The single number thing is completely not an issue. It's not like each number gets its own frequency. Completely a software issue.

Anyways, by the time we hit 2064 it's laughable to think that phones would have their own network, either wired or wireless. They're going to plug into a generalized digital communications system, using some future equivalent of voice-over-IP.

A graphics technology is "eye candy" -- now that's a surprise!

there have been special 2d accelerators available since the age of the 486. today its default in even the most basic grahpics chip.

and yes, it have hit the point where for general office work and net surfing the currently available computeing power is more then needed. only time it needs it is for multimedia and well then you can just as well add special subchips like its being done with 3d graphics. hell, they are even putting mpeg-2 chips on them these days.

oh and please elaborate on how eyecandy serve a purpose.

Example: drop shadows allow for fast and easy identification of what windows are above what other windows when they aren't overlapping, or for identification of the primary active window.

Example two: transparent menus when over video allows minimal obstruction of information while using said menus.

~J

i never had a problem iding the currently active window, just look at the title bar for a indication or have some sort of border change. no need for a full on dropshadow outside of it looking good. and transparecy makes a mess of the menu way before you get any degree of usefull viewability of whats under it.

This is why I love Dumpshock...

hmm, how to read that post...

Treat the sarcasm like barbeque sauce and just sop it up before it drips onto your lap.

just because you, personally, don't find drop shadows and/or transparency useful doesn't mean other people don't. i use the transparency-when-moving option in winxp, and i think it's great. "eye candy" is a major part of usable GUIs; less eye candy = less utility.

To paraphrase mfb: Looking good is an utility in itself. Humans work more effectively when they enjoy working, and they enjoy working more when the tools used look pretty.

hrmf, want real transparent while moved? turn on content while drag. less cpu time wasted painting the content of the window and then alphablending it and you still get the task done, moveing the window over. or do you move the window about like some kid waveing a toy around to hear it rattle?

looking good is what have given us the waste of cpu winxp look, and the first thing i want to do on a xp box is to turn that stuff of. but then im happy with my win2k install. hell, im happy in a console for that matter

i would like to see the carpenter that would use a hammer colored like a fisher-price toy.

Even hammers have taken a turn for the aesthetically pleasing, though admittedly they're actually nice-looking rather than XP.

~J

a hammer colored like a toy isn't aesthetically pleasing to the consumers who are most likely to buy hammers. aesthetics that don't please are not aesthetics. a large part of creating eye candy is figuring out whose eye is getting candied.

Anyway, when you're looking at making a hammer, the point isn't to make something that pleases the eyes; you're kinda hoping the hammer *doesn't* interact with the eyes, actually. The point is to make a hammer that pleases the hand, as that's the part of the body that interacts with the hammer. This is why you have foam-rubber grips, ergonomic fingerholds, etc etc. on more and more tools these days. There's a good reason for this too: if your hand spends less time cramping up it can spend more time working.

The same is true of a GUI. A GUI interacts with the eyes, and so you want to have something that works well with the eyes. The only reason Windows has been so popular with end-users is that it's fairly easy and intuitive to learn. You don't have dozens of shell commands to type and memorize; instead you have an easy point-and-click menu system. Windows arranged with drop-shadows are easy and intuitive to give order to because they look just like the stacks of papers on the desk beside us that we're already familiar with. Nice and intuitive.

The main problem with linux and other such operating systems is that most of the programmers for such systems have hobgoblin's attitude about GUIs. Namely, they show contempt for them, and tout their flexible, more powerful command prompts over an intuitive GUI, feeling that because *they* learned how to use computers this way, everyone *else* can and should learn to use them that way too.

You all know I'm right about thos. If you need further proof, take a look at the incredibly, insane popularity of Firefox, which embraced the idea of an intuitive GUI, and then look at the comparative gimped progress of the various Linuxes.

What the Hell am I doing talking about mothereffing hammers?

If you're all done with the radios thread, leave it be.

OTOH, has anyone else tweaked out personal communications in SR to more fit their vision of reality?

for linux and guis, both gnome and kde comes to mind. i didnt say i looked down on guis, i only said that i dont need noe to get work done in front of a computer. what i question tho is trowing more and more computeing power and man hours into designeing small graphical effects that are only present to give a hint about what window have focused when you could do the same by changeing a small element of the existing window.

as for seeing whats inside a window while im draging it? come on. its allready sitting there on the screen and i can look at it all i want. no need to redraw its content every frame just because i happen to drag it around. its where it ends up thats important when dragging, not content. resizeing may be a diffrent story as then you may be resizeing to best fit the content.

but i say function over form. if it gets the job done i use it. i just hope people atleast give me the option to turn of the eyecandy so that it dont get in my way.

a nicely done commandline like say bash can be just as informative as a gui. and we have been trained to memorize and understand written words all out lifes. give the user a nice list of commands (like say that color coded mousemat i have seen around, green for everyday commands, red for commands that may damage the users files or the system if used wrong) that explains the most common functions of the command and they have a reference. the same for a gui would cover several pages just for one dialog with some tabs as it needs pictures of every tab with numberd buttons and then some text for every number.

even sms services are commandline based and people understand those first time round.

