Sure, but the point is the gas composition of the atmosphere is affected by global temperatures of the time; this will be reflected in the gasses trapped in the ice.
I really don't understand how people will pay approximately $20 for a 1.5 hour entertainment that doesn't involve you directly, typically walking away happy, and yet complain about paying $50 for 40 hours of entertainment that does interact and make you part of that world.
Because its not just the duration, but the quality of entertainment that matters, and interactivity isn't the sole component (or, always, a positive component) of quality of entertainment.
Why not just buy a new game only once the current game is finished?
Maybe because the game stopped being interesting and rewarding when it became impossible for him to progress further. This is why I don't actually buy a lot of close-ended, plotted games in the first place; either their going to be too quickly completed and run out of entertainment value, or they are going to be too difficult, bog down, and also run out of entertainment value.
If the sequels hadn't come out that improved gameplay, I would still enjoy Civilization II, maybe even Civilization I. Same with the various incarnations of the Total War series.
At least in the US, gov't officials accepting bribes is illegal. In other countries, that practice is the only way to do business.
You say that as if something "illegal" cannot also be "the only way to do business". In those other countries, its also illegal. And the pervasiveness of it in US electoral politics in various forms suggests that its also the only way to do business, at least big business, in the US. What is practically necessary and what is illegal can overlap.
Oops. I hit submit when I meant to hit preview. That first symbol should, obviously, have been... oh, never mind, even the right entity references don't seem to work here. Odd. Well, it should be the small caps superscript TM, which is usually ™ or ™
Yeah, it is. Its established through claim and use in trade.
Trademarks must be registered and actively defended.
No, they need not be registered, which is why there are separate symbols for trademarks () and registered trademarks (®). If they were required to be registered, there would be no need for different symbols for ones that were and ones that were not.
It's funny that sony's using tilt while microsoft, who made one of the first two tilt gamepads, didn't use it. That's not a good sign for sony.
How is it not a good sign for Sony? It wouldn't be the first time that the innovator in a product area happened to miss an opportunity to leverage that innovation where someone else did.
Seeing as most users do not switch from platform to platform on regular basis, it is a perfectly reasonable and applicable assumption.
No, really, its not. If most users spent all their time working on computers, and didn't switch platforms, then it might be a reasonable assumption (and even then, it would be questionable on a new OS: because lots of users would be switching platforms.)
If I'm a regular Windows, user I expect to find menu items where other Windows programs put them.
If I'm a regular user with, as many regular users have, a small handful of programs I regularly use, I'll have a natural expectation that the UI arrangement and behavior of other programs doing similar things will match those programs. But it won't necessarily be the OS UI standards, except for the most basic things, if, for instance, I'm a regular Microsoft Office user, since Office, except for the most basic things, doesn't particularly closely follow the existing standards on the platform (even though its MS's own platform.)
If the application is doing very different things, there is less in the way of UI expectations.
The fact that Firefox runs on many platforms is completely irrelevent. Firefox should conform as best as possible to the guidelines/standards of the platform it is running on.
Adherence to platform standards enhances usability for users who have previously used lots of software adhering to those standards, for everyone else its not necessarily a benefit. And much of the most popular software on Windows adheres poorly to any but the most basic platform standards (things like standard decorators, print dialogs, etc.)
I would agree that an application should try to do what it's target audience is likely to find intuitive and natural, which will generally in some degree be shaped by target platform UI standards. But I don't think that one should, either, mistake simple adherence to target platform UI standards as being either sufficient or even necessary for an interface to be intuitive and natural to targetted users.
Then I guess you need to decide whether or not you want to follow the common practice in the immediate predecessor or help encourage the new standard.
I hardly think that the choices are limited to that. I think what a application developer need to do is decide what combination of the old standard, the new standard, and non-standard behavior is likely to work best for the people they are making an application for. (And whether the OS standard is even relevant; plenty of people happily use, and are used to using, and find it intuitive to use plenty of applications use UI paradigm is very different from the "standard" model for their platform.)
