If I had mod points, you'd be 5 Insightful. Apple literally wrote the book on UI design in the 1980s and 1990s and somehow forgot. It's like that old civilization joke: "The Irish actually invented civilization, drank a bunch of Guiness, and forgot where they put it." I am guessing the same thing applies to Apple, only with Kool-Aid and UI design!
As a UI designer I can unequivocally say, No, no it did not. Mobile devices created a few caveats but did not change a lot about how UI should work. I am sick of these new UI/UX people that seem to think that all the lessons learned about good UI over the previous 30 years is somehow obsolete, meanwhile they keep making UI/UX mistakes that were made 20 years ago! The research and lessons learned from the 1980s and 1990s still apply to UI design today on mobile devices as they do on desktops and laptops. One major caveat being the input device and the corresponding minimum "click" area difference between a mouse pointer and a finger. There are others, but most are subtle variations on established best practices with only a few exceptions for things like gyroscope or accelerometer interactions.
We did flat interfaces well, and long before we tried faux 3D interfaces. So that argument also falls flat. We didn't replace long established iconography for things like shuffle and repeat settings with textual representations. Why? Because text takes longer for the brain to process! Good UI depends on established graphical standards and commonly used iconography to be successful, building on successes of the past. Now, everyone seems to think they can reinvent the wheel and are failing miserably.
I am all for innovation and new things, but not at the expense of efficiency and usability when applied to UI/UX design. Ive and these other UI/UX idiots need to be slapped and sent back to design school for UI/UX or just stick to hardware!
I see no indication the dock is not included in the $99 introductory offer, and the review I read on Venturebeat.com clearly indicates the dock is included...
You better read the Newegg.com reviews because you're totally and completely wrong. No dock included at $99. And the $39 dock is "out of stock". LOL
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
Bo X.
10/26/2015 12:56:55 PM
Tech Level: Somewhat High
Ownership: less than 1 day
4 out of 5 eggsLooking forward to it
Pros: This is a smart phone size computer stick product. It has embodied battery that can support it for 4 hours. The best part is that you can use an iPad as its screen, think of using it on an iPad pro, the experience could be amazing. I have just ordered it, I will post more once I have it.
Cons: The machine itself does not provide any I/O ports, and what is really ridiculous is that the dock which provides I/O ports is out of stock. How am I supposed to use it without connecting to a display? Wirelessly? If they provide 4G Ram and 64Gb SSD, it will be fine if the price is higher. Obviously, they are not providing that option.
Did you find this review helpful? Yes No
Valentin S.
10/26/2015 11:39:00 AM
Tech Level: High
Ownership: less than 1 day
5 out of 5 eggsIs dock included?
Pros: Looks like an awesome pocketable Windows 10 PC with the latest Atom CPU, and well-designed and well-built
Has a fingerprint reader. No more passwords! (Note: this is based on pictures only, I have just ordered the device).
Cons: No I/O ports without the dock.
The only storage option is 32GB eMMC, would be nice to have a 64GB version.
Seems like it has vents. The CPU is only 2W - there should be no vents and definitely no fan, especially with an aluminum case.
Other Thoughts: Ordered one. The lack of detailed information bothers me, especially the fact that Newegg sells the dock separately and it is already out of stock! How am I supposed to connect everything if the dock is not included?
Will update the review when I get the device.
At no point in either post (mine and the one I responded to, nor the one you responded to) did anyone say the gun was drawn. Nice BS to try to cover your duh, though.
What child's death? And what juvenile fantasy are you talking about? I am rebutting some ridiculous straw man argument someone proposed about having only two options when dealing with police malfeasance. The ad hominem attack was just as ridiculous as the rest of your statements. Buh-bye.
I can make my own router out of existing open hardware like the RPi, but it's not cost effective to do so when I can buy a commodity home router for under $100USD (or $200 for a nice one) and have it last several years. It's a nice idea on paper, but it's just not practical given what the average consumer can get off the shelf today without the hassle of trying to build and configure the damn thing themselves. The parts alone are going to cost more than OTS routers today, and then you have to figure in the cost of your time. Pointless. Nice for people who tinker and want to play, but lousy for the average joe/josephine. I also don't get what's open hardware about Turris Omnia, as it uses all the same brand name components OTS routers use that are compatible with OpenWRT and DDWRT? Will check out how much they want for the thing when they start their crowdfunding campaign, but my guess is this will die on the vine.
