Actually, breaking the screen barrier isn't the problem, but rather moving the action too far from the screen's depth. When the distance your eyes are focusing at to get a clear image of what is on the screen doesn't match up with the depth they think they are looking at, weird things can happen. This is why MagicEye images work. Coincidently, if you can learn to control the distance your eyes focus at and hold it (such as being able to view said magic eye images without having to do any of the normal tricks to make them work.) then you can adjust the focus of your eyes to remain on the screen while looking around and removing the discomfort. Granted this takes practice.
Would mod this up if I could. I have always been a huge fan of VR and stereoscopy and I have no discomfort from stereoscopic imagery ever. The only thing I get remotely is what would lead to focus strain, but with practice you can manually correct for that. I think exposure is really the key to build up the comfort with the technology. I've been perfectly comfortable gaming for hours on end with my 3DTV, so I don't think it is something that everyone has problems with and may even be something that everyone could get used to if the technology gets more commonly used.
If the signals don't have either a LOS type signaling or some type of cryptographic based frequency hoping, I would be very surprised. And even if they didn't, I believe they can still run off way points if command and control is lost. I'm not saying I don't think this guy should be prosecuted, but I would hope that simply capturing a drone wouldn't let someone figure out how to stop them all. That would be REALLY bad design.
Having read at least a little on Zeno and Epicurus, I have to say I do not see where you draw the parallel from. Their views appear to be contradictory to the teachings of Jesus is most meaningful ways. I also find your distrust of early Christian writers to accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus kind of biased unless you can give some evidence in support of this argument. Also, the root of much of Jesus' teachings can actually be traced to books of the Jewish Torah which predates the Greek examples you gave. That said, my original point was just to point out that it wasn't a new concept if some modern philosopher was pointing out that particular view.
I would challenge that having someone respond in kind is the expected behavior. If I punch you, I expect you to punch back. If you do so, I could justify it in my eyes as a fight and we were both behaving the same. If I instead punch you and you do nothing, I can try to ignore the fact that I am simply being a bully, but I can not see you and I as on an even footing. Similarly, if you try to argue disrespectfully with someone over the fact that they are being disrespectful, you will simply be written off by them as a hypocrite (justifiably or not) and ignored. The validity of your concern is lost on them and if anything it may harden them in to their ways as a defense mechanism. People don't change well under direct provocation. They never have and they never will. At best you may manage to force someone to change so long as you have direct force over them, but it is very rare that it will bring about a productive meaningful change. This is why every despotic regime eventually falls and are never liked. People may fear disagreeing, but that doesn't mean they agree.
While I agree that it is overly pessimistic to feel that most people don't want to have accurate knowledge, I do think the majority want the "knowledge" they already have to be accurate. Human psychology is amazingly intolerant of change since change is unknown and therefore a risk. When dealing with a situation like how the media parades out so called experts to give some view, it gives people fodder to resist being educated with accurate information because they believe themselves to be correct.
The more successful approach overall is to try to discredit the sources of inaccurate information without ripping down the people you are talking to directly. In my experience, unless you can fully, completely and conclusively explain something to someone, they will still hold on to their previous position if it is commonly held unless you can challenge their initial assumptions and information while also providing new verifiable information to support your view. Otherwise, there is frequently automatically an assumption of some level of arrogance since you are trying to convince them that a widely held view is wrong.
Why people resist information is a very mixed bag of tricks with many different factors and I know personally I always have to be trying to check myself at the door to make sure I am being open to new input and even then I catch myself making mistakes and writing off things I shouldn't.
As element-op pointed out. I think your frustration is justified, and I understand and agree with it, but as a techie type myself, I can tell you that your approach to trying to deal with it will make them scoff you off just as surely as the people they do it to scoff them off. I'm not saying there isn't sometimes a time in a debate to call someone out, but there is a difference between direct insult and meaningful provocation to shake someone and provocation must be used very carefully to avoid simply shutting an argument down without any impact.
Let me start by saying I agree 100% with your argument that having an ego about knowledge is not a way to educate people but rather to get them to become more polarized against the knowledge you are trying to convey. That said, I do think you are overlooking the fact that some people do not want or care to have things explained to them. This can be seen in many different areas and I am sure that the reasons that people do not want to understand vary from case to case. (Though I would hazard people's dislike for change and feeling that their understanding is correct is a strong contributor.) People like to hear confirmation that they are correct and do not like to hear that they are wrong. People also like to have things to fight against and it is something that is bread in to us to make us mailable.
