Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Wrong conclusion (Score 2) 128

by hackertourist (#49149561) Attached to: Adjusting To a Martian Day More Difficult Than Expected

Damn you for making me read the entire FA ;-/

They did do a study that contradicts earlier experiments:

A person's natural circadian rhythm averages about 24 hours and six minutes for women, and 24 hours and 12 minutes for men. It varies for each individual, but doesn't stray very far from 24 hours. At about the time Pathfinder landed, Czeisler and his team began conducting studies at the hospital's special laboratory that shielded study subjects from all outside influences. With their test subjects in isolation, they simulated the Martian sol to see how the test subjects adjusted to the longer day. "What we learned was none of the people adapted their circadian rhythms to the Martian day," Czeisler said.

So either earlier studies were off, or Czeisler's experiment was wrong (having e.g. the HVAC on a 24-h cycle, or background noise etc.).

Comment: Wrong conclusion (Score 5, Insightful) 128

by hackertourist (#49148837) Attached to: Adjusting To a Martian Day More Difficult Than Expected

Living on Mars time is difficult when you're living on Earth and are subject to Earth's day/night cycle.

Sensory deprivation experiments where people live without clocks and daylight for more than a few days show that people tend to lengthen their "day" to much more than a Mars sol (up to 36 hours IIRC), indicating that adjusting to Mars time is feasible when you're actually on Mars.

Comment: Re:This is (sort of) good news for Americans (Score 2) 215

by hackertourist (#49037247) Attached to: Russia Seeking To Ban Tor, VPNs and Other Anonymizing Tools

That didn't work the last time. Remember the '80s? Oh, how we laughed at the KGB, Stasi et al. and their invasive ways. Listening to everybody, having half the population on the payroll and informing on the other half, reading all mail etc.
How superior we felt, with our freedoms.

Now look where we are.

Comment: Re:Wow so negative here (Score 1) 214

by hackertourist (#48937987) Attached to: Latest Windows 10 Preview Build Brings Slew of Enhancements

If you don't know their name then are you just reading them all and hoping on jogs your memory?

Yes. Categories help, and once I see the name, recognition is usually instant.

How exactly do you go about this on other platforms currently?

In OS X, the Applications folder is one click away. Not ideal, I'd rather have a menu with all of my applications (and I used to have that in OS 9).

You're forgetting that there's not just one Start Menu folder in Windows, there are two: one user-specific and one for all users. So two locations to scan. Are you seriously suggesting this is a good replacement for the Start menu?

Comment: Re:Wow so negative here (Score 1) 214

by hackertourist (#48930609) Attached to: Latest Windows 10 Preview Build Brings Slew of Enhancements

Having a mouse and clicking around a GUI browsing for files was the most gimmicky, mouth-breather way of launching programs that added nothing for users. If you want something then just type it, it's faster than hunting ...

Sure, it's faster for the programs you use often enough that you remember their name. That's maybe 20 out of the 200 programs I've installed. Many of those I need twice a year, and searching them by name doesn't work because I can't remember what they're called. I do know I filed them somewhere in Programs->XML tools (or one of a few categories I've set up and that make sense for me). Accessible via one click and a bit of moving the mouse around (in XP or with Classic Start Menu installed), or more clicking and scrolling (in Windows 7). Windows 7 was a regression in this regard, and Windows 8 threw my method under the bus.

Different strokes for different folks. I like the Search option, but for the love of God don't make it the only option.

Comment: Re:Wow so negative here (Score 1) 214

by hackertourist (#48923899) Attached to: Latest Windows 10 Preview Build Brings Slew of Enhancements

I, for one, like new things if, and only if, they are an improvement over the old things. That's why I use a computer in the first place: to improve my life and make things easier. Anything that gets in the way of that gets the vitriol poured on.

For something as fundamental as the UI, I have a substantial investment in the old way of doing things. Throwing that away means I have to start learning again, and it'll take a while to get up to the same speed I had with the old UI. This is all wasted time, so the new UI has to be a lot better than the old one to make a switch worthwhile.
Many of the UI changes in Windows have not been improvements at all. Instead MS seemingly randomly moved things around (Control Panel), or they removed functionality (Start screen). So yes, we consider this change for change's sake. I, for one, would welcome some actual improvements instead.

There's also the alienation factor. A new UI feels as if people have broken into my home and rearranged things.

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...