I think he's referring to these limitations. But, they're not insurmountable with existing technology and programming knowledge. They are just going to take more time to code and debug.
“[Full automation is] just proven to be a loser of an approach in a lot of other domains"
Someone needs to tell the author about vehicle assembly lines and automated transit systems that are all over the world! operating quite well and for decades in some cases. FUD
Or, try going back further into history, like Hypatia or Pythagoras' wife, Theano, and daughters. I'm sure there are more in the eastern cultures as well that may predate those examples. No, it has to be a white chick from Britain that we honor. What a crock of shit!
Astrology is a systematic, empirical study of the relationship between the alignment of planetary bodies and the observable traits and behavior of humans.
No, it's not.
Correct, it is not. Astrology was a system established to explain human traits based on a quaint assumption that the stars, planets and comets had something to do with it. Astrology was a (misguided) way of explaining where human traits come from. Today, we know that some traits are inherited and some are learned from the environment/society we live in and are exposed to, thanks to real science and empirical study. Astrology is hokum, but it makes the less-scientifically minded folks think their being scientific; in an ancient Greek or Chinese way. Astrology is as much a science as reading tea leaves or goat entrails to predict the future.
Many would be shooters wouldn't try anything if they knew it was 2 against 1. It would give the arresting officer much more confidence in his safety and thus he would less likely to draw his sidearm.
We should go back to the model where police are always out on patrol in pairs.
Yeah, because that has worked so well in NYC and LA that gun violence is almost... wait, what? They still have gun violence in those cities with two cops riding in each squad car? Reality does not match your asserted scenario. If someone has been driven to gun violence, they're not going to just give up when confronted with superior numbers of opposing force. Criminals can have guns with more than six rounds and extra clips. The idiots will keep shooting until they're brought down, unfortunately. Better to keep the guns out of their hands to begin with.
That's why all those other countries are crime ridden hell holes compared to the US. The only way to turn the world into a paradise on Earth is guns, more guns and extra guns!
You have to wonder what the effect would be on the criminally minded if they believed that the worst case scenario with the police was that they would be immobilized.
Well, you're limiting the scope of the punishment to the pre-arrest phase. There's a lot more that happens to criminals after they've been immobilized and cuffed that is very life changing and unpleasant.
There's no way to do a sweeping reform of the system that will fix this
Yes there is! It's called LEGISLATION in a democracy. If you codify laws to expressly delineate where lethal force is appropriate and not appropriate for law enforcement along with revising investigative procedure for malfeasance and judicial conduct you could very quickly see a sea change in how our justice system works. The problem is, the police policing their own doesn't work any more than businesses regulating themselves does; some of us just can't see the parallels nor the problem to begin with!
So your solution to bullying is to teach the victims that they should submit to the bullies?
When the bully has a gun, and a legal right to use it, you have two choices: you can submit now and contest the issue later in court, or you can be dead right. Which would you choose?
Your whole argument is a ridiculous strawman. Those are NOT the only two choices that free citizens have when confronted by police malfeasance, nor should they be. The police do not have the legal right to use their gun under any situation they determine to be right. Police procedure is very specific about the use of deadly force and they are trained in where it is and isn't appropriate. Threatening someone with a gun is NOT their first taught, nor first line of defense and the officers that choose to act in that way should be prosecuted accordingly to the full extent of the law. The unfortunate thing is that the corruption in our legal system allows this to go unchecked and in some cases (like Tamir Rice) unjustly exonerated by their law enforcement peers in the judiciary. The case of Tamir Rice should not have been investigated by law enforcement and judiciary at the state level and should have been investigated by the DoJ, or at least by an investigative team and judiciary outside the state where the incident occurred. There is too much face saving corrupt bullshit that goes on within the same jurisdiction that there is little chance of a fair and full investigation. This is what is criminally wrong with our current justice system at the local level.