Fear and having an enemy is unifying and people like to feel that they belong with the group. This is the exact same reason that making someone feel academically inferior makes them feel like they are not part of your group and that you feel they don't belong in your group which is why they reject you and your "group" (viewpoint). This is what I think vlm was trying to get at, though I would agree his method of conveying it was flawed and did display what you were decrying, it does not make his point invalid. What he may be missing is that it is valid for everyone to some extent, for example with him, it may be he wants to feel like he is part of the smarter group and challenging that is something he would no doubt rebel against. Education only works with those who want to be educated and not everyone wants to be. It is an unfortunate but none the less true reality. Some people will ignore you for being an ass, others will simply ignore you because they don't like what you are saying.
Similarly comparable, I've noticed a distinct difference in trying to use a mouse for computer art. A digitizer is better still if available, but a high res mouse can make far better curves and is far more responsive given the user is capable of making and distinguishing fine gestures. It's kind of like buying speakers. Most people can't tell the difference between a $40 pair of headphones and my $500 ones, but as an experienced sound engineer, I can tell you there is information that I can hear with my $500 set that is not discernible on the $40 set, but I would never recommend my headphones to anyone other than users with audio engineer trained ears. If you need smooth motion and can make smooth, precision gestures quickly, then extra responsiveness is helpful. All the study really shows is their test group wasn't good enough with a mouse for it to make a difference or they were not familiar enough with their mice.
But... But... the iPad..er... touch screen keyboards are the future, didn't you hear??? Agreed that roll up keyboards suck, but I'd prefer them to a touch screen keyboard anyday. Technology doesn't have to be practical to sell en masse unfortunately, just trendy.
I have 80+ toons of all classes in WoW. I can safely say I personally have never found any need for more than the buttons on my Mamba. I think that is one thing the article misses is performance wireless mice. If you want to go wireless, the money is worth it. 1000hz polling on the Mamba makes a huge difference when operating wirelessly compared to other wireless mice. I might be able to make use of another button or two, but really, healing is the most choice intensive action I've found in WoW (or any other game for that matter) that can't be done better with the keyboard hand. Most of the heals fall within the top 5 choices with maybe a couple periodically applied hots that hitting a modifier key really doesn't matter. The real key is good design of your mappings to make sure things group together well and minimize lag time on entering the commands.
Gold connectors make a difference due to better connections, but yeah, once you get over to the cable itself, it really doesn't matter significantly, at least for a powerful enough signal.
This has to do with infrastructure, not fuel. Even if your car gets 2000 miles to the gallon, it will still put as much wear and tear on the infrastructure as a car of similar size and weight driving a similar distance.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that sealing it simply means that it is prevented from becoming public record, not that it can't be used for defense.
I was simply refering to the poster of the article that seemed to be inferring that the NSA was up to something sinister by trying to keep a (mis)classified document from becoming public record from a court case. This isn't really all that special and certainly not conspiratorial unless there is some other evidence to suggest this.
That would prevent them from attacking him on the basis of that release, however this was a sealing of a defense motion. ie, the government indicated that the original document was misclassified and was trying to correct that so the normally public court document needed to be sealed. If that's all they are doing, there is nothing to see here.
Yeah, I hear you on that. I'm only 26 personally with perfect vision, but for the case of needing a bigger interface, having a physical keyboard that wouldn't use vital screen real estate becomes a concern and might make a net book a more ideal choice since it doesn't waste half the screen for entry. I guess I just mostly question that if you need something big enough that it isn't portable without an afterthought, then what is the balancing point of simply carrying a little more to get far more. It's a cost/benefit analysis that seems to put tablets in a very small niche for very specific uses. If someone falls in to that niche then it may be the right choice. My main challenge is simply that the niche is far smaller than many people believe it to be on account of Apple being a brilliant marketing company that can convince people to get the latest cool gadget despite there potentially being better options available for their specific needs.
Sorry I wasn't very clear. Justifiable use was a poor choice of words, but I was referring to the idea that there is a very small niche that current tablets fill that are not objectively better filled with other devices in most cases. Your described use is what I would classify as casual use which I acknowledge it is good for, but that's a situation where mobility isn't a concern so much as convenience. You bring up an interesting point with being able to use multiple stores but that is more a failing of e-book manufacturers rather than an advantage to the tablet as a technology. I am not trying to speak on an individual level but rather a development of technology perspective. There is very little that can be done better with a tablet than can be done by advancing other technologies to fill gaps. That isn't to say that they don't fit some people's usage scenarios, I just don't like people worshiping the iPad as the future of computing because it is the latest new gadget. (Which is not something I think you are doing based on your use case.)
