightly ionizing, and can cause cancer x-rays and gamma rays can cause cancer
There's an exception to this. If you made a substantial change in an electric or magnetic field in under 10^-16 seconds, then you would emit some UV rays. This isn't something we're capable of doing without some sort of cathode ray tube. (not used in this device)
lol. That stealth fighter bothered me too. I'm sorry. But you can't build a fighter jet today by welding together steel box beams. And you certainly wouldn't be able to build a space fighter either.
Also. It takes a hell of a lot more than using carbon fiber as your surface skin to make something stealth.
I'm a little surprised that they injected malignant human cells into mice. These viruses do have a different effect on human cells and mouse cells don't they?
If this does end up working, the procedure would have a substantial problem. It would need to be performed on an immuno-suppressed people or else the virus is 'stamped out' before it has a chance to mount an effective attack on the cancer.
Hmm. Some really good points. I remember BSG has an impressive water purification system.
As for the the refinery ship. That's plausible. But do you think they also have a textile factory ship? The uniforms and clothes look just as good in 4 (aired?) than they did in season 1.:p
We definitely need replicators. Man. I missed the totally logical science of Startrek.
I stopped watching the series after it stopped being about running away from the hoard of robots trying to murder everyone. I'm not terribly interested in complicated relationships. That's what soap operas are for.
Briefly in the early part of the series, things started running out. Simple commodities like whiskey and playing cards. I was upset when that issue disappeared. A random assortment of military and civilian vessels might be well stocked, but they certainly would not have a full assortment of manufacturing capabilities. Especially for specialized good like pharmaceuticals. They eventually addressed a shortage of antibiotics, and the development of a black market. But realistically. They would be able to produce no antibiotics at all.
And really. Why would a passenger vessel capable of hopping between stars in the blink of an eye have manufacturing centers? Or fuel refineries? Or food production capabilities. I was hoping to see Cloud Nine, the dome greenhouse like ship be converted into agricultural land.
I know these issues aren't nearly as exciting as -getting into bed with your imaginary genocidal robot-
Think about it though. The main goals following some sort of catastrophe like this would be. 1.Stability: Stop whatever killed everyone from still doing so. Stop the panic. Get people working together instead of looting from each other. 2.Preserving technology, infrastructure and supplies. If you've got something that works, you can't replace it. Do whatever you can to keep it working. 3.Rebuilding infrastructure. Need to grow food to live once the supplies run out. Can we built farming workers? No. Can we build tractors? No. Can we build shovels? Yes. Start from there, and learn what we need to make it work.
4.(optional) Preserving knowledge. After everyone's farming, hunting, gathering, or whatever is needed to stay alive. We realize that we still know how to make all sorts of advanced technology, even if we don't have a large enough society to make use of it. It would be valuable to archive all the knowledge so that it is accessible after the last battery runs out of juice.
I agree. Isn't there an easier solution? I was thinking that you could set off small explosions in the regolith and observe the spectrum emitted to determine the elements present. No need for wheels, drills, or landing systems. Just a few hundred high explosive projectiles, a telescope with a spectrometer on an orbiter and three hundred grad students back on earth to crunch the data.
Well... Those NASA people are pretty smart. I'm sure there's a reason they're going this route.
Because some kid could walk up to a robot, and tell it to waltz off a cliff and it would do so. (in such a way as to not kill any people on the way down) I believe the second and third laws would need to be switched.
Slashdot Mirror
People have posted a few good arguments against using your eyes as the mouse cursor. The biggest one for me is that I don't always want to be looking at the thing I am clicking.
Just as I don't want to look at the keyboard while I'm typing, or sometimes even at the screen (say, looking at some notes on my desk) I don't always want the mouse cursor where I'm looking.
Well, if they don't get a return, then you need a constant stream of idiots who have access to Viagra at below market costs.
No. I think someone has to be making money from the mass spam for it to exist. I just don't see how.
