I switched to Dvorak in 1995, and ever since I've modified my personal or office computers to use the layout exclusively. I prefer it without question, because it's immediately apparent (once one becomes proficient in it) that Dvorak feels smoother and requires less finger and hand movement for most commonly typed words. When I use QWERTY, I feel as if my fingers are all over the place trying to type even simple letter combos.
But I've never been able to get away from QWERTY completely, because I've always worked in a computer-related field where I was in whole labs of machines that others used. Today I work as a school tech coordinator, managing dozens of Macs and PCs, so I'm in and out of both layouts constantly.
My findings:
With sufficient practice, one can be "bi-keyboardish", that is able to type proficiently in both layouts. And why shouldn't this be true? Musicians can play multiple instruments that are similar but not the same - guitar, mandolin, banjo - and the human neurological system has a tremendous amount of plasticity and adaptability. Seems obvious to me that learning Dvorak doesn't automatically lead to unlearning QWERTY, provided you use both regularly. Now, I definitely use Dvorak a lot more than QWERTY for copious typing tasks, so consequently my QWERTY skills have faded a bit relative to my Dvorak ones. But I'm still able to touch-type in both!
Macs are much better about switching layouts than Windows. Maybe XP has improved up this, but Windows was/is terrible about maintaining the layout between applications. You can be typing an email happily in Dvorak, but switch to Word and the OS reverts to QWERTY without you noticing. Goddamn annoying! Mac OS X Tiger actually has a setting that allows this kind of behavior, called "Input Source Options" in the International > Input Menu pref pane. Why you'd want your layout switching back and forth depending upon the active app is beyond me, but I oh how I wish Windows had had that option years ago!
Dvorak is an excellent security system for deterring snoops on your personal machine. My wife has become expert in switching layouts, since we share computers, but the kids at school who sit down and try to type something on my machine are quickly stymied, and several co-workers have been as well. It's such fun to watch their faces as they start typing and see total gibberish show up...
End manifesto. I highly recommend Dvorak - I believe, despite all the philistines and "evidence" to the contrary out there, that it does help reduce RSI and keep finger movement to a minimum.
I wrote my entire Masters thesis (for an IT degree) based on a comment my professor made in class one day. He's about my age (30-ish) and an avid gamer, and one day he sheepishly admitted to the class that he still played computer and video games. Of course, so do I - but neither of us truly fit the stereotype of the socially maladept high-school or college loser male (both married, successful careers, homeowners, active social lives, etc.). I got to thinking about how outdated the gamer stereotype is, and how my prof shouldn't have to feel silly or immature when he plays games. Eventually, I wrote a broader thesis about the cultural of digital gaming and how it's evolved from a niche culture to something that pervades nearly every medium, but the core impulse was based on my intuition that the public perception of the gamer was not only an overgeneralization (to be expected from most stereotypes) but also outdated and quite harmful.
Which is why it (mildly) bugged me that the headlines for this study's results said something like "Surprising Facts About Gamers." Why should this be surprising? It's only those who never lost their narrow view of what these games are about and who plays them who are surprised - anyone who plays the games, reads about them, or looks at the people in EB could tell you that there's no one subculture surrounding them. Yes, perhaps the hardcore gamer still mostly fits the picture, but why should the extreme examples define the majority? With games moving into the mainstream in a huge way, it's damaging to the industry's and the individual gamer's image to allow these ignorant stereotypes to be perpetuated.
Just my $.02 + karma bonus. Now I'll be thinking about Jedi Knight II all day until I can get home and play it...
I too bought a new machine, received it on Saturday. But even though I ran the Security Update 8-23-2002, my build number remains at 6C115. Why the difference?
Hey thanks, and congrats on returning to the fold! I pondered buying an "older" G4, but I couldn't resist the lure of shiny new hardware. I'm like a crow that way.:)
The card is impressive for sure and should have NVIDIA on the ropes for a while, as it beats out a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 handily, especially with Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering enabled.
Holy polygons, would you just quit the hype already? I *just* ordered a dual-867 Power Mac with GF4 Ti, and I spent a pretty penny for that upgrade - can't a guy bask in hardware glory without some bithead like you going and raining on his GPU parade? Sheesh.
