None of the new features hold any draw for me. It's good to see that there's finally something worthwhile in it--traffic shaping at the machine level is a good thing. When you say "It's good to see that there's finally something worthwhile in it"... This isn't a feature that's just been added the day before RTM; it's been there quite a while. Might I suggest that instead of saying that "none of the features hold any draw for me" and them immediately following that up with a stantement that you weren't even aware of at least one of the new features, you take the time to actually find out about the features new to Vista, and *then* decide whether any of the features interest you; rather than assuming that if a feature is of worth it will eventually float by you in the form of a Slashdot news story...
That is not to say that you won't find several papers documenting averse effect of electro magnetic radiation. I've just skimmed through some of the papers you linked to. They're broadly divided into the ones that looked at the effects on individual cells -- every one of which I've read so far has come to the conclusion that, in the words of one of them, "No significant differences could be detected for any of the parameters studied at any time and for any of the radiation characteristics" -- and trying to find a correlation in humans. In the latter case, the largest study over the longest period with the least margin of error is... TFA.
. Just take UV as an example. We don't sense when what are being cooked by UV. We can stand a good deal of daily exposure but as little as 30 mins beyond your safe limit under the summer sun and you can expect your skin to peel of in the following days. THe energy in UV light is around 10^-17 J/photon. The energy in one photon of the frequency used in mobile phones in 6*10^-25 J/photon. Now, the photon intensity is proportional to luminosity/4piR^2; which for the sun is (3.827×10^26)/(4*pi*(10^11)^2) = 3000 Wm^-2, and for a mobile phone is 0.6/(4*pi*0.05)^2 = 1.5 Wm^-2. Ummm... I'm not sure what proportion of the sun's energy is UV light, and I wouldn't really like to speculate, but you see the point -- the energy from mobile phone radiation is quite a large number of orders of magnitude smaller than the energy from from the Sun -- not only in the UV range, but in the radio range as well, which is where mobile phones operate (the atmosphere does not block microwave or radio radiation). Not all radiation needs to be treated equally dangerously.
Hence, a study on exposure to cell phones 1/5 the power of current devices don't mean that we are currently safe. Uhhh, I could be wrong but the impression I'd got is that mobile phones have become *more* efficient over the years, not less. For some reason, information on the power of mobile phones on the web seems to be quite scarce, but I located one fairly old article which said that power varies from 0.6 to 2 Watts, and another much more modern web site which says that most modern mobile phones radiate "up to around a quarter of a Watt"; which would seem to imply that they have got more efficient (I used the former, higher figure in the calculation above). This isn't very conclusive, and if you have another source which says otherwise, do please tell me. Oh -- even if I am wrong, old mobile phones tend to have cylindrical, omnidirectional antennae, wheras modern ones have embedded directional antennae, which would partially direct radiation away from the head. In any case, I certainly don't see where you've plucked this figure of a fifth from.
There's only one solution. Cut off your head and allow it to cool to ambient temperature. If you're really paranoid cool it as close to absolute zero as you can. Hmmm. How about dipping your head into a lage vat of liquid nitrogen for a while, then getting a large science teacher to pick you up by the legs and swing your head into the wall, shattering it into tiny pieces, thus acheiving both objectives at once!
Remember that experiment? Ah, those were the days...
But think about it -- it *would* be a cool way to die...
...
(Yes, pun intended).
Sorry about mixing up heads and bodies. My excuse is that... Errr, I figured if I want to make the Stefan's law calculation easier I can approximate a human as a sphere, right? And heads are spherical. So humans are heads. Or something. Ahh, I need more sleep. Good night!
You would be correct. According to Wikipedia, Humans emit around 95 Watts with a peak wavelength of 9500nm (infrared). For reference, the equivalent numbers for mobile phones are 0.6W and around 30cm.