Maybe it is just me, but while I agree with the argument about being ultra-mobile, I see tablets as too big to fit that definition for me at least. I have a laptop or could get a netbook that will do more than current tablets and is only slightly less portable. I also have a smart phone that has the same kind of power in a tablet, the screen is smaller, but still sufficient for anything that wouldn't be better served on a laptop. I can even do remote server management in a pinch on my phone with relative ease. The only real justifiable uses of tablets in general is either specific utilization as a touch interface (for example, remote control capabilities of other systems that would normally require a more complex control surface) or casual consumption from users that don't have an interest in obtaining a wider variety of devices (ie, don't want a smartphone or laptop, just a portable video player that can kind of be a hybrid as an inferior reader (nothing beats e-ink to date imho). Portability really isn't a buyable argument for them unless it is something I don't need to carry separately. A light weight instant on laptop would be a far superior technical development as the only other advantage is having instant on, but there is no reason that shouldn't be doable in a laptop form factor.
Even just as Windows, it isn't descriptive as it isn't related to software but rather applying something that has nothing to do with software or technology as a name. Microsoft Word would make a better example as it is descriptive. OSX on the other hand could have a hard time in the face of things like OS2 if someone decided to make an OS Eleven.
Verizon doesn't advertise it, but if you have had a contract with them and are at the end and don't get a new phone, you will get a call from them asking if they could interest you in a discount and/or free extras on your service to get you to agree to another contract term (and you can still make use of your phone upgrade any time you want.) They just really like having the guaranteed revenue stream in the US market. My guess is it is probably largely related to how much more they have to build out the network and plan long term due to how spread out we are in the US. (Which makes cellular service far more expensive in the US.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, breaking the screen barrier isn't the problem, but rather moving the action too far from the screen's depth. When the distance your eyes are focusing at to get a clear image of what is on the screen doesn't match up with the depth they think they are looking at, weird things can happen. This is why MagicEye images work. Coincidently, if you can learn to control the distance your eyes focus at and hold it (such as being able to view said magic eye images without having to do any of the normal tricks to make them work.) then you can adjust the focus of your eyes to remain on the screen while looking around and removing the discomfort. Granted this takes practice.
Would mod this up if I could. I have always been a huge fan of VR and stereoscopy and I have no discomfort from stereoscopic imagery ever. The only thing I get remotely is what would lead to focus strain, but with practice you can manually correct for that. I think exposure is really the key to build up the comfort with the technology. I've been perfectly comfortable gaming for hours on end with my 3DTV, so I don't think it is something that everyone has problems with and may even be something that everyone could get used to if the technology gets more commonly used.
If the signals don't have either a LOS type signaling or some type of cryptographic based frequency hoping, I would be very surprised. And even if they didn't, I believe they can still run off way points if command and control is lost. I'm not saying I don't think this guy should be prosecuted, but I would hope that simply capturing a drone wouldn't let someone figure out how to stop them all. That would be REALLY bad design.
Unfortunately no, since spam didn't take 100% of the pipe.
Having read at least a little on Zeno and Epicurus, I have to say I do not see where you draw the parallel from. Their views appear to be contradictory to the teachings of Jesus is most meaningful ways. I also find your distrust of early Christian writers to accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus kind of biased unless you can give some evidence in support of this argument. Also, the root of much of Jesus' teachings can actually be traced to books of the Jewish Torah which predates the Greek examples you gave. That said, my original point was just to point out that it wasn't a new concept if some modern philosopher was pointing out that particular view.
I would challenge that having someone respond in kind is the expected behavior. If I punch you, I expect you to punch back. If you do so, I could justify it in my eyes as a fight and we were both behaving the same. If I instead punch you and you do nothing, I can try to ignore the fact that I am simply being a bully, but I can not see you and I as on an even footing. Similarly, if you try to argue disrespectfully with someone over the fact that they are being disrespectful, you will simply be written off by them as a hypocrite (justifiably or not) and ignored. The validity of your concern is lost on them and if anything it may harden them in to their ways as a defense mechanism. People don't change well under direct provocation. They never have and they never will. At best you may manage to force someone to change so long as you have direct force over them, but it is very rare that it will bring about a productive meaningful change. This is why every despotic regime eventually falls and are never liked. People may fear disagreeing, but that doesn't mean they agree.
