flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Clipboard


Do you ever feel like you got something in your clipboard?
Yes
66%
 66%  [ 6 ]
No
33%
 33%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 9

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Do you ever feel like you got something in your clipboard? Something important perhaps?

The deeper meaning will be revealed once I get more answers. XD
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:02
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
windwakr



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
I check my clipboard often to see what it has in it. When I'm done with it I put a lowercase "a" in it just to empty it out. I'm weird.
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
It always contains the last text selection (whatever that is). And it's magically "emptied" when the application with the selection is closed. I'll let you figure out why. Wink
Post 05 Jan 2010, 11:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
>Do you ever feel like you got something in your clipboard?
All the time, usually because I have. <insert bash quote here>

>And it's magically "emptied" when the application with the selection is closed
Unless it's explorer.exe
Post 05 Jan 2010, 11:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scientica
Retired moderator


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden
scientica
Every time I select some text with my cursor Smile I'm using Xorg/linux, and the default behaviour is that selecting a text automagically places it in "the" (*cough*) clipboard, middle click pastes it - really anoying untill you learn to love it. Smile
Post 05 Jan 2010, 11:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Well, if by clipboard he means what all are assuming here then I had something that was not copied by me two or three times. I don't remember if it was a Hotmail ad or an MSN Messenger ad but it was continuously copying a link in my clipboard and hence overwriting whatever thing I copy (thanks Microsoft for be so responsible in checking what your ads partners put on your behalf, BTW).

I think I posted about this on Heap once? If not, what a pity really...
Post 05 Jan 2010, 16:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
No.

And no, never had some foreign thing in my clipboard.

Yes I store temporary data I need in a tmp.txt on the root of a virtual ramdisk.
No I don't use the clipboard for long storage (more than a minute, say). I don't trust myself to not make a mistake and override it Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Jan 2010, 16:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
DustWolf wrote:
The deeper meaning will be revealed once I get more answers. XD


The deeper meaning is that... You don't have a clipboard, you computer does.

It's interesting to me how the we learn to use tools, to extend ourselves. Hollywood sure has an idea on how that would look "in the future", but the truth is right here right now. We are human beings, yet we can be subconsciously aware of a clipboard -- an abstract concept facilitated by our computers' electronics.

Neat, huh? Very Happy

Imagine what else you could do.

LP,
Jure
Post 05 Jan 2010, 23:23
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Coddy41



Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 384
Location: Ohio, USA
Coddy41
DustWolf wrote:
It's interesting to me how the we learn to use tools, to extend ourselves.

'My' Hard drive is < > GB. 'My' RAM is < > GB.

Anyway... 'My' clipboard normally has something in it...

_________________
Want hosting for free for your asm project? You can PM me. (*.fasm4u.net)
Post 06 Jan 2010, 00:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
scientica
Retired moderator


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden
scientica
Quote:
The deeper meaning is that... You don't have a clipboard, you computer does.

Well, I'd say that's a philosophical question about artifacts and where knowledge is stored. Wink I remember an example where some people (some cognitive psychologists) argue that the knowledge how to use a hammer is stored in the hammer, thus once you grab the hammer (IRL or mentally) you remember how to use it - the implication that the artifacts (=things we make and use) is a part of our memory. Same goes for the Internet, some say it's an extension of our (collective) memory other says it just makes us dumber for not having all the knowledge in our heads but depend on external memories.
So some would say your clipboard is part of you memory, others say it's destroying your short term memory skills by not keeping the "clip" in your head Wink
Or perhaps it's simply a linguistic issue, the sentiment/notion of ownership combined with the idea that we can own our own things (you may laugh, but at one point in time (and sadly still in some parts of the world) people could own other people as if they were a non sentient object).