The question now is... Are you giving your mobile phone cancer?:)
Uh, no. You're confusing ionising radiation with electromagnetic radiation. The only overlap is gamma rays, which are not at issue here. It is certainly true that *ionising* radiation can be harmful in high doses, and that could certainly be quoted without justification; but the article, and the poster, was talking about electromagnetic radiation. Come on, this isn't rocket science. If you believe E-M radiation to be automatically harmful, I suggest you go live in a dark cave very deep underground, which will reduce, but still not eliminate the large quantities of radio waves, microwaves, infrared, and of course, visible light that we are all bathed in every second of our lives.
Today people need to be told that coffee is hot, inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs, guns are not toys, and putting a transmitter next to your head and hitting transmit for hours every day all year long might be bad for you. Another appeal to common sense? As I've said elsewhere, If your common sense says one thing and a large body of scientific evidence says another, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether your common sense is really that common.
While I'm at it, other things that are common sense... Clearly, light is a wave. It has a wavelength, it must be a wave. If it was a particle, how could it diffract? And the idea that it can exhibit duality behavior is just stupid; it's either a wave or a particle, not both. Electrons, however, are definitely particles. Clearly a single electron can't follow a diffraction pattern because diffraction patterns are due to the superposition of waves, and what's a single elctron going to do, destructively interfere with itself? Hardly! Also, if angles in a triangle add up to pi, they'll always add up to pi, no matter how big the triangle. How can the size of the triangle affect the angles? That's just common sense. And how can space be curved? It's space, not a piece of paper.
Progressing a bit further back in history, what's all this crap about an object in motion remains in motion unless a force acts on it? If I push something along the ground, it comes to a stop. If I dop something, it comes to a stop when it hits the floor. If I fire an arrow, it also stops when it hits the ground. Clearly, the natural tendancy of all things is to come to a stop. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Bollocks. If I push against a wall, it doesn't push pack against me; it's a wall, it's inanimate, how can it push anything? That's just common sense.
I would think that by now it would be common sense that something like a cell phone can't possibly be good for your brain. Again with the common sense 'argument'. If your common sense says one thing and a large body of scientific evidence says another, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether your common sense is really that common.
I don't think it was every common sense that smoking was good for you. It was common sense that it was bad for you, but people did it anyway because no one explicitly came out and said, "Hey, this is bad for you, don't do it." As far as I can tell from adverts from that period, smoking in that period was certainly generally perceived as good for you, mostly due to the efforts of tobacco companies, who portrayed it as a relaxant, weight loss agent, something active people do etc. I could of course be wrong as I have no first hand experience with that period, but I figure if smoking was generally perceived as bad for you then these ads would not be prevalent, any more than an alcohol company could realistically come up with an advertising campaign in the present day that claims that drinking improves your driving.
In fact, if it found anything at all that would have been absolutely horrifying, given that, as I said before, it's really only looking at 10 years of data. I would heavily dispute that claim (which I will reproduce here for convenience):
"10 years ago cell phone usage wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Probably half, if not less."
Maybe, but the mobile phones 10 years ago were considerably more powerful and less efficient that the ones today (and used 360 degree arials) so would have significantly more 'effect', even if usage time was less.
"15 years ago it was too expensive for most people to even consider, let alone use on a daily basis."
Well, yes, but this study is looking at people who not only "considered" it, but - yes! - decided to purchase and use one. I agree with you, it would be a pretty crappy study if they looked at people who considered buying a mobile phone and then decided against it, and tried to draw conclusions from them...!
Are you claiming that if I hold a light bulb 2 inches away from my brain, I would them also be in danger of radio wave radiation? (before you answer, consider that a light bulb is 100 Watts though is very inefficient, and radiates from what's effectively a point source on a range of wavelengths; whereas a mobile phone is 0.6 Watts (from a quick Google, that figure could be wrong, feel free to check it), radiates on one particular wavelength, and on internal-arial phones radiates mostly outwards (I think)). Oh, and increasing numbers of gadgets transmit as well as receive; e.g. the iTrip. Admittedly these are on longer wavelengths than mobile phones, but the point is that even though most are receiving there is still a hell of a lot of (mostly harmless) radiation all around us.