Back to the bullying, bullies need to be checked in the moment of their bullying actions or any correction to that behavior will have little to no effect. There are legal and non-suicidal ways of confronting a bully cop and making an example of them, getting them removed from duty and the community trust and peace restored. We see it all the time with cell phone videos, dashcams and the like. So, the first thing to do when confronted by a bully cop is start recording, or have someone that's with you start recording, or as someone nearby to start recording. In a democracy the power lies in the people, unless they voluntarily yield it. You seem to want to live in a police state and not a democracy, if so, I'd say move to North Korea and live a wonderful life. Me and mine are gonna stick it out here and weild the powers we have for the better good.
Boy is moderation being used improperly in this thread. Disagree with what I say all you want, but I said nothing that wasn't verifiable fact, nor did you. Disagree doesn't mean mod down.
That company's name didn't start with an 'R' by any chance did it? If so, I may have known some of the people you're describing...and by association, you!
There is NOTHING in the GPL (v1, v2 nor v3, nor any sub license alternative) that says the source code has to compile or that an executable be supplied with source code to use the GPL. The quote you reference (and I read it too, I've read the GPL numerous times!) states that if you DO supply a binary, i.e., "executable work", you must also supply all the source files including compiler scripts used for that binary when you distribute under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says the code has to be executable, has to function correctly, nor has to compile from what you distribute under the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, not a consumer protection law. It just states that if you code it, the source is made available to anyone that wants to use it or modify it, and that the modifications stay under the ascribed GPL license. That's all, nothing else, thank you for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And since you're obviously too lazy to bother to follow links to find information on the web, here:
I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? (#GiveUpKeys)
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.
There is NOTHING in the GPL (v1, v2 nor v3, nor any sub license alternative) that says the source code has to compile or that an executable be supplied with source code to use the GPL. The quote you reference (and I read it too, I've read the GPL numerous times!) states that if you DO supply a binary, i.e., "executable work", you must also supply all the source files including compiler scripts used for that binary when you distribute under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says the code has to be executable, has to function correctly, nor has to compile from what you distribute under the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, not a consumer protection law. It just states that if you code it, the source is made available to anyone that wants to use it or modify it, and that the modifications stay under the ascribed GPL license. That's all, nothing else, thank you for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple practically invented modern UI design, drank a bunch of Kool-Aid, and forgot where they left it. Yep. That about sums it up.
If I had mod points, you'd be 5 Insightful. Apple literally wrote the book on UI design in the 1980s and 1990s and somehow forgot. It's like that old civilization joke: "The Irish actually invented civilization, drank a bunch of Guiness, and forgot where they put it." I am guessing the same thing applies to Apple, only with Kool-Aid and UI design!
Mobile changed a lot about how UI should work.
As a UI designer I can unequivocally say, No, no it did not. Mobile devices created a few caveats but did not change a lot about how UI should work. I am sick of these new UI/UX people that seem to think that all the lessons learned about good UI over the previous 30 years is somehow obsolete, meanwhile they keep making UI/UX mistakes that were made 20 years ago! The research and lessons learned from the 1980s and 1990s still apply to UI design today on mobile devices as they do on desktops and laptops. One major caveat being the input device and the corresponding minimum "click" area difference between a mouse pointer and a finger. There are others, but most are subtle variations on established best practices with only a few exceptions for things like gyroscope or accelerometer interactions.
We did flat interfaces well, and long before we tried faux 3D interfaces. So that argument also falls flat. We didn't replace long established iconography for things like shuffle and repeat settings with textual representations. Why? Because text takes longer for the brain to process! Good UI depends on established graphical standards and commonly used iconography to be successful, building on successes of the past. Now, everyone seems to think they can reinvent the wheel and are failing miserably.
I am all for innovation and new things, but not at the expense of efficiency and usability when applied to UI/UX design. Ive and these other UI/UX idiots need to be slapped and sent back to design school for UI/UX or just stick to hardware!
I see no indication the dock is not included in the $99 introductory offer, and the review I read on Venturebeat.com clearly indicates the dock is included...