DustWolf - I think you're right, just think of the concept of chatting, don't most of us already say "yeah I spoke with ..." when we actually mean "yeah I had a text conversation with ..." (which is somewhat less personal, imho anyway). We think of chatting as if it was the same as a phone call or even speaking directly to the other party. (Maybe I'm just getting "old", remembering the times when it was awkward not to properly say bye at the end of a chat, instead of just "timing out", which what happens in everyday IRL conversations when a discussion is over - compare with old letters, imagine a handwritten letter with out a proper "Cheers" or "Best Regards"!) Smile

Cheers!
The ever ranting Scientica

p.s. this also applies to forum post replies Razz
Post 06 Jan 2010, 11:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
I have discovered myself going around putting something in the clipboard because I already have something VERY important in there.

When I have a new filename in the clip for example, then if I wanted to copy it somewhere (with a different name), I would copy it with my mouse (Yes! Mouse!) and then paste the new name Razz

Weird! Smile

Sometimes I keep something in the clipboard for several days. Sometimes I forget and need to open up a notepad for that.
Post 06 Jan 2010, 14:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
scientica wrote:
Well, I'd say that's a philosophical question about artifacts and where knowledge is stored. Wink I remember an example where some people (some cognitive psychologists) argue that the knowledge how to use a hammer is stored in the hammer, thus once you grab the hammer (IRL or mentally) you remember how to use it - the implication that the artifacts (=things we make and use) is a part of our memory. Same goes for the Internet, some say it's an extension of our (collective) memory other says it just makes us dumber for not having all the knowledge in our heads but depend on external memories.


But external memory can and does sometimes prove to be a superior solution than internal memory. Think Torrents, there is more data being transfered around them and more redundantly stored, than could ever be locally.

Quote:
So some would say your clipboard is part of you memory, others say it's destroying your short term memory skills by not keeping the "clip" in your head Wink


Any reform implies destruction of something.

Quote:
Or perhaps it's simply a linguistic issue, the sentiment/notion of ownership combined with the idea that we can own our own things (you may laugh, but at one point in time (and sadly still in some parts of the world) people could own other people as if they were a non sentient object).


I am familiar with those parts of the world (I've been there and taken the time to understand the logic). Why differ between organic and technological solutions? What is society if not technology?

When I read my first nonfiction book on cybernetics, it wasn't what I expected. After reading it, I am convinced that not seeing these things or seeing them as in fact somehow different* is not so much a philosophical question, but instead simply ignorance. It's a bit of a revelation when you see that technology is not these metal boxes, but the information that makes them tick, the information that makes us tick; etc. Not saying everybody has to see things this way, as it is obviously not useful for most. It's still the truth though, if you're willing to learn enough to comprehend it.

* = I am having trouble explaining the idea in so few words. I am basically referring to seeing technology in any invented mechanism of action regardless of context, for example seeing both "crowd management" and "Linux" as technologies applied to society and consequentially it's members, and not seeing distinctions or lines of separation in complex systems, where there in fact aren't any.

Okay, I may be a bit fanatical. It's very interesting though!

Quote:
We think of chatting as if it was the same as a phone call or even speaking directly to the other party.


Even calling a conversation over a cellphone a conversation to begin with (rather than say, calling it a bidirectional radio transmission and staying at that) implies a certain level of integration between people and cellphones, not to mention the cellphone network.

I think an even more interesting aspect is perhaps: Empathy, the ability to duplicate emotional states from other people, a rather conspicuous example of the ability to integrate brain chemistry across seperate organisms. The point that we are just as capable of doing it over digital media is a practical example of brain chemistry integration between individuals using technology. Think Borg. Cool, eh?

Laughing

LP,
Jure
Post 07 Jan 2010, 00:11
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
DustWolf wrote:
* = I am having trouble explaining the idea in so few words. I am basically referring to seeing technology in any invented mechanism of action regardless of context, for example seeing both "crowd management" and "Linux" as technologies applied to society and consequentially it's members, and not seeing distinctions or lines of separation in complex systems, where there in fact aren't any.
I thought technology had to do with technical things only.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 07 Jan 2010, 00:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scientica
Retired moderator


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden
scientica
DustWolf wrote:
But external memory can and does sometimes prove to be a superior solution than internal memory. Think Torrents, there is more data being transferred around them and more redundantly stored, than could ever be locally.