Whats wrong with using common sense? During the days of Audrey Hepburn (who's dress is now worth thousands of dollars, can't be that bad) it was quite common to smoke. Guess what people told the scepticists of smoking during those days? Better yet: guess who is laughing last? (this isn't meant as a sick joke. its not my fault the truth is unforgiving). Uhhh, you do realise you've just proved my point? Back in those days it was, as you say, "common sense" that smoking was good for you -- after all, it made you lose weight, and helps you relax, and those are medical benefits, right? Well, wrong. So who's laughing last? The people who decided not to listen to common sense and go out and do scientific research into whether smoking really was good for you. And guess what? It wasn't. So now who's laughing? Anyone who listened to the scientific research rather than "common sense", and stopped smoking. They're laughing last because the other group died of lung cancer (and that, I'm afraid, isn't meant as a sick joke either).
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
Ah, I see. You've been granted this piece of knowledge by divine inspiration, and thus you, personally, are in posession of a truth that has eluded thousands of research scientists. A mere 420,000 person study is dismissable -- after all, since you have been granted absolute truth, any research that contradicts it must be wrong, no matter how compelling. I apologise for doubting you, sir.
P.S. could you tell me what religion you are? I just want to know so I can go out and convert to that one -- after all, if you are a member of it, it must be right.
I kind of thought it was common sense that radiation is harmful. I didn't think we still needed studies to prove this. OK, facts of life talk. Long to medium range electromagnetic radiation is everywhere, all the time. The Sun emits a hell of a lot of it in a Planck distribution, only a few narrow bands of which are absorbed by the atmosphere. Anywhere you could turn on a radio and hear a station, that means you are bathed in man made radio waves (whether you have a radio or not) -- and even when you can't hear a station, there's still a hell of a lot of natural radio waves around (which a radio hears as static). Moving higher up the spectrum; low energy microwaves are coming down at us from every corner of the universe; it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. Infrared is, of course, only a step into the sunlight away (or in front of a fire, etc.). And then you get visible light -- also a form of EM radiation (radiation is dangerous? better turn off that light-bulb!). Not to mention *anything* that glows when hot approximates a black-body, emitting visible light, infrared, microwaves, and radio waves. That light-bulb is emitting not only visible light, but also infrared and microwaves (and negligible amounts of UV). Better get that tin-foil hat on -- remember, "it's common sense that radiation is harmful"...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
You know, I can smoke one cigarette a week for 15 years, then a pack a week for the remaining 5 years and probably not get lung cancer and the end of that 20 year time period. That doesn't exactly mean that smoking isn't harmful. Perfectly true, you probably won't get lung cancer. However, if instead of considering just yourself, you survey 420,000 people over that same 20 years, the incidence of lung cancer among that group will be very much higher than a control group. It's called a scientific study. In fact, TFA is about a scientific study exactly like that one! What a coincidence.
Putting a device that emits radiation next to your head is harmful. And you could give me what evidence for that statement? What study are you quoting? Or did you just make it up on the spot? I'm guessing the latter.
i is approximately 1 How d'you figure that? Certainly the *modulus* of i is 1, but then the modulus of -1 is also 1, and you wouldn't approximate -1 by 1.
What the hell are you on about? The page you linked to is about 6 new fonts that will ship with Vista & Office 2007. They obviously are designed to work well will work with Cleartype, but they're not what Cleartype is. Cleartype is a method of subpixel font antialiasing, which works with any (truetype/opentype) font.
Oh, and if you think all new fonts are "rehashes of the same generic fonts available to all", you're just ignorant. There's a hell of a lot to good font designing.
>If the majority will simply find it obtrusive and will honestly "never" use it, your best bet it to hide it somewhere and let power users toggle it on, like they did with "Administrative Tools" in 2000 and XP.