the best gui would combine the power of the commandline with the useability of the gui into a seamless whole. think of it like a system with the clean simplicity of dos and the useability of a gui. want to load a network driver and set it up for something on boot. add the command to the startup text file. if you start a program that needs a gui the program should grab the screen but allow you to hit a keycombo to generate a new commandline. hit a diffrent key combo and your taken back to the gui app. maybe one said gui app can create a simple desktop where other apps work as elements. think of it as litestep running on top of a multi-user, multitasking dos

atleast it would be interesting to see what people would come up with in terms of ui configs...

hmm, a im system for the commandline i wonder how that would work. most likely a backgrounded prosess that would send a indicator when something happends. then the user could just forground the app. or you could leave it forgrounded in a diffrent virtual terminal if the system allowed for the same user to have multiple of them open under one login and then send signals to the currently active one if something happend in one of the others. kinda like haveing it allways on screen with virtual desktops.

I use bash and tcsh regularly. I still have to look up the arguments to make rsync deal with resource forks properly.

Using the command line is like driving down the highway wrapped in total fog. Sure, the exits are there, but if you don't know where they are ahead of time, you're sure as hell not going to find out on the road.

~J

My usual solution is to take datajack, external transducer and improved consealability radio with the features I want, cheep effective and with the aid of a induction data jack elswer on my body, easily hidden. It is cheaper in terms of cash and essence than internalising it would be and still allows a teem to operate with complete silence

Whay would you want something that annoying, well it is useful and you can tern it off

Personally I would say a phone should cost .2 and a radio .3 (it operates on a lager frequency range), this includes a dedicated transducer, if you provide a transducer reduce essence cost by .5 for each and don’t forget your router. This was based on the essence cost for eye and ear replacement using the degree of change from your original body description of essence loss. and of cause the listed cost for a transducer

And I will still take it external except for concept characters. Its just not worth any essence when you can have it for free

Edward

I don't use rsync all that often I remember the arguments for, say, mail, nmap, ssh, ftp, etc. etc. etc. because I use them regularly, but if there's one I don't I have no choice but to dig through the manpage.

As an example, have you ever tried using emacs without knowing in advance what all the commands were?

Anyway. If we're not going to get any closer to a topic in SR, I suggest we take this to PM.

~J

My hammer comment was based on the original comment I posted before I rewrote my whole post.

Anyway, Edward's set up sounds pretty sweet, and similar to what I'd have set up where the radio or phone would be external. Total silence would be a must. As it is, the subvocal jawbone vibration mike and speakers I use with my PCs is attached behind their ears in a similar fashion as trodes. The women have the wires fall behind them to a transmitter which looks like a necklace, or into a modified shirt, like the men.

i dont have a problem ending it here, as this debate will probably get us nowhere. i just wish they would allow of computer operation systems to be more moldable to how the user wants it then forcefeed a default down peoples throat. maybe thats whats draws me to the linux os. the ability to over time mold it like it want to.

and i avoild emacs, to big and featureladen for something thats in essence a ascii editor. hell, you could make a gui out of it if you wanted to. maybe its not so much a editor as a lisp interpeter. i prefer nano most of the time but have basic knowhow on the use of vi just in case i cant find nano or joe.

and crimson, most likely what your describeing is what we will see in the future rather then cyberware. small items that spread the features of a system all over the body. maybe in the future it will be comon for people to wear sunglasses that are able to change color depending on light so that you can wear then as a hud all the time. add some stereo headphones in the arms or bars or whatever and maybe a handsfree mike and you have a nice start. then either use wireless or concealed wires, or maybe that microsoft idea of useing the bodys own skin as a network to wire then into any mp3 player, pda and phone available.

only thing needed then is for the devices to use freely available and standardized protocols to allow for people to mix and match equipment. but companys only embrace that if its forced on them at gunpoint as a monopoly allways have the upper earnings...

Oh, the cords to the pickups ended at a wireless transmitter. The phone, radio, and whatever other medium they wanted to have voice and speaker connections to (mp3 players) are in their pants pockets, purses, or elsewhere.

There's a commercial here I haven't seen in a while that goes something like, "in the future, glasses will adjust to light... the future is here." It's for prescription glasses whose lenses darken in sunlight, but my reaction has always been, "No. In the future, contact lenses will darken and lighten depending on the light and glare..."

Given the fact that in SR there are low-light vision contacts, and contacts with MADs built in to spot nanotaggants, that should be a given. I've converted and created other devices similar to what you described, but they aren't really applicable here.

that reminded me of some of the tech found in d20 future. there they have contact lense huds. biggest problems is probably data transfer and power when getting down to those sizes.

and im aware of the glasses that change colors. a freind of mine have a pair. in fact it was that knowledge that prompted me to make the statement. only reason its not seen in normal sunglasses is that you can just lift them out of the way. but if your wearing some that keeps displaying info to you then you much rather want them to change polarity depending on the light in the area.

Ah, cool. I just wanted to provide context for my own smartass comment about mirrorshade contacts.

The power supply is one of my concerns, too. The low-light contacts work on an interesting principle (There are RL prototype nightvision contacts that work on the same principle), but what about active FLIR lenses, or the MAD contacts (which is just beyond the pale for throwaway lines, IMO) in Threats 2.

But, yeah, they have shades and stuff, too. Stuff like Oakley Thumpers that aren't retarded, and so forth.