If Apple does this, expect a device that seems like other consolidated gadgets, e.g. Handspring's Treo, but upon closer examination is different in subtle but crucial ways. I don't think they'll veer from the basic iPod formula much - they'll start with a technology that's up-and-coming, like iPod's tiny HD, support it with a thoughtful combination of hardware and software, like firewire and iTunes, and they'll create a device that is so useful and good-looking we'll all wonder why nobody thought of it before. Only in this case the up-and-coming technology is Bluetooth, the supporting software is iSync, iCal, iChat, Address Book, Jaguar's Bluetooth support, and maybe even OS X Mail. Who knows what the cool hardware is - maybe there will be an integrated camera, or a clever way to use the screen, or a higher quality speaker, or an organic LED color screen. (The camera idea is intriguing, but that may end up being an entirely separate device - with their emphasis on iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto I'd be surprised if they haven't at least prototyped some combo still-DV models. It's not unprecedented, either.)
I don't think Apple management walks on water - any engineering company can create new gadgets - but their design philosophy and willingness to push beyond what's already been done make all the difference. Of course they won't manufacture it themselves - again, the iPod showed their willingness to admit their limitations. When it comes to consumer electronics, they're not a fabrication outfit, they're a design house, with an emphasis on integration with their existing line of software. I'm excited to see what they come up with next.
RocketGeek, I totally agree with you. The kind of anti-tinkering prejudice exhibited by some posters about this story is astounding to me. Although not an engineer by training (or really by nature) myself, I've worked closely with them and understand the ethos quite well. Tinkering isn't a marginal activity, it's the heart and soul of what it means to be an engineer. The lack of imagination that the skeptics are showing is incredible - is it so hard to believe that a bunch of guys in a warehouse could eventually (note that word) build a ship that takes men into space?
This is why I was so excited when "Junkyard Wars" became popular - it glorifies the engineers (at least the mechanical ones) in a way that is clearly needed, based on the nudniks who disparage Armadillo's efforts. We need more high-profile shows that go into serious detail about the creation process behind major engineering efforts - I'm talking actual series here, instead of one hour about how the Hoover Dam got built. I'd watch an Engineering Channel for hours on end if it existed. For example, I'd love to hear about all the setbacks and bugs they encountered when programming the computers for the first Apollo missions!
Go to Armadillo's web site and read some of their weekly reports on their progress - these guys are totally serious, and they know their stuff. What they don't know, they've learned, from the ground up - they started with very simple engines bolted to test racks, and they even dribbled peroxide onto various materials to test how they reacted (note to self: no leather shoes!). Along with the other small rocket companies, they're creating a new space culture that is unbelievably exciting - you watch, this is not a blip - more companies like this will spring up. This is the beginning of a whole new private space industry - at last the general public has the technology available to launch thing Very High.:)
To all the philistines, I've said it before - try to grow an imagination. It could prove useful someday.
You're still missing the point. Of course I wouldn't trust my life to an Apple I, just like I wouldn't put the SR-71 prototype into production without building a second version or race in the latest experimental Mclaren. Just because the research takes place in a garage-equivalent and bends metal with trucks and elbow grease doesn't make it any less valid. The glamor of the finished product always masks the sweat, cursing, and unglamorous methods that went into its creation. But it's people like you that motivate companies to keep their betas under wraps - if you don't understand the creation process, then the road to innovation and genius is paved with what appears to be scary, duct-taped crap. Try to grow an imagination.
BTW, stupid error in my original comment - this is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle at all, just a pod that takes a man straight up into space and straight back down. SSTO is much harder!
Yeah, you're probably right. I know at least a dozen guys on my block alone who are designing and building single-stage-to-orbit manned launch vehicles. Nothinggoodever came out of garage tinkering, anyhow.
Imagine: You're frozen. You've been that way for hundreds of years. Now they thaw you, and you're up and walking around and cured of stomach cancer or whatever.
What now?
All your friends are dead (save for the ones who were frozen, probably not many), your stuff is long gone, and your money...well, I haven't heard of any of these cryogenic companies socking away cab fare for their clients. What bank would preserve your accounts while you're technically dead?
My point is, yes you're thawed and alive, but your life basically sucks. And nobody knows you, or cares about you. Suddenly immortality doesn't sound so appealing...