In one sense, that's exactly what they've done -- hid it in the side-menu. So, that said, what is it you're arguing for -- that they should get rid of the side menu and leave all the options disabled until you specificically enable them? Not gonna happen -- I don't want a computer that I have to specifically configure just to allow me to turn it off! If you're arguing that they should keep the side menu and just reduce the number of options on it -- well, who decidedes what's going to stay and what's going to go? Usage data; data that tells what proportion of people use what. Microsoft have that data; I don't, and I suspect you don't either. Personally, I can't see a single option on the side-menu that could safely got rid of without affecting too many people -- if you're selling an OS to a billion people, 1% (say) of users is still a hell of a lot to alienate. And yes, forcing them to specifically enable functionality that they've been used to having there quite definitely counts as alienating them, even if it would only take a few seconds (after all, the power menu is only one tiny part of an OS, and one that Joel was using as an example; your philosophy could just as well be applied to hundreds of parts of the OS, and so 10 seconds turns into a whole lot more. Not acceptable from Microsoft's -- or anyone elses -- point of view).
So again -- exactly what alternative are you suggesting?
So, your logic is that either a feature will never be used by the vast majority of people (in which case, why show it) or it will be used by everyone (in which case, it should be prominent)? Fine... except it's rubbish, because features usually can't be seperated into those that everyone will use and those that no-one will use. Things like, say, hibernate will be used by the average savvy user way more often than administrative tools, but you still may not want to display them too prominently for fear of confusing new users who don't know what it does. Putting it in a little side menu a click away is *a* solution -- you could argue whether it's the ideal solution or not (probably not) but the general concept (making tools that would be used less often less prominent but still accessible) is hardly "the owrst kind of interface design".
Either you're a troll or you're seriously misinformed. The ribbon does not change depending on usage frequency. For a given tab and screen resolution, it's completely static.
It's not just big companies, this monopoly poroblem. I remember on my most recent trip to Europe, I tried to pay for something with fake money from a board game. I was arrested and charged with abusing my Monopoly...
My sentence was to be sent to jail, sent directly to jail, not to pass go, not to collect 200Million...
Not only would you not generate an infinite amount of electricity, you wouldn't generate *any* electricity, because a Peltier device doesn't generate electricity; it's a heat pump, which *uses* electricity to generate a heat differential. You're thinking of a heat *engine*, perhaps, which uses a heat differential to generate electricity; the opposite of a heat pump. Hooking two heat pumps side by side would generate twice the electrity of one, but only if the hot sink and the cold sink had constant temperature and the two sinks did not affect each other at all (not hugely realistic). Hooking two heat pumps together front to back would just be stupid, and would generate less energy than one on its own due to fundamental limitations in efficiency (no heat pump can be 100% efficient even in theory unless the cold sink is at absolute zero). It's a similar story for hooking two Peltier devices together: side by side would generate twice the heat differential if the sinks had constant temperature and the devices don't affect each other (again, not very realistic). Hooking two Peltier devices front to back is not actually as silly as hooking two heat pumps front to back, but is still not as efficient as having them side by side.
(Yes, I know you weren't being serious, but what the hey.)
What? No you wouldn't. Ever heard of... Well, a freezer? That's a device capable of turning electricity into a temperature differential, and as far as I know, doesn't break any laws of Thermodynamics. It's called a heat pump. The device in TFA can also act as a heat pump, probably using the Peltier effect.
>Microsoft isnt around to "make people happy". They are in it to make money, period.
Case in point- Vista Utimate edition is $400. Thats $100 more than the whole base system Dell was selling a while back, with XP installed. Granted, most Slashdot readers arent buying those base systems. But I bet a lot of them are running Linux systems they built for less than Vista Ultimate.
Case in point- there exist cars that cost over $1,000,000. That's more than some whole houses cost, with cars included. Granted, most people aren't buying million dollar cars. But I bed a lot of them are still living in houses that cost less than them.
Conclusion: All cars are bad value and worse than all free forms of transport, just because there exist some cars that are very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that experiment? Ah, those were the days...
But think about it -- it *would* be a cool way to die...
(Yes, pun intended).
Sorry about mixing up heads and bodies. My excuse is that... Errr, I figured if I want to make the Stefan's law calculation easier I can approximate a human as a sphere, right? And heads are spherical. So humans are heads. Or something. Ahh, I need more sleep. Good night!
You would be correct. According to Wikipedia, Humans emit around 95 Watts with a peak wavelength of 9500nm (infrared). For reference, the equivalent numbers for mobile phones are 0.6W and around 30cm.