Define "really fricking big," please - because I don't see it as being a real problem.
Okay, I remembered that from way back, and on further checking there are a couple of separate related problem: tidal forces are one, and the other are coriolis forces, which are a lot easier to find numbers for the levels which cause concern. For the latter, to avoid dizzyness, nausea, and disorientation, the spin has to be lower than about 2 rpm (I can't find any numbers for what levels of tidal force are a concern, though). For a 0.1g simulated gravity, that requires about a 22m radius of rotation, which, while it isn't exactly enormous, would require being at one extreme end of the ISS and tumbling the station end over end.
Maybe not, but dont' underestimate the value of consistency. If you put some menu item, for example, in a place other than where the user expects it based on previous experience, your application is going to stand out as "unintuitive." Doesn't matter if your way is "better" in some larger picture.
Sure, but that "previous experience" may not be consistent with the OS UI guidelines either; for instance, my biggest personal problem with that is that menu items are in different places in Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows. The assumption that the principal experience that is going to shape your application's users expectations is represented by conformity to the OS's UI guidelines is probabyl not all that generally applicable, particularly on a new OS use UI guidelines break from the common practice on even the immediate predecessor of that OS.
However, compliance with those UI guidelines by application developers for a market-dominant OS guarantees that user's experience going is shaped by the guidelines, that that platform's guidelines will be influential in shaping expectations of other platforms, and simply differing from the platforms standards will be a barrier to adoption of other platforms, which is all good—from the perspective of the maker of the platform, not necessarily for users or the makers of other applications.
Aside from that, what ever became of ideas like one of those large rotating room to create pseudo-gravity using constant angular velocity?
They have to really fricking big (or at least on the end of a really big arm) otherwise, the "tidal" forces from different perceived gravity on different parts of your body could cause problems.
If kidneys are floating past in the course of a surgery to remove a fatty tumor from the forearm, then I'd guess that there is something fairly seriously wrong being done. Yeah, it would be prettty crazy to do surgery affecting major internal organs in this kind of experiment, but that's not what they are trying here.
As others have pointed out, performing surgery 30 seconds at a time doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect the reality of being in micro-gravity during the whole operation. Why don't they do this kind of experiments on the ISS ?
Because if something unexpectedly goes wrong in surgery on the ISS, you can't restore gravity and/or return to earth in any reasonable period of time.
With a continuously occupied space facility, private ventures planning to establish "space hotels", and with plans (mentioned in TFA) to establish a permanently inhabited moon base in the next few decades, possibly followed by manned missions to Mars which will take a very long time in transit, yes, there is a reasonably predictable, not too distant future need to have techniques available to perform surgeries in low and zero gravity.
Conducting a fairly low risk surgery under conditions where return to gravity and to earthbound facilities in reasonable time are not impractical seems to me a reasonable way to approach the development of such techniques. Of course, there is always a risk associated with such experimentation. which is why you have informed consent of a volunteer subject.
And where's the central repository of knowledge that tells me what's the best text editor of the 9,000 available for Linux?
There isn't a "best text editor" for Linux. Which text editor is best is a function of your personal tastes, the specific uses you have for it, and other things. Same, really, as on Windows (though the options are different.) No "central repository of knowledge" exists for either, you've got to figure out what works for you. There's lots of good resources on the net to find out about text editors for either platform, but without trying some out, you won't answer that question.
Same for media players, burning software, etc.
These aren't hits against Linux at all, but it's a lot easier for me to ask the guy next to me what he uses to burn CD's rather than look it up online.
I thought you wanted a centralized database with feature comparisons to let you know the best of each of these applications? Now you just want some random guy that you can ask what they use? There's plenty of those for almost any kind of Linux application...
Installing in Windows just as easy as installing something on Linux. Frequently it's a heck of a lot easier to set up due to gui set up, rather than having to use config files.
