Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:quick notes? (Score 3, Interesting) 523

by oogoliegoogolie (#48487421) Attached to: Finland Dumps Handwriting In Favor of Typing

I use to be like you and believed that cursive is faster than printing, but that all changed one day half a lifetime ago when I was reading tips on how to take better notes in college, and one tip was to print your notes because printing is faster and neater than cursive.

"Bullshit!" I said, "Everyone knows that cursive is faster than print. Who do they think they are kidding?". On top of this heresy they also stated that writing with a pencil is neater than with a pen. Their tips were changing from heresy to blasphemy! "Little kids print with pencils." I smugly muttered, "and adults write in cursive with pens, where the letters are joined beautifully together in flowing strokes in order to save time and be neater.". Although I knew cursive would best printing in speed and neatness, I must have had some doubts, for at that moment I grabbed my best pen, some crappy dog-chewed pencil, a few sheets of foolscap, and picked out a couple paragraphs in a book to copy to prove them wrong. I should have left well enough alone.

After numerous iterations of writing and printing with pencil and pen, I could not believe the results but had to accept them:printing, with pencil or pen, was about 30% faster than writing, and clearly more legible. My fastest writing was nothing better than the worst chicken-scratches and would be unreadable by another person, whereas my quickest print was still legible and neat.

"Oh my god!" I exclaimed just as the dizziness hit me. As I fell to my knees, then to the floor, as my belief system crumbled around me, the last thing I remember before I lost consciousness is muttering "Printing IS faster than writing!"

Seriously. Write,then print a few paragraphs as fast as you can. The fastest printing is faster and much more legible than the fastest writing. I shit you not.

Comment: Re:Why is Android allowing Uber to access the info (Score 4, Informative) 234

by oogoliegoogolie (#48474947) Attached to: Uber's Android App Caught Reporting Data Back Without Permission

Probably because android has all-or-nothing, non-granular permissions where you have to grant the app access to everything it requests, or else it's 'no app for you!'
If the app wants to access to your contacts, accounts, phone history, photos, camera, messaging, mail, you give it access or you don't get to install it.

It's a stupid, dumb, and poorly thought out implementation and google should (?) know better.

Comment: Re:Yosemite (Score 1) 370

by oogoliegoogolie (#48180715) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

The fact that the green button now fullscreens an application is another change I don't like.

Recent versions of BetterTouchTools can reverse this 'new and improved' behavior.

Here's my rant:
That change really pisses me off. I know I can hold the option-key down and it will still zoom, but the green-button zoomed since at least Snow Leopard so why change it now? More importantly, why make it default without any way to change it back.
Does anyone even use full-screen apps? Will reclaiming a few dozen pixels from the menu-bar change increase anyone's productivity?

You know, it seems that in every OSX release Apple inserts one ridiculous, boneheaded, unnecessary change in default functionality that leaves users dumbfounded why Apple would put that in.
In Lion it was the so called 'natural scrolling', in Mountain Lion it was hiding the scroll-bars by default, in Mavericks it was replacing Save-As with Duplicate, and now with Yosemite Apple changed the green-button's behavior from Zoom to Full-screen. At least Apple should put a toggle in system preferences so the user can revert the behavior.

Comment: Not going to happen in our lifetimes. (Score 1) 219

by oogoliegoogolie (#48145469) Attached to: When will the first successful manned Mars mission happen?

Not until a propulsion system is invented that can cut the trip down from eight months to eight weeks will we see a human mission to Mars.
The logistics are too difficult with current propulsion systems, which haven't changed much since the time of Goddard.
To coop-up a half dozen or more people in a capsule the size of a one-bedroom apartment for eight months, expect them to get along for that long, and to send along all the food, water, and supplies of life they will need for a 2+year mission is pretty much impossible. That's a lot of toilet paper or space-wipes alone.

Comment: Re:Netflix Time Now? (Score 1) 252

by oogoliegoogolie (#47642229) Attached to: <em>Babylon 5</em> May Finally Get a Big-Screen Debut

They FX look old, they don't look awful. I look thru the 90's CGI and see that the fights are some of the best directed, edited, musically scored battles ever.
I still get goosebumps and my heart pounds when I watch the fights when B5 seceded from the Earth Alliance, the Shadow War, the battle to free Proxima, the fight with the Centauri vessel when B5 was protecting the Narn cruiser (the sweeping camera arc showing the B5 interceptors intercepting the Centauri shells) among many others.
That being said, I always thought that the PPG's look silly.

Comment: Not a damn thing will be done. (Score 1) 567

Climate change is happening and nothing is going to stop it. The thing is, nobody is willing to make sacrifices to stop human-made climate change. Essentially we will have to cease being such zealous consumers of resources. That 's never going happen generally because very few people are willing to:

Give up your cars, including hybrids and electricals. Those may be low or zero-emission vehicles, but the factory where they were build isn't.
Cancel your annual flight down south each winter.
Give up your 300W 50" LCD TV, 100W/channel 7-speaker amplifier, and the rest of their electronic gadgets that soak up coal-plant produced electricity.
Endorse nuclear energy and be willing to allow reactors to be build nearby your homes.
Be willing to wait an extra week for your courier packages to get shipped by rail instead of fuel-guzzling trucks.
Give up tropical fruits & vegetables in winter months to cut down on the trucks (thus emissions) needed to ship those items up north from the tropics. Do you really need watermelon in January when it's -25C outside?
Get rid of your lawn so you no longer need to fertilize it. The nitrogen fixation process uses a ridiculous amount of energy, which likely comes from coal plants.

The point of this comment is that (if) climate change, sea level increase, melting glaciers & polar ice caps, etc. are caused by human activities, then we humans are going to have stop doing many of things that we normally take for granted in our high standard of living lifestyles. How many of us are willing to make these changes? I bet very few.

Comment: Maybe cut out the overabundant cutscenes. (Score 1) 111

by oogoliegoogolie (#47004977) Attached to: Game Industry Fights Rising Development Costs

The studios might save a few dollars. Making these has got to comprise a double-digit percentage of development costs because games are filled with them nowadays.
I play a game to play the game, not watch countless movie-clips.
Some games today have so many cutscenes that it seems the gameplay was added just to show off the 'fab' cutscenes.

Comment: Re:Unless you change it (Score 1) 688

by oogoliegoogolie (#46874999) Attached to: Firefox 29: Redesign

So many things are designed with form-over-function nowadays, nobody likes it, yet they blindly continue on.
I would say that the new UI designers come from smartphone or tablet backgrounds where screen real estate is at a premium so they have to hide all the borders, menus, buttons and such, and when they switch to designing desktop applications they seem to forget they are no longer working on a 5" screen and what works on mobile devices does not work on the desktop most of the time.

Even Apple started doing dumb things like hiding 'Save-As' and replacing it with a stupidly dumb absurd 'Duplicate' command that takes three times as many clicks to do a 'Save-As', reversing 20+ years of scrolling direction with their so-called Natural Scrolling, and hiding scroll-bars on 2560x1440 screens in order to save 10 pixels.

I like FF, but this redesign may be too much if I cannot restore it ALL back to before. At least there is still SeaMonkey.

Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.

Working...