:)
The question now is... Are you giving your mobile phone cancer?
Uh, no. You're confusing ionising radiation with electromagnetic radiation. The only overlap is gamma rays, which are not at issue here. It is certainly true that *ionising* radiation can be harmful in high doses, and that could certainly be quoted without justification; but the article, and the poster, was talking about electromagnetic radiation. Come on, this isn't rocket science. If you believe E-M radiation to be automatically harmful, I suggest you go live in a dark cave very deep underground, which will reduce, but still not eliminate the large quantities of radio waves, microwaves, infrared, and of course, visible light that we are all bathed in every second of our lives.
While I'm at it, other things that are common sense... Clearly, light is a wave. It has a wavelength, it must be a wave. If it was a particle, how could it diffract? And the idea that it can exhibit duality behavior is just stupid; it's either a wave or a particle, not both. Electrons, however, are definitely particles. Clearly a single electron can't follow a diffraction pattern because diffraction patterns are due to the superposition of waves, and what's a single elctron going to do, destructively interfere with itself? Hardly! Also, if angles in a triangle add up to pi, they'll always add up to pi, no matter how big the triangle. How can the size of the triangle affect the angles? That's just common sense. And how can space be curved? It's space, not a piece of paper.
Progressing a bit further back in history, what's all this crap about an object in motion remains in motion unless a force acts on it? If I push something along the ground, it comes to a stop. If I dop something, it comes to a stop when it hits the floor. If I fire an arrow, it also stops when it hits the ground. Clearly, the natural tendancy of all things is to come to a stop. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Bollocks. If I push against a wall, it doesn't push pack against me; it's a wall, it's inanimate, how can it push anything? That's just common sense.
"10 years ago cell phone usage wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Probably half, if not less."
Maybe, but the mobile phones 10 years ago were considerably more powerful and less efficient that the ones today (and used 360 degree arials) so would have significantly more 'effect', even if usage time was less.
"15 years ago it was too expensive for most people to even consider, let alone use on a daily basis."
Well, yes, but this study is looking at people who not only "considered" it, but - yes! - decided to purchase and use one. I agree with you, it would be a pretty crappy study if they looked at people who considered buying a mobile phone and then decided against it, and tried to draw conclusions from them...!
Are you claiming that if I hold a light bulb 2 inches away from my brain, I would them also be in danger of radio wave radiation? (before you answer, consider that a light bulb is 100 Watts though is very inefficient, and radiates from what's effectively a point source on a range of wavelengths; whereas a mobile phone is 0.6 Watts (from a quick Google, that figure could be wrong, feel free to check it), radiates on one particular wavelength, and on internal-arial phones radiates mostly outwards (I think)). Oh, and increasing numbers of gadgets transmit as well as receive; e.g. the iTrip. Admittedly these are on longer wavelengths than mobile phones, but the point is that even though most are receiving there is still a hell of a lot of (mostly harmless) radiation all around us.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
I won't be surprised, but I guess you will be.
Ah, I see. You've been granted this piece of knowledge by divine inspiration, and thus you, personally, are in posession of a truth that has eluded thousands of research scientists. A mere 420,000 person study is dismissable -- after all, since you have been granted absolute truth, any research that contradicts it must be wrong, no matter how compelling. I apologise for doubting you, sir.
P.S. could you tell me what religion you are? I just want to know so I can go out and convert to that one -- after all, if you are a member of it, it must be right.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
No, it isn't.
That's a very old list, from back in the days of the G1 ipod and the Nomad jukebox. I doubt any of the players in that list are made anymore.
What the hell are you on about? The page you linked to is about 6 new fonts that will ship with Vista & Office 2007. They obviously are designed to work well will work with Cleartype, but they're not what Cleartype is. Cleartype is a method of subpixel font antialiasing, which works with any (truetype/opentype) font.
Oh, and if you think all new fonts are "rehashes of the same generic fonts available to all", you're just ignorant. There's a hell of a lot to good font designing.
>If the majority will simply find it obtrusive and will honestly "never" use it, your best bet it to hide it somewhere and let power users toggle it on, like they did with "Administrative Tools" in 2000 and XP.