I don't see a lot of big differences, here. Most of the stuff I install on linux either has an installer or can be installed with apt-get (or any of the GUI front-ends for that), occasionally you'll still run into stuff with a laborious manual install process, but usually that's for fairly specialized open-source projects that usually don't have binary installers for Windows, if they are even available there, so its not really a disadvantage to linux, but to particular applications.
Now, that being said, I don't see linux replacing or threatening Windows unless someone comes up with a revolutionary distro that really redefines the user experience and forces Windows to play catch-up in an area where lots of less-technical users instantly and intuitively grasps the advantage, even if does catch up so that there isn't any more serious debate about Linux being "ready" for the average desktop user.
They put all their shortcuts in the Programs folder (usually even in All Users where it should be), and regularly have good help files built into the programs.
Shortcuts shouldn't be put in All Users unless the person installing wants that done: good installers already ask (really, a finer-grained control than "current user" or "all users" would be better.)
Things that look like links shouldn't have accelerator keys because the default look of links hides the indicators that tell you that the item has an accelerator key. Except, things with the exact same look as links that act like buttons can have accelerator keys, that's okay, even though presumably their accelerators will be equally as obscure as those on real links would be.
Um, yeah, look, if you want to have a consistent UI, (1) you don't impose functional rules (no access keys) based on looks (default underlining hides access keys) and then make exceptions for things that have the same looks, and (2) you make things that act like buttons look like buttons, and things that act like links look like links.
Well, you'll probably fall over from the shock effects of the wound, you won't be knocked over by the impact of the bullet. It just don't deliver enough energy to do that. I think that's what GP was getting at.
Or you could just follow the guidelines for the platform you are developing for. Why must there be magic involved in order to make your application consistent an intuitive for the user?
"Intuitive for the user" and "consistent with the platform guidelines from the OS manufacturer" are not the same thing, and may often be conflicting. Either because the platform guidelines are ill-considered for intuitive use in the first place (for instance, they specify non-intuitive default behavior), or because the application is in a domain for which the assumptions made in drafting the UI guidelines are just not applicable.
You are correct. FISA has always allowed warrantless wiretaps in the case of specific statutes.
Well, if by "specific statutes" you mean "FISA itself", then yes.
But Congress always has had oversight of such programs, and this new legislation does not change that.
A small number of members of Congress are required to be informed of specified information regarding such programs, bother under FISA and under the changes proposed in EMSA; however, Congress does not have veto. There is no approval process, and the required information is very general.
These changes are a no-brainer, as the original text of FISA only specifically addressed foreign powers and had specific exclusions for international terrorism. It should be obvious why such changes were needed.
I would agree that the changes evidence no brains... The original text of FISA did not exclude "international terrorism", affiliation with a terrorist group was included in the definition of "agent of a foreign power". It did not allow warrantless surveillance on the basis of such an identification, unlike for most other types of "agents of a foreign power", because, unlike foreign nation-states, the tieing of an individual to a terrorist group is inherently less certain and was, for that reason, not something that ought to not be within the sole and unreviewed discretion of the executive branch where it made a difference in how a person was treated by government. I think it should be obvious why changing that is not merely unnecessary, but undesirable as well.
Wrong. This bill, and the Senate version that passed in committee last week require the FISA court to review and approve of the petition of any such program by the Attorney General, and regular review by the congressional legislative committees.
Please point to the provision in the bill that requires the FISA court to approve a "warrantless program".
...Microsoft wants its applications to "stand out" rather than blend into the mass of cookie-cutter applications for its OS. Distinctive look and feel is a method of product branding and identity; Microsoft wants everyone else's applications to simply reinforce Microsoft's OS branding, rather than standing out on their own. OTOH, they want their own applications that are separate products to distinguish themselves and have their own strong identity (and, indeed, they want third-party add-ons for those products to reinforce the application identity, not the OS identity.)
The average person who buys a printer with any kind of duplexing capability probably know what duplex means.