Torrents is a wonderful distribution method, continuing in the spirit of */IP - data will find a way even if parts of the net is saturated (by traffic or radiation Wink). ([rant]not just for warez or porn, but 'tis frightening how ignorant some people are, but then again it's our job to enlighten those in the dark - humanity has come this far thanks to our nature of co-operation[/rant])

DustWolf wrote:
I am familiar with those parts of the world (I've been there and taken the time to understand the logic). Why differ between organic and technological solutions? What is society if not technology?
---8<--- snip ---8<---
Okay, I may be a bit fanatical. It's very interesting though!

We'll technologies are just artifacts, until we allow them to progress to "sentience". It's interesting to see how many sci-fi series and movies that have dealt with the topic of technology reaching "sentient" levels. But the discussion doesn't have to be about machines, what about animals (or even plant life), when are they not longer tools (think work horses) but rather our equal "friends" to be treated as we treat other humans? [rant]Some think we must guard the animals from nature - "why should they be outside in the cold weather?" (imho, that's crazy talk, animals can take care of themselves. They did long before animal activists could stop worrying about their own survival and spend time think of the animals and how we treat them - don't get me wrong, I think animals should be treated with respect, but for Christ sake don't put them in clothes, destroy the natural behaviour or treat them as humans! (why not have them take jobs and pay taxes too? Razz))[/rant]

DustWolf wrote:
Even calling a conversation over a cellphone a conversation to begin with (rather than say, calling it a bidirectional radio transmission and staying at that) implies a certain level of integration between people and cellphones, not to mention the cellphone network.

True, perhaps I'm not that old after all Razz (also, now days the conversation is chopped up in neat IP packets, so it's not even a continuous analog communication that we had in the old circuit switched networks but rather discretized discussions ^^; )

DustWolf wrote:
I think an even more interesting aspect is perhaps: Empathy, the ability to duplicate emotional states from other people, a rather conspicuous example of the ability to integrate brain chemistry across separate organisms. The point that we are just as capable of doing it over digital media is a practical example of brain chemistry integration between individuals using technology. Think Borg. Cool, eh?

It's also very interesting to see the real world applications of cybernetics/bioengineering. I saw a documentary a few months ago about an research project about trying to help a person (iirc brain damaged after a stroke) "speak" by, to put it in crude words, hooking up his brain to a machine. Thus far they'd only just begun mapping the output from the implant to tones - allowing the patient to utter tones via the machine. Far from real speech but it's an very interesting research, and I wouldn't be surprised if they in 10-15 years could replace tones with phonemes (~= bits of words) to allow for basic communication. (Sci-Fi? Well, not long ago the thought of artificial hearts was pure sci-fi)

Or another more 'mature' example, in the treatment of people who have broken their neck or had amputations. Though it's still very experimental/academic the basic building blocks for "truly brain-controlled prosthesis" are there. By "truly" I'm mean they also provide feedback (i.e. feeling when the can starts to buckle in your grip, so you can stop pressing knowing you have a firm grip). I may already be outdated, but iirc currently the technology is at the level that prosthetic hands can be controlled by nervimpulses, alas, with no sensory feedback (other than hearing/seeing, and very crude feedback (think "pain can be induced", not "this feels rugged", etc)) making it hard to grab a can of coke with out crushing it.