In one sense, that's exactly what they've done -- hid it in the side-menu. So, that said, what is it you're arguing for -- that they should get rid of the side menu and leave all the options disabled until you specificically enable them? Not gonna happen -- I don't want a computer that I have to specifically configure just to allow me to turn it off! If you're arguing that they should keep the side menu and just reduce the number of options on it -- well, who decidedes what's going to stay and what's going to go? Usage data; data that tells what proportion of people use what. Microsoft have that data; I don't, and I suspect you don't either. Personally, I can't see a single option on the side-menu that could safely got rid of without affecting too many people -- if you're selling an OS to a billion people, 1% (say) of users is still a hell of a lot to alienate. And yes, forcing them to specifically enable functionality that they've been used to having there quite definitely counts as alienating them, even if it would only take a few seconds (after all, the power menu is only one tiny part of an OS, and one that Joel was using as an example; your philosophy could just as well be applied to hundreds of parts of the OS, and so 10 seconds turns into a whole lot more. Not acceptable from Microsoft's -- or anyone elses -- point of view).
So again -- exactly what alternative are you suggesting?
So, your logic is that either a feature will never be used by the vast majority of people (in which case, why show it) or it will be used by everyone (in which case, it should be prominent)? Fine... except it's rubbish, because features usually can't be seperated into those that everyone will use and those that no-one will use. Things like, say, hibernate will be used by the average savvy user way more often than administrative tools, but you still may not want to display them too prominently for fear of confusing new users who don't know what it does. Putting it in a little side menu a click away is *a* solution -- you could argue whether it's the ideal solution or not (probably not) but the general concept (making tools that would be used less often less prominent but still accessible) is hardly "the owrst kind of interface design".
Either you're a troll or you're seriously misinformed. The ribbon does not change depending on usage frequency. For a given tab and screen resolution, it's completely static.
It's not just big companies, this monopoly poroblem. I remember on my most recent trip to Europe, I tried to pay for something with fake money from a board game. I was arrested and charged with abusing my Monopoly...
My sentence was to be sent to jail, sent directly to jail, not to pass go, not to collect 200Million...
Not only would you not generate an infinite amount of electricity, you wouldn't generate *any* electricity, because a Peltier device doesn't generate electricity; it's a heat pump, which *uses* electricity to generate a heat differential. You're thinking of a heat *engine*, perhaps, which uses a heat differential to generate electricity; the opposite of a heat pump. Hooking two heat pumps side by side would generate twice the electrity of one, but only if the hot sink and the cold sink had constant temperature and the two sinks did not affect each other at all (not hugely realistic). Hooking two heat pumps together front to back would just be stupid, and would generate less energy than one on its own due to fundamental limitations in efficiency (no heat pump can be 100% efficient even in theory unless the cold sink is at absolute zero). It's a similar story for hooking two Peltier devices together: side by side would generate twice the heat differential if the sinks had constant temperature and the devices don't affect each other (again, not very realistic). Hooking two Peltier devices front to back is not actually as silly as hooking two heat pumps front to back, but is still not as efficient as having them side by side.
(Yes, I know you weren't being serious, but what the hey.)
What? No you wouldn't. Ever heard of... Well, a freezer? That's a device capable of turning electricity into a temperature differential, and as far as I know, doesn't break any laws of Thermodynamics. It's called a heat pump. The device in TFA can also act as a heat pump, probably using the Peltier effect.
>Microsoft isnt around to "make people happy". They are in it to make money, period.
Case in point- Vista Utimate edition is $400. Thats $100 more than the whole base system Dell was selling a while back, with XP installed. Granted, most Slashdot readers arent buying those base systems. But I bet a lot of them are running Linux systems they built for less than Vista Ultimate.
Case in point- there exist cars that cost over $1,000,000. That's more than some whole houses cost, with cars included. Granted, most people aren't buying million dollar cars. But I bed a lot of them are still living in houses that cost less than them.
Conclusion: All cars are bad value and worse than all free forms of transport, just because there exist some cars that are very expensive.
(Did you know that walking is free as in Speech?)