While I agree that it is overly pessimistic to feel that most people don't want to have accurate knowledge, I do think the majority want the "knowledge" they already have to be accurate. Human psychology is amazingly intolerant of change since change is unknown and therefore a risk. When dealing with a situation like how the media parades out so called experts to give some view, it gives people fodder to resist being educated with accurate information because they believe themselves to be correct.
The more successful approach overall is to try to discredit the sources of inaccurate information without ripping down the people you are talking to directly. In my experience, unless you can fully, completely and conclusively explain something to someone, they will still hold on to their previous position if it is commonly held unless you can challenge their initial assumptions and information while also providing new verifiable information to support your view. Otherwise, there is frequently automatically an assumption of some level of arrogance since you are trying to convince them that a widely held view is wrong.
Why people resist information is a very mixed bag of tricks with many different factors and I know personally I always have to be trying to check myself at the door to make sure I am being open to new input and even then I catch myself making mistakes and writing off things I shouldn't.
Yes they may not have been listening in the first place, but disagreeing "arrogantly" makes them start listening even less often.
As element-op pointed out. I think your frustration is justified, and I understand and agree with it, but as a techie type myself, I can tell you that your approach to trying to deal with it will make them scoff you off just as surely as the people they do it to scoff them off. I'm not saying there isn't sometimes a time in a debate to call someone out, but there is a difference between direct insult and meaningful provocation to shake someone and provocation must be used very carefully to avoid simply shutting an argument down without any impact.
I know this will go over like a brick on slashdot, but a guy by the name of Jesus Christ had a remarkably similar philosophy a few years earlier.
Let me start by saying I agree 100% with your argument that having an ego about knowledge is not a way to educate people but rather to get them to become more polarized against the knowledge you are trying to convey. That said, I do think you are overlooking the fact that some people do not want or care to have things explained to them. This can be seen in many different areas and I am sure that the reasons that people do not want to understand vary from case to case. (Though I would hazard people's dislike for change and feeling that their understanding is correct is a strong contributor.) People like to hear confirmation that they are correct and do not like to hear that they are wrong. People also like to have things to fight against and it is something that is bread in to us to make us mailable.
Fear and having an enemy is unifying and people like to feel that they belong with the group. This is the exact same reason that making someone feel academically inferior makes them feel like they are not part of your group and that you feel they don't belong in your group which is why they reject you and your "group" (viewpoint). This is what I think vlm was trying to get at, though I would agree his method of conveying it was flawed and did display what you were decrying, it does not make his point invalid. What he may be missing is that it is valid for everyone to some extent, for example with him, it may be he wants to feel like he is part of the smarter group and challenging that is something he would no doubt rebel against. Education only works with those who want to be educated and not everyone wants to be. It is an unfortunate but none the less true reality. Some people will ignore you for being an ass, others will simply ignore you because they don't like what you are saying.
Similarly comparable, I've noticed a distinct difference in trying to use a mouse for computer art. A digitizer is better still if available, but a high res mouse can make far better curves and is far more responsive given the user is capable of making and distinguishing fine gestures. It's kind of like buying speakers. Most people can't tell the difference between a $40 pair of headphones and my $500 ones, but as an experienced sound engineer, I can tell you there is information that I can hear with my $500 set that is not discernible on the $40 set, but I would never recommend my headphones to anyone other than users with audio engineer trained ears. If you need smooth motion and can make smooth, precision gestures quickly, then extra responsiveness is helpful. All the study really shows is their test group wasn't good enough with a mouse for it to make a difference or they were not familiar enough with their mice.
But... But... the iPad..er... touch screen keyboards are the future, didn't you hear??? Agreed that roll up keyboards suck, but I'd prefer them to a touch screen keyboard anyday. Technology doesn't have to be practical to sell en masse unfortunately, just trendy.
I have 80+ toons of all classes in WoW. I can safely say I personally have never found any need for more than the buttons on my Mamba. I think that is one thing the article misses is performance wireless mice. If you want to go wireless, the money is worth it. 1000hz polling on the Mamba makes a huge difference when operating wirelessly compared to other wireless mice. I might be able to make use of another button or two, but really, healing is the most choice intensive action I've found in WoW (or any other game for that matter) that can't be done better with the keyboard hand. Most of the heals fall within the top 5 choices with maybe a couple periodically applied hots that hitting a modifier key really doesn't matter. The real key is good design of your mappings to make sure things group together well and minimize lag time on entering the commands.