You better read the Newegg.com reviews because you're totally and completely wrong. No dock included at $99. And the $39 dock is "out of stock". LOL http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
At no point in either post (mine and the one I responded to, nor the one you responded to) did anyone say the gun was drawn. Nice BS to try to cover your duh, though.
What child's death? And what juvenile fantasy are you talking about? I am rebutting some ridiculous straw man argument someone proposed about having only two options when dealing with police malfeasance. The ad hominem attack was just as ridiculous as the rest of your statements. Buh-bye.
I can make my own router out of existing open hardware like the RPi, but it's not cost effective to do so when I can buy a commodity home router for under $100USD (or $200 for a nice one) and have it last several years. It's a nice idea on paper, but it's just not practical given what the average consumer can get off the shelf today without the hassle of trying to build and configure the damn thing themselves. The parts alone are going to cost more than OTS routers today, and then you have to figure in the cost of your time. Pointless. Nice for people who tinker and want to play, but lousy for the average joe/josephine. I also don't get what's open hardware about Turris Omnia, as it uses all the same brand name components OTS routers use that are compatible with OpenWRT and DDWRT? Will check out how much they want for the thing when they start their crowdfunding campaign, but my guess is this will die on the vine.
I think he's referring to these limitations. But, they're not insurmountable with existing technology and programming knowledge. They are just going to take more time to code and debug.
“[Full automation is] just proven to be a loser of an approach in a lot of other domains"
Someone needs to tell the author about vehicle assembly lines and automated transit systems that are all over the world! operating quite well and for decades in some cases. FUD
She did far more for computer science than Ada Lovelace, and she did far more at defying social gender norms than Ada Lovelace.
If anyone should be celebrated for breaking social barriers AND important contributions at the same time, it should be her, not Lovelace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or, try going back further into history, like Hypatia or Pythagoras' wife, Theano, and daughters. I'm sure there are more in the eastern cultures as well that may predate those examples. No, it has to be a white chick from Britain that we honor. What a crock of shit!
Astrology is a systematic, empirical study of the relationship between the alignment of planetary bodies and the observable traits and behavior of humans.
No, it's not.
Correct, it is not. Astrology was a system established to explain human traits based on a quaint assumption that the stars, planets and comets had something to do with it. Astrology was a (misguided) way of explaining where human traits come from. Today, we know that some traits are inherited and some are learned from the environment/society we live in and are exposed to, thanks to real science and empirical study. Astrology is hokum, but it makes the less-scientifically minded folks think their being scientific; in an ancient Greek or Chinese way. Astrology is as much a science as reading tea leaves or goat entrails to predict the future.
On average since the thirties, I think the Germans still have the higher percentage of people killed by the police.
Another silly strawman argument. Let's stick with today and the things we can do about tomorrow.
Many would be shooters wouldn't try anything if they knew it was 2 against 1. It would give the arresting officer much more confidence in his safety and thus he would less likely to draw his sidearm.
We should go back to the model where police are always out on patrol in pairs.
Yeah, because that has worked so well in NYC and LA that gun violence is almost ... wait, what? They still have gun violence in those cities with two cops riding in each squad car? Reality does not match your asserted scenario. If someone has been driven to gun violence, they're not going to just give up when confronted with superior numbers of opposing force. Criminals can have guns with more than six rounds and extra clips. The idiots will keep shooting until they're brought down, unfortunately. Better to keep the guns out of their hands to begin with.
That's why all those other countries are crime ridden hell holes compared to the US. The only way to turn the world into a paradise on Earth is guns, more guns and extra guns!
What "other countries" are you or the OP referring to? I hope you were trying to be facetious, because there are several countries where the police don't regularly carry guns, and there is no death penalty option where people have a higher standard of living and less crime than the U.S. does. Pick any Scandinavian country as an example, or the UK if you like places that speak English. Hell, even Russia abolished the death penalty for fscks sake! not that their standard of living is better than ours, but come on!
You have to wonder what the effect would be on the criminally minded if they believed that the worst case scenario with the police was that they would be immobilized.
Well, you're limiting the scope of the punishment to the pre-arrest phase. There's a lot more that happens to criminals after they've been immobilized and cuffed that is very life changing and unpleasant.