The article you link makes several attempts to debase the traditional points made by Dvorak advocates, but as Dvorak typist for 11 years now I can offer a few refutations.
First, the article says that QWERTY is, in fact, a more "evolved" standard than was once though, which is to say it underwent iterative refinements that improved its usefulness. I buy this only up to a point. Yes, there were certainly many failed keyboard layouts prior to QWERTY (most had separate keys for caps and lowercase, for instance, and many were alpha order), but I've never read an account that claimed QWERTY was engineered with an eye toward the three cardinal rules of keyboard layout (as stated in the article):
A. The loads on the right and left hands are equalized.
B. The load on the home (middle) row is maximized.
C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized.
If you look at QWERTY, you'll see that A is not satisfied very well at all - many of the most commonly used letters such as A,S,D,F,E,R,T and C are in the left hand. (The article actually states that QWERTY fails at this - 57% to 43% balance between hands.) Condition B is certainly not satisfied either - look at the preponderance of vowels and common letters in the top row. The last condition is the only one that QWERTY comes close to satisfying, but even then try typing words like "exaggerated" or "monopoly" (thanks to Jared Diamond and his April 1997 Discover Magazine article). Dvorak's layout is, in fact, optimized for all three of these conditions, using careful analysis of letter frequency, finger movement, and letter combinations. Note the presence of all the vowels on the home row, and common consonants like "snthd" on the home row of the right hand. This makes it highly likely that after the typist uses a vowel he will be switching to the opposite hand (likely the home row) to type the next letter.
What I'm getting at is that Dvorak's advantage may be more in hand/wrist comfort than anything else. I'll admit that claims of increased speed using Dvorak are probably not persuasive enough to make the argument for superiority. The article's strongest point is showing that typing speed varies little as a function of the layout of the keys. I'm willing to buy that anyone can type about as fast on any layout using the modern "shift" style keyboard. But speed isn't the only consideration. I haven't read or heard about many studies making the claim for reduced RSI while using Dvorak, but I'd guess that it's true. Anyone who's used the layout can confirm that typing on it has a flow and continuity that QWERTY cannot match - every time I'm forced to use a QWERTY keyboard I'm struck by how much my fingers are stretching all around to find the letters (and yes, I can still touch-typed in QWERTY after a minute or two of warm-up and finger-conversion - it's kind of like being keyboard bilingual). With Dvorak typing is just more natural feeling, like a ball rolling down a smooth hill. QWERTY is like rolling that same ball down a flight of steps. And if you gain a little extra typing speed out of it, all the better! (For what it's worth, the world typing speed record has been held by Dvorak typists for many years now.)
This is not some evangelical manifesto urging everyone to change layouts - but if you do make the switch, I promise you won't be disappointed. Both Windows and Mac have built-in Dvorak capability, and switching between the two is just a simple key combination. I've found that Mac is a bit more cooperative in this regard, but Windows is passably good. It's easy to fall into the trap of "well, if most of the world uses it, it must be the best thing out there." Doesn't hold true for Windows, does it?
You aren't the only one - I was pretty disappointed. Who wants to look at two tall, narrow screens? The design looks very early 90's to me, too. Why did they split the base down the middle as well? That trackpad on the right is a big no-no - lefties like me would never even consider it.
Don't see a market for this, not unless they get the size down and the appearance more sleek and stylish. Maybe Apple will take a cue from this, but I doubt it - the Industrial Design and potential for usefulness don't add up to much of a market. Nice try, though.
Had one of these back in grade school...
on
Touchscreen Watch
·
· Score: 2
It was the
Casio TC-600, and it had a large LCD display that converted to a calculator. Perfect for sneaking into tests where calculator watches weren't allowed. Eventually, the touch screen went bad and the 3 "key" wouldn't work, but it was a very cool watch.
The initiator of this concentration, Prof. Andy Phelps, also happens to be my thesis advisor, and he's done some pretty wicked illustrations and 3D modeling. Check out his RIT Page to see some of his work (use Netscape if you're on a Mac - he refuses to code the JavaScript to play well with IE as he claims it's "broken":).
He's also very into creating virtual terrains and raytraced scenes using Macromedia Director - talented fellow, both artistically and in the programming sense.