Gold connectors make a difference due to better connections, but yeah, once you get over to the cable itself, it really doesn't matter significantly, at least for a powerful enough signal.
This has to do with infrastructure, not fuel. Even if your car gets 2000 miles to the gallon, it will still put as much wear and tear on the infrastructure as a car of similar size and weight driving a similar distance.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that sealing it simply means that it is prevented from becoming public record, not that it can't be used for defense.
I was simply refering to the poster of the article that seemed to be inferring that the NSA was up to something sinister by trying to keep a (mis)classified document from becoming public record from a court case. This isn't really all that special and certainly not conspiratorial unless there is some other evidence to suggest this.
That would prevent them from attacking him on the basis of that release, however this was a sealing of a defense motion. ie, the government indicated that the original document was misclassified and was trying to correct that so the normally public court document needed to be sealed. If that's all they are doing, there is nothing to see here.
The pigs fly at dawn on Tuesday. Automatically posted from my Galaxy S Fascinate.
Yeah, I hear you on that. I'm only 26 personally with perfect vision, but for the case of needing a bigger interface, having a physical keyboard that wouldn't use vital screen real estate becomes a concern and might make a net book a more ideal choice since it doesn't waste half the screen for entry. I guess I just mostly question that if you need something big enough that it isn't portable without an afterthought, then what is the balancing point of simply carrying a little more to get far more. It's a cost/benefit analysis that seems to put tablets in a very small niche for very specific uses. If someone falls in to that niche then it may be the right choice. My main challenge is simply that the niche is far smaller than many people believe it to be on account of Apple being a brilliant marketing company that can convince people to get the latest cool gadget despite there potentially being better options available for their specific needs.
Sorry I wasn't very clear. Justifiable use was a poor choice of words, but I was referring to the idea that there is a very small niche that current tablets fill that are not objectively better filled with other devices in most cases. Your described use is what I would classify as casual use which I acknowledge it is good for, but that's a situation where mobility isn't a concern so much as convenience. You bring up an interesting point with being able to use multiple stores but that is more a failing of e-book manufacturers rather than an advantage to the tablet as a technology. I am not trying to speak on an individual level but rather a development of technology perspective. There is very little that can be done better with a tablet than can be done by advancing other technologies to fill gaps. That isn't to say that they don't fit some people's usage scenarios, I just don't like people worshiping the iPad as the future of computing because it is the latest new gadget. (Which is not something I think you are doing based on your use case.)
Maybe it is just me, but while I agree with the argument about being ultra-mobile, I see tablets as too big to fit that definition for me at least. I have a laptop or could get a netbook that will do more than current tablets and is only slightly less portable. I also have a smart phone that has the same kind of power in a tablet, the screen is smaller, but still sufficient for anything that wouldn't be better served on a laptop. I can even do remote server management in a pinch on my phone with relative ease. The only real justifiable uses of tablets in general is either specific utilization as a touch interface (for example, remote control capabilities of other systems that would normally require a more complex control surface) or casual consumption from users that don't have an interest in obtaining a wider variety of devices (ie, don't want a smartphone or laptop, just a portable video player that can kind of be a hybrid as an inferior reader (nothing beats e-ink to date imho). Portability really isn't a buyable argument for them unless it is something I don't need to carry separately. A light weight instant on laptop would be a far superior technical development as the only other advantage is having instant on, but there is no reason that shouldn't be doable in a laptop form factor.
Even just as Windows, it isn't descriptive as it isn't related to software but rather applying something that has nothing to do with software or technology as a name. Microsoft Word would make a better example as it is descriptive. OSX on the other hand could have a hard time in the face of things like OS2 if someone decided to make an OS Eleven.
Verizon doesn't advertise it, but if you have had a contract with them and are at the end and don't get a new phone, you will get a call from them asking if they could interest you in a discount and/or free extras on your service to get you to agree to another contract term (and you can still make use of your phone upgrade any time you want.) They just really like having the guaranteed revenue stream in the US market. My guess is it is probably largely related to how much more they have to build out the network and plan long term due to how spread out we are in the US. (Which makes cellular service far more expensive in the US.)