There's no way to do a sweeping reform of the system that will fix this
Yes there is! It's called LEGISLATION in a democracy. If you codify laws to expressly delineate where lethal force is appropriate and not appropriate for law enforcement along with revising investigative procedure for malfeasance and judicial conduct you could very quickly see a sea change in how our justice system works. The problem is, the police policing their own doesn't work any more than businesses regulating themselves does; some of us just can't see the parallels nor the problem to begin with!
So your solution to bullying is to teach the victims that they should submit to the bullies? When the bully has a gun, and a legal right to use it, you have two choices: you can submit now and contest the issue later in court, or you can be dead right. Which would you choose?
Your whole argument is a ridiculous strawman. Those are NOT the only two choices that free citizens have when confronted by police malfeasance, nor should they be. The police do not have the legal right to use their gun under any situation they determine to be right. Police procedure is very specific about the use of deadly force and they are trained in where it is and isn't appropriate. Threatening someone with a gun is NOT their first taught, nor first line of defense and the officers that choose to act in that way should be prosecuted accordingly to the full extent of the law. The unfortunate thing is that the corruption in our legal system allows this to go unchecked and in some cases (like Tamir Rice) unjustly exonerated by their law enforcement peers in the judiciary. The case of Tamir Rice should not have been investigated by law enforcement and judiciary at the state level and should have been investigated by the DoJ, or at least by an investigative team and judiciary outside the state where the incident occurred. There is too much face saving corrupt bullshit that goes on within the same jurisdiction that there is little chance of a fair and full investigation. This is what is criminally wrong with our current justice system at the local level. Back to the bullying, bullies need to be checked in the moment of their bullying actions or any correction to that behavior will have little to no effect. There are legal and non-suicidal ways of confronting a bully cop and making an example of them, getting them removed from duty and the community trust and peace restored. We see it all the time with cell phone videos, dashcams and the like. So, the first thing to do when confronted by a bully cop is start recording, or have someone that's with you start recording, or as someone nearby to start recording. In a democracy the power lies in the people, unless they voluntarily yield it. You seem to want to live in a police state and not a democracy, if so, I'd say move to North Korea and live a wonderful life. Me and mine are gonna stick it out here and weild the powers we have for the better good.
Only if the HARDWARE requires a signed binary to run. Does that settle this stupidity?
Sorry, I had the comments all displayed and clicked on the wrong reply link. It should have been under raymorris's comment not yours.
OFFS, again! See this!
Boy is moderation being used improperly in this thread. Disagree with what I say all you want, but I said nothing that wasn't verifiable fact, nor did you. Disagree doesn't mean mod down.
That company's name didn't start with an 'R' by any chance did it? If so, I may have known some of the people you're describing...and by association, you!
There is NOTHING in the GPL (v1, v2 nor v3, nor any sub license alternative) that says the source code has to compile or that an executable be supplied with source code to use the GPL. The quote you reference (and I read it too, I've read the GPL numerous times!) states that if you DO supply a binary, i.e., "executable work", you must also supply all the source files including compiler scripts used for that binary when you distribute under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says the code has to be executable, has to function correctly, nor has to compile from what you distribute under the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, not a consumer protection law. It just states that if you code it, the source is made available to anyone that wants to use it or modify it, and that the modifications stay under the ascribed GPL license. That's all, nothing else, thank you for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Here's some more info for you.
And since you're obviously too lazy to bother to follow links to find information on the web, here:
There is NOTHING in the GPL (v1, v2 nor v3, nor any sub license alternative) that says the source code has to compile or that an executable be supplied with source code to use the GPL. The quote you reference (and I read it too, I've read the GPL numerous times!) states that if you DO supply a binary, i.e., "executable work", you must also supply all the source files including compiler scripts used for that binary when you distribute under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says the code has to be executable, has to function correctly, nor has to compile from what you distribute under the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, not a consumer protection law. It just states that if you code it, the source is made available to anyone that wants to use it or modify it, and that the modifications stay under the ascribed GPL license. That's all, nothing else, thank you for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Palm, meet forehead.
Yup. Not an inexpensive uh-oh.