Good point - but I always wonder how many people out there actually use Dvorak. I do, and have for several years, but what's the percentage? Anyone out there want/need Dvorak in their keyboard devices? I'd like to think it's more than one would expect, but I suspect that most people are still stuck with QWERTY out of ignorance, laziness, or unwillingness to change. (Not to get on my high horse about it...)
What would happen if an asteroid this size exploded over the ocean? Which is to say, it's small enough to disintegrate before actually impacting the planet, but large enough to produce that 4 megaton blast they mentioned in the article (which would flatten Atlanta).
But it seems the most likely scenario is that it would be over an ocean when it blew - indeed, isn't it possible that this has already happened and no one picked up on it? Perhaps not in modern times, when we have more sensors and satellites watching the planet, but in the pre-Tunguska days it could have happened. My guess is that an incident like that would be more or less harmless, except to passing ships or sea critters close to the surface.
My God, I sound like Jack Handy. "If you met two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you say liked dolphins more? You might guess Flippy, but you'd be wrong. It's Hambone."
But only because he was hoping to win Best Actor in a Dramatic Miniseries for his keynote performances. Especially that bit where he threw the digital camera.
Obviously the Software Update version finder engine depends upon strict directory structures to compile a database of current applications. I don't know much about OS X's file system, but do they have anything similar to the Windows Registry, which provides a centralized database of installed apps? Does OS X have a desktop file for this?
I wonder if breaking the dependence on specific directories for system apps would be an easy thing for them to fix or not - if they couldn't look for the app where it "should' be installed, would they just have to do a search to find it? Would that be a performance hit? Definitely a weakness of the update feature, though.
Ever run Windows Update...there's always some little items listed under the "Critical Fix" section.
That's true - I'd forgotten about Windows Update. Still, I prefer Apple's method for updating - whether they're fixing bugs or not, the spin is always on the added functionality. Critical Updates makes it sound like "If you don't download this patch, you're fscked", whereas grabbing 10.1.3 is more like "Here, take this little point release, we hope it makes your life better." The biggest difference perhaps is that Apple doesn't have that many critical fixes for security, in part because it's BSD now, but also probably due to the fact that no one is banging as hard on OS X as they are on XP. (No one gets famous finding OS X security holes, but you'll get 15 minutes and more if you find a hole in XP.:)
Not because of the Java content, but because Apple has indicated that they are really dedicated to updating OS X as soon as they can, in as many areas as they can. Contrast this to the monolithic, occasionally dangerous service packs released by MS.
Apple did have that little iTunes installer script fiasco, but even that was corrected later the same day. I'd just like to give the OS X team at Apple kudos for releasing updates on a regular basis, and showing themselves to be committed to improving OS X. If nothing else, it's fun to be the hamster pressing on the Software Update button and getting rewarded with food pellets every so often.
The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa, which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.
Just because an app runs in OS X doesn't mean it's automatically Cocoa - most apps ported from OS 9 to X use Carbon, which, while it can still be a task, takes nowhere near the time it would take to port to Cocoa.
You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are proved wrong within a year. With OS X infiltrating the hardcore *ix crowd, it's only a matter of time before someone climbs the Carbon learning curve and ports some cool stuff over. I suggest you educate yourself a little on the Carbon/Cocoa difference before you go batting others down.
Slashdot Mirror
I not only laughed, I linked to your comment in my blog as the perfect articulation of what I was laughing about. Nice.
But I've never been able to get away from QWERTY completely, because I've always worked in a computer-related field where I was in whole labs of machines that others used. Today I work as a school tech coordinator, managing dozens of Macs and PCs, so I'm in and out of both layouts constantly.
My findings:
End manifesto. I highly recommend Dvorak - I believe, despite all the philistines and "evidence" to the contrary out there, that it does help reduce RSI and keep finger movement to a minimum.
Hell of a way to start the year.
Which is why it (mildly) bugged me that the headlines for this study's results said something like "Surprising Facts About Gamers." Why should this be surprising? It's only those who never lost their narrow view of what these games are about and who plays them who are surprised - anyone who plays the games, reads about them, or looks at the people in EB could tell you that there's no one subculture surrounding them. Yes, perhaps the hardcore gamer still mostly fits the picture, but why should the extreme examples define the majority? With games moving into the mainstream in a huge way, it's damaging to the industry's and the individual gamer's image to allow these ignorant stereotypes to be perpetuated.