That doesn't make any difference. Someone has to be paying them and getting a return. And so the same argument applies.
If I wanted advertisement, and you offered to post one trillion of them for me neatly on the inside of a sewer pipe for one hundredth of a cent per add. Guess how many I'd have you post.
I've asked this question in Slashdot before, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
There are 7633 messages in my gmail spam folder. Now let's suppose I'm new to the internet, and I read spam message #1. Do I want Viagra? No thanks. Message #2, still don't want Viagra. #3 no thanks, I'm fine.
Well, I didn't buy that stuff the first 7633 times you asked me THIS MONTH, but maybe if you ask me REALLY nicely with a few misspellings just once more, then I'll cave into my male inadequacies and buy prescription medicine from a sketchy online source.
Now I'm going to pretend I'm a spammer. I want lots of money. What benefit is there to me to send a single address more than say... 5 messages? (not per month. EVER) If it didn't make it through the filters the first time, it won't the 800th time, and the more messages I send, the more likely my recipients will learn to evade them. More importantly, a jaded audience won't be receptive to buy.
I can imagine that the newer scams could be useful. Like the ones pretending to be your bank. I've only received a few of those, and it took some thinking to realize that the facts didn't add up. But the normal viagra spam should only be useful in the very limited cases where a brand new user (8 years old?) who hasn't been exposed to it ever before reads one of the first messages and decided that it's a worthwhile endeavour.
My hypothesis are:
1) Spam is not used in the effort of making money, but as a way of crippling the internet for sport.
OR
2) The majority of spam is sent by poor, hungry and stupid script kiddies who are as of now still poor, hungry and stupid.
Interestingly. 10 kelvin != 10 degrees.
The unit is 'kelvins' not 'degrees kelvin.' A degree means an increment between one extreme to another, which made sense for the Fahrenheit system (100 increments between the likely lowest and highest temperatures generally experienced in the environment the system was made in) and it made sense for the Centigrade system (100 increments between the freezing point and the boiling point of water at standard pressure.)
That's why degrees are also used in angles. 360 increments around a circle.
As the kelvin scale is absolute, referring to them as degrees isn't correct.
Where are they?
I figured at least one or two Pidgin developers would troll slashdot. I want to see em battle it out for the eighth time here for the enjoyment of all to watch.
Hmmm. That's interesting.
You're right. Perhaps the CPU and the GPU are too different to play nicely on the same die.
A little simpler then. If CPU processing power does continue to increase exponentially (regardless of need) then one clever way to speed up a processor may be to introduce specialized processing cores. The differences might be small at first. Maybe some cores could be optimized for 64bit applications while others are still backwards compatible with 32bit. (No. I have no idea what sort of logistical nightmare this would be. )
... core processor? I don't understand the author's logic. Now, suppose it's 2012 or so and multiple core processors have gotten past their initial growing pains and computers are finally able to use any number of cores each to their maximum potential at the same time.
A logical improvement at this point would be to start specializing cores to specific types of jobs. As the processor assigns jobs to particular cores, it would preferentially assign tasks to the cores best suited for that type of processing.
I agree with AC.
The tendrils are not for power generation.
The craft generates electricity using the solar panels which powers an electron gun. The electron gun gets rid of electrons allowing the entire spacecraft (solar sail tendrils included) to become positively charged and then catch the solar wind for propulsion.
The electron gun can also provide a tiny amount of thrust. A very tiny amount of thrust.
Well. The Gross Domestic Product is a monetary measure of how strong the economy is and it is measured (roughly speaking) by how much money moves into the hands of businesses within the country in a given amount of time (say. a year). It's just a measure that's easy to tally because businesses have to report revenue.
So if your neighbour gives you a boost, and even if you pay him for his trouble, there's no record of this transaction and so it isn't tallied, and doesn't contribute to the GDP.
If you JUST look at the numbers, then clearly you're better off getting the tow truck. If you use a little common sense, you realize that software vendors are just a bunch of cry babies.