For the user who doesn't, tooltips or "what's this?" buttons are probably better than verbose descriptions in the main interface, particularly
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but the point is the gas composition of the atmosphere is affected by global temperatures of the time; this will be reflected in the gasses trapped in the ice.
Because its not just the duration, but the quality of entertainment that matters, and interactivity isn't the sole component (or, always, a positive component) of quality of entertainment.
Games that keep being entertaining for a long time are good.
Games that bog down and stop being entertaining, not so good.
You say that as if something "illegal" cannot also be "the only way to do business". In those other countries, its also illegal. And the pervasiveness of it in US electoral politics in various forms suggests that its also the only way to do business, at least big business, in the US. What is practically necessary and what is illegal can overlap.
Oops. I hit submit when I meant to hit preview. That first symbol should, obviously, have been ... oh, never mind, even the right entity references don't seem to work here. Odd. Well, it should be the small caps superscript TM, which is usually ™ or ™
How is it not a good sign for Sony? It wouldn't be the first time that the innovator in a product area happened to miss an opportunity to leverage that innovation where someone else did.
Or is Microsoft infallible in your view?
No, really, its not. If most users spent all their time working on computers, and didn't switch platforms, then it might be a reasonable assumption (and even then, it would be questionable on a new OS: because lots of users would be switching platforms.)
If I'm a regular user with, as many regular users have, a small handful of programs I regularly use, I'll have a natural expectation that the UI arrangement and behavior of other programs doing similar things will match those programs. But it won't necessarily be the OS UI standards, except for the most basic things, if, for instance, I'm a regular Microsoft Office user, since Office, except for the most basic things, doesn't particularly closely follow the existing standards on the platform (even though its MS's own platform.)
If the application is doing very different things, there is less in the way of UI expectations.
Adherence to platform standards enhances usability for users who have previously used lots of software adhering to those standards, for everyone else its not necessarily a benefit. And much of the most popular software on Windows adheres poorly to any but the most basic platform standards (things like standard decorators, print dialogs, etc.)
I would agree that an application should try to do what it's target audience is likely to find intuitive and natural, which will generally in some degree be shaped by target platform UI standards. But I don't think that one should, either, mistake simple adherence to target platform UI standards as being either sufficient or even necessary for an interface to be intuitive and natural to targetted users.
I hardly think that the choices are limited to that. I think what a application developer need to do is decide what combination of the old standard, the new standard, and non-standard behavior is likely to work best for the people they are making an application for. (And whether the OS standard is even relevant; plenty of people happily use, and are used to using, and find it intuitive to use plenty of applications use UI paradigm is very different from the "standard" model for their platform.)
Okay, I remembered that from way back, and on further checking there are a couple of separate related problem: tidal forces are one, and the other are coriolis forces, which are a lot easier to find numbers for the levels which cause concern. For the latter, to avoid dizzyness, nausea, and disorientation, the spin has to be lower than about 2 rpm (I can't find any numbers for what levels of tidal force are a concern, though). For a 0.1g simulated gravity, that requires about a 22m radius of rotation, which, while it isn't exactly enormous, would require being at one extreme end of the ISS and tumbling the station end over end.
Sure, but that "previous experience" may not be consistent with the OS UI guidelines either; for instance, my biggest personal problem with that is that menu items are in different places in Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows. The assumption that the principal experience that is going to shape your application's users expectations is represented by conformity to the OS's UI guidelines is probabyl not all that generally applicable, particularly on a new OS use UI guidelines break from the common practice on even the immediate predecessor of that OS.
However, compliance with those UI guidelines by application developers for a market-dominant OS guarantees that user's experience going is shaped by the guidelines, that that platform's guidelines will be influential in shaping expectations of other platforms, and simply differing from the platforms standards will be a barrier to adoption of other platforms, which is all good—from the perspective of the maker of the platform, not necessarily for users or the makers of other applications.