Just my $.02 + karma bonus. Now I'll be thinking about Jedi Knight II all day until I can get home and play it...
I too bought a new machine, received it on Saturday. But even though I ran the Security Update 8-23-2002, my build number remains at 6C115. Why the difference?
-Doug
Holy polygons, would you just quit the hype already? I *just* ordered a dual-867 Power Mac with GF4 Ti, and I spent a pretty penny for that upgrade - can't a guy bask in hardware glory without some bithead like you going and raining on his GPU parade? Sheesh.
I don't think Apple management walks on water - any engineering company can create new gadgets - but their design philosophy and willingness to push beyond what's already been done make all the difference. Of course they won't manufacture it themselves - again, the iPod showed their willingness to admit their limitations. When it comes to consumer electronics, they're not a fabrication outfit, they're a design house, with an emphasis on integration with their existing line of software. I'm excited to see what they come up with next.
This is why I was so excited when "Junkyard Wars" became popular - it glorifies the engineers (at least the mechanical ones) in a way that is clearly needed, based on the nudniks who disparage Armadillo's efforts. We need more high-profile shows that go into serious detail about the creation process behind major engineering efforts - I'm talking actual series here, instead of one hour about how the Hoover Dam got built. I'd watch an Engineering Channel for hours on end if it existed. For example, I'd love to hear about all the setbacks and bugs they encountered when programming the computers for the first Apollo missions!
Go to Armadillo's web site and read some of their weekly reports on their progress - these guys are totally serious, and they know their stuff. What they don't know, they've learned, from the ground up - they started with very simple engines bolted to test racks, and they even dribbled peroxide onto various materials to test how they reacted (note to self: no leather shoes!). Along with the other small rocket companies, they're creating a new space culture that is unbelievably exciting - you watch, this is not a blip - more companies like this will spring up. This is the beginning of a whole new private space industry - at last the general public has the technology available to launch thing Very High. :)
To all the philistines, I've said it before - try to grow an imagination. It could prove useful someday.
BTW, stupid error in my original comment - this is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle at all, just a pod that takes a man straight up into space and straight back down. SSTO is much harder!
What now?
All your friends are dead (save for the ones who were frozen, probably not many), your stuff is long gone, and your money...well, I haven't heard of any of these cryogenic companies socking away cab fare for their clients. What bank would preserve your accounts while you're technically dead?
My point is, yes you're thawed and alive, but your life basically sucks. And nobody knows you, or cares about you. Suddenly immortality doesn't sound so appealing...
A. The loads on the right and left hands are equalized.
B. The load on the home (middle) row is maximized.
C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized.
If you look at QWERTY, you'll see that A is not satisfied very well at all - many of the most commonly used letters such as A,S,D,F,E,R,T and C are in the left hand. (The article actually states that QWERTY fails at this - 57% to 43% balance between hands.) Condition B is certainly not satisfied either - look at the preponderance of vowels and common letters in the top row. The last condition is the only one that QWERTY comes close to satisfying, but even then try typing words like "exaggerated" or "monopoly" (thanks to Jared Diamond and his April 1997 Discover Magazine article). Dvorak's layout is, in fact, optimized for all three of these conditions, using careful analysis of letter frequency, finger movement, and letter combinations. Note the presence of all the vowels on the home row, and common consonants like "snthd" on the home row of the right hand. This makes it highly likely that after the typist uses a vowel he will be switching to the opposite hand (likely the home row) to type the next letter.