You can also build a plane that will never crash by filling the gastanks with cement so it will never fly. But, you have to ask if it's still a plane.
You're absolutely right!
The standard example I've seen in economics classes is that if you pay for a tow company to come boost your car, you gain benefit from it, and this is reflected in the GDP (a monetary index of the quality of life... sorta). If instead, you get a boost from your neighbour, you also benefit, but the GDP does not increase.
This doesn't mean that paying for a service improves the national quality of life more than getting it for free. It simply means that money is a poor means by which to measure the quality of life.
Hmm. Yeah.
It wasn't zoomed in this close when he posted it.
However, you can also see that the left side isn't quite lined up. If you moved the infinity apple a little further to the left, it could fit a little better.
aside from that. If the fella 'punched it to the apple logo' he might not have done so perfectly.
Anyways. You're right. It's not as close as I first thought it was.
Wow. Apple may actually have a case here. One of the anonymous comments in TFA from a graphics designer is fantastic. I can't link to it, so I'll copy it.
Subject: Apples to Oranges, Image Attached!
Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:16 am
I worked for many years as a graphic designer and found that most artists "borrow" good design. That is what we are taught to do. It's not blatant plagiarism, but used as the root in preliminary design and eventual fruit in this case, of the final design.
After comparing the two side by side, or rather overlayed one atop the other and turned into transparencies, it is clear the original apple logo was used as the basis for the design in question.
If you look closely you can see the greenNYC logo follows the exact curve of the apple and in fact may have been "cookie cut" from an actual Apple Inc. logo using special image editing tools.
You can go through thousands of clip art and dingbats and not come across the same curve. However, I have seen the Apple logo as a symbol in a couple typefaces presumably placed there by a dedicated fan.(???)
It is not uncommon to paste dozens of similar logos and symbols all over the work area to help along the process.
This artist took it a little too far and figured no one would notice. Some of us hear myths about changing a design by a certain percent makes it okay...well not quite.
The designer probably put a stylized letter "S", squashed it, flopped it, and punched it out of the Apple Inc. logo. Then tweaked the ends of the "S" and fused on the stem.
Then they grabbed the Apple Inc. leaf and flopped it and moved it slightly down and to the left.
"Down, and to the left. Down and to the left..."
*image was posted here*
I've been guilty of similar blunders, and was surprised when my client caught it...even though it had a different typeface, different colors, different markets AND my own Icon built from scratch!
Too similar he said...no go.
That's when I learned just placing elements the same as another can make you out as a copy cat even though the artwork is your own.
Go easy on the designer...
Probably up way too late, from way too many lattes for way too little money.
I guarantee you Apple Inc. paid more to challenge the design than the actual designer got paid in the first place.
There's just no money in it.
Sad but true.
Many so called design firms hire freelance that are often out of the country like India for mere pennies compared to established firms in the U.S.
You have a better chance of being a movie star than getting rich playing designer! Find a friend in the business and latch on, otherwise you're just another pretty fish.
My 2 cents anyway.
If you can't access the link above just click here or copy and paste the address into your address bar to view the image.
http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=applestoorangesua8.jpg
I REALLY hope Apple wins and NYC's logo is thrown out.
There's no one better suited to start rolling back absurd property rights than a city full of pissed off politicians.
One Terabyte ought to be enough for anybody.
I was thinking of marrying Tanica, the new housemaking robot from the Serius Cybernetics Corporation. Sleek and good looking, and gives fantastic back massages.
Ultimately, I decided she was too high maintenance.
Cancer? What is it about magnetic fields you think can cause cancer?
You know that every time you open your fridge, there's a changing magnetic field beneath your hand.
In broad terms, the only forms of radiation that can cause cancer are ionizing radiation. That means that individual photons can break a bond between two atoms. The reason this can cause cancer is that you can break a bond within a DNA strand which could be repaired incorrectly by the cell in such a way that it looses control over itself.