If kidneys are floating past in the course of a surgery to remove a fatty tumor from the forearm, then I'd guess that there is something fairly seriously wrong being done. Yeah, it would be prettty crazy to do surgery affecting major internal organs in this kind of experiment, but that's not what they are trying here.
IF it was proven safe, it wouldn't be a research project that people would volunteer for specially outside of normal medicine.
If no procedure was ever done before it was proven safe, then no procedure would ever be proven safe, and medicine would grind to a halt.
With a continuously occupied space facility, private ventures planning to establish "space hotels", and with plans (mentioned in TFA) to establish a permanently inhabited moon base in the next few decades, possibly followed by manned missions to Mars which will take a very long time in transit, yes, there is a reasonably predictable, not too distant future need to have techniques available to perform surgeries in low and zero gravity.
Conducting a fairly low risk surgery under conditions where return to gravity and to earthbound facilities in reasonable time are not impractical seems to me a reasonable way to approach the development of such techniques. Of course, there is always a risk associated with such experimentation. which is why you have informed consent of a volunteer subject.
There isn't a "best text editor" for Linux. Which text editor is best is a function of your personal tastes, the specific uses you have for it, and other things. Same, really, as on Windows (though the options are different.) No "central repository of knowledge" exists for either, you've got to figure out what works for you. There's lots of good resources on the net to find out about text editors for either platform, but without trying some out, you won't answer that question.
Same for media players, burning software, etc.
I thought you wanted a centralized database with feature comparisons to let you know the best of each of these applications? Now you just want some random guy that you can ask what they use? There's plenty of those for almost any kind of Linux application...
I don't see a lot of big differences, here. Most of the stuff I install on linux either has an installer or can be installed with apt-get (or any of the GUI front-ends for that), occasionally you'll still run into stuff with a laborious manual install process, but usually that's for fairly specialized open-source projects that usually don't have binary installers for Windows, if they are even available there, so its not really a disadvantage to linux, but to particular applications.
Now, that being said, I don't see linux replacing or threatening Windows unless someone comes up with a revolutionary distro that really redefines the user experience and forces Windows to play catch-up in an area where lots of less-technical users instantly and intuitively grasps the advantage, even if does catch up so that there isn't any more serious debate about Linux being "ready" for the average desktop user.
Things that look like links shouldn't have accelerator keys because the default look of links hides the indicators that tell you that the item has an accelerator key. Except, things with the exact same look as links that act like buttons can have accelerator keys, that's okay, even though presumably their accelerators will be equally as obscure as those on real links would be. Um, yeah, look, if you want to have a consistent UI, (1) you don't impose functional rules (no access keys) based on looks (default underlining hides access keys) and then make exceptions for things that have the same looks, and (2) you make things that act like buttons look like buttons, and things that act like links look like links.
Well, you'll probably fall over from the shock effects of the wound, you won't be knocked over by the impact of the bullet. It just don't deliver enough energy to do that. I think that's what GP was getting at.
"Intuitive for the user" and "consistent with the platform guidelines from the OS manufacturer" are not the same thing, and may often be conflicting. Either because the platform guidelines are ill-considered for intuitive use in the first place (for instance, they specify non-intuitive default behavior), or because the application is in a domain for which the assumptions made in drafting the UI guidelines are just not applicable.
...Microsoft wants its applications to "stand out" rather than blend into the mass of cookie-cutter applications for its OS. Distinctive look and feel is a method of product branding and identity; Microsoft wants everyone else's applications to simply reinforce Microsoft's OS branding, rather than standing out on their own. OTOH, they want their own applications that are separate products to distinguish themselves and have their own strong identity (and, indeed, they want third-party add-ons for those products to reinforce the application identity, not the OS identity.)
Dangers of not using preview, that dangling "particularly". There was really nothing meant by it.
The average person who buys a printer with any kind of duplexing capability probably know what duplex means. For the user who doesn't, tooltips or "what's this?" buttons are probably better than verbose descriptions in the main interface, particularly