What I'm getting at is that Dvorak's advantage may be more in hand/wrist comfort than anything else. I'll admit that claims of increased speed using Dvorak are probably not persuasive enough to make the argument for superiority. The article's strongest point is showing that typing speed varies little as a function of the layout of the keys. I'm willing to buy that anyone can type about as fast on any layout using the modern "shift" style keyboard. But speed isn't the only consideration. I haven't read or heard about many studies making the claim for reduced RSI while using Dvorak, but I'd guess that it's true. Anyone who's used the layout can confirm that typing on it has a flow and continuity that QWERTY cannot match - every time I'm forced to use a QWERTY keyboard I'm struck by how much my fingers are stretching all around to find the letters (and yes, I can still touch-typed in QWERTY after a minute or two of warm-up and finger-conversion - it's kind of like being keyboard bilingual). With Dvorak typing is just more natural feeling, like a ball rolling down a smooth hill. QWERTY is like rolling that same ball down a flight of steps. And if you gain a little extra typing speed out of it, all the better! (For what it's worth, the world typing speed record has been held by Dvorak typists for many years now.)
This is not some evangelical manifesto urging everyone to change layouts - but if you do make the switch, I promise you won't be disappointed. Both Windows and Mac have built-in Dvorak capability, and switching between the two is just a simple key combination. I've found that Mac is a bit more cooperative in this regard, but Windows is passably good. It's easy to fall into the trap of "well, if most of the world uses it, it must be the best thing out there." Doesn't hold true for Windows, does it?
Don't see a market for this, not unless they get the size down and the appearance more sleek and stylish. Maybe Apple will take a cue from this, but I doubt it - the Industrial Design and potential for usefulness don't add up to much of a market. Nice try, though.
It was the Casio TC-600, and it had a large LCD display that converted to a calculator. Perfect for sneaking into tests where calculator watches weren't allowed. Eventually, the touch screen went bad and the 3 "key" wouldn't work, but it was a very cool watch.
Yes - he runs it on his SGI workstation that he keeps in his office. Probably a fetish, though I've never gotten in depth with him about it.
He's also very into creating virtual terrains and raytraced scenes using Macromedia Director - talented fellow, both artistically and in the programming sense.
It's you.
Good point - but I always wonder how many people out there actually use Dvorak. I do, and have for several years, but what's the percentage? Anyone out there want/need Dvorak in their keyboard devices? I'd like to think it's more than one would expect, but I suspect that most people are still stuck with QWERTY out of ignorance, laziness, or unwillingness to change. (Not to get on my high horse about it...)
But it seems the most likely scenario is that it would be over an ocean when it blew - indeed, isn't it possible that this has already happened and no one picked up on it? Perhaps not in modern times, when we have more sensors and satellites watching the planet, but in the pre-Tunguska days it could have happened. My guess is that an incident like that would be more or less harmless, except to passing ships or sea critters close to the surface.
My God, I sound like Jack Handy. "If you met two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you say liked dolphins more? You might guess Flippy, but you'd be wrong. It's Hambone."
Is there a technical Grammy for Best RDF?
I wonder if breaking the dependence on specific directories for system apps would be an easy thing for them to fix or not - if they couldn't look for the app where it "should' be installed, would they just have to do a search to find it? Would that be a performance hit? Definitely a weakness of the update feature, though.
That's true - I'd forgotten about Windows Update. Still, I prefer Apple's method for updating - whether they're fixing bugs or not, the spin is always on the added functionality. Critical Updates makes it sound like "If you don't download this patch, you're fscked", whereas grabbing 10.1.3 is more like "Here, take this little point release, we hope it makes your life better." The biggest difference perhaps is that Apple doesn't have that many critical fixes for security, in part because it's BSD now, but also probably due to the fact that no one is banging as hard on OS X as they are on XP. (No one gets famous finding OS X security holes, but you'll get 15 minutes and more if you find a hole in XP. :)
Apple did have that little iTunes installer script fiasco, but even that was corrected later the same day. I'd just like to give the OS X team at Apple kudos for releasing updates on a regular basis, and showing themselves to be committed to improving OS X. If nothing else, it's fun to be the hamster pressing on the Software Update button and getting rewarded with food pellets every so often.
Just because an app runs in OS X doesn't mean it's automatically Cocoa - most apps ported from OS 9 to X use Carbon, which, while it can still be a task, takes nowhere near the time it would take to port to Cocoa.
You won't see any OS X app running on *ix/X anytime soon.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are proved wrong within a year. With OS X infiltrating the hardcore *ix crowd, it's only a matter of time before someone climbs the Carbon learning curve and ports some cool stuff over. I suggest you educate yourself a little on the Carbon/Cocoa difference before you go batting others down.