So starting from lowest energy and going up.
Electric fields and magnetic fields (or RF waves) can't cause cancer.
Infrared waves (heat) can't cause cancer
Microwaves (cellphones) can't cause cancer
Visible light can't cause cancer
Ultra Violet rays are slightly ionizing, and can cause cancer
x-rays and gamma rays can cause cancer
There's an exception to this. If you made a substantial change in an electric or magnetic field in under 10^-16 seconds, then you would emit some UV rays. This isn't something we're capable of doing without some sort of cathode ray tube. (not used in this device)
lol.
That stealth fighter bothered me too.
I'm sorry. But you can't build a fighter jet today by welding together steel box beams. And you certainly wouldn't be able to build a space fighter either.
Also. It takes a hell of a lot more than using carbon fiber as your surface skin to make something stealth.
But I admit it! Realism makes for crappy TV!
I'm a little surprised that they injected malignant human cells into mice. These viruses do have a different effect on human cells and mouse cells don't they?
If this does end up working, the procedure would have a substantial problem. It would need to be performed on an immuno-suppressed people or else the virus is 'stamped out' before it has a chance to mount an effective attack on the cancer.
Hmm. Some really good points.
:p
I remember BSG has an impressive water purification system.
As for the the refinery ship. That's plausible.
But do you think they also have a textile factory ship? The uniforms and clothes look just as good in 4 (aired?) than they did in season 1.
We definitely need replicators.
Man. I missed the totally logical science of Startrek.
I stopped watching the series after it stopped being about running away from the hoard of robots trying to murder everyone. I'm not terribly interested in complicated relationships. That's what soap operas are for.
Briefly in the early part of the series, things started running out. Simple commodities like whiskey and playing cards. I was upset when that issue disappeared. A random assortment of military and civilian vessels might be well stocked, but they certainly would not have a full assortment of manufacturing capabilities. Especially for specialized good like pharmaceuticals. They eventually addressed a shortage of antibiotics, and the development of a black market. But realistically. They would be able to produce no antibiotics at all.
And really. Why would a passenger vessel capable of hopping between stars in the blink of an eye have manufacturing centers? Or fuel refineries? Or food production capabilities.
I was hoping to see Cloud Nine, the dome greenhouse like ship be converted into agricultural land.
I know these issues aren't nearly as exciting as -getting into bed with your imaginary genocidal robot-
Think about it though. The main goals following some sort of catastrophe like this would be.
1.Stability: Stop whatever killed everyone from still doing so. Stop the panic. Get people working together instead of looting from each other.
2.Preserving technology, infrastructure and supplies. If you've got something that works, you can't replace it. Do whatever you can to keep it working.
3.Rebuilding infrastructure. Need to grow food to live once the supplies run out. Can we built farming workers? No. Can we build tractors? No. Can we build shovels? Yes. Start from there, and learn what we need to make it work.
4.(optional) Preserving knowledge. After everyone's farming, hunting, gathering, or whatever is needed to stay alive. We realize that we still know how to make all sorts of advanced technology, even if we don't have a large enough society to make use of it. It would be valuable to archive all the knowledge so that it is accessible after the last battery runs out of juice.
just my thoughts...
I agree. Isn't there an easier solution?
I was thinking that you could set off small explosions in the regolith and observe the spectrum emitted to determine the elements present. No need for wheels, drills, or landing systems. Just a few hundred high explosive projectiles, a telescope with a spectrometer on an orbiter and three hundred grad students back on earth to crunch the data.
Well... Those NASA people are pretty smart. I'm sure there's a reason they're going this route.
The AA turret didn't go mad. It broke (mechanically) and the kickback spun the gun around as it was firing.
The laws in that order confuse me.
Because some kid could walk up to a robot, and tell it to waltz off a cliff and it would do so. (in such a way as to not kill any people on the way down) I believe the second and third laws would need to be switched.