_________________
... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself.
- Bradley Kuhn
Post 07 Jan 2010, 14:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
The biggest problems with the latter are that they are different for different individuals and they have to use a "lowest common denominator" so to speak, which obviously are only basic functions. I remember there was a device hooked up to a kid's brain that allowed him to control a game with much more precision than a HID (e.g: mouse) by just using his thoughts... but obviously it was calibrated to work on the kid's signals only...


also analog signals are quantized as well, remember the photoelectric effect? Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 07 Jan 2010, 17:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
scientica wrote:
Torrents is a wonderful distribution method, continuing in the spirit of */IP - data will find a way even if parts of the net is saturated (by traffic or radiation Wink). ([rant]not just for warez or porn, but 'tis frightening how ignorant some people are, but then again it's our job to enlighten those in the dark - humanity has come this far thanks to our nature of co-operation[/rant])


Perhaps that is not imperfection, but instead just reality -- people have on their external memory the same thing they had in their internal memory: 80% crime and porn.

Quote:
We'll technologies are just artifacts, until we allow them to progress to "sentience".


Hmm. While I agree that once the devices themselves attain what you call "sentience", the integration between people and technology will be a lot easier (we won't have to use our brains to attain it anymore), we are perfectly capable of achieving the level of integration today. We just have to learn it -- but that is what our brains do: they extend us with "tools", trough learning.

A wristwatch is not simply an artifact, it becomes part of the person who wears it. It may not be piercing the skin and hooking up to the brain Hollywood style, but the wearer learns to utilize it and his ability to utilize the information displayed on the watch becomes intuitive and maybe even subconscious. His time-keeping capabilities become integrated with the watch and become far superior. Something similar applies to eyeglasses, bicycles, cellphones, PDAs, computers, networks, airport layouts, etc. Any technology.

Quote:
It's interesting to see how many sci-fi series and movies that have dealt with the topic of technology reaching "sentient" levels. But the discussion doesn't have to be about machines, what about animals (or even plant life), when are they not longer tools (think work horses) but rather our equal "friends" to be treated as we treat other humans?


Although I may be biased (since I was accepted as a peer much sooner amongst other animals than humans), I do not see the distinction you are implying exists. And I believe this is scientifically correct as well.

Why are you implying that humans are somehow different from other animals, that by default humans should not be considered to be mechanisms, but other animals could? What exactly is the distinction? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus#Upsetting_to_theologians) Anatomically, the same structures in the brain persist amongst most social mammals at least. And if one is not biased by being born with human interface protocols and unwilling to learn any other, is there any detectable difference at all?

Personally I see all, mechanisms, plants, humans, other animals (and all others) as essentially similar. For example, if you anthropomorphise an ant while observing it, you see it feels around with it's antennas and decides where it wants to go. It does the same thing a human would. Then again it also does the same thing a computer would. I accept the definition of "sentience" as the "ability to understand" aka "completely comprehend" and I see that it is probably limited to social mammals, or as far as we are collectively willing to admit so far for Biblical purposes, limited to humans. But I don't see it as a particularly big deal. For example, it does not affect the importance of the different systems, as you all seem to be implying.

Quote:
[rant]Some think we must guard the animals from nature - "why should they be outside in the cold weather?" (imho, that's crazy talk, animals can take care of themselves. They did long before animal activists could stop worrying about their own survival and spend time think of the animals and how we treat them - don't get me wrong, I think animals should be treated with respect, but for Christ sake don't put them in clothes, destroy the natural behaviour or treat them as humans! (why not have them take jobs and pay taxes too? Razz))[/rant]


I believe that sort of stupidity was proven wrong any number of times, however the problem currently seems to be that the various species are being killed off. I hope seeing how that might be problematic is obvious.

Quote:
It's also very interesting to see the real world applications of cybernetics/bioengineering.


The science of cybernetics is much wider and hardly synonymous to bioengineering by the way.

Quote:
I saw a documentary a few months ago about an research project about trying to help a person (iirc brain damaged after a stroke) "speak" by, to put it in crude words, hooking up his brain to a machine. Thus far they'd only just begun mapping the output from the implant to tones - allowing the patient to utter tones via the machine. Far from real speech but it's an very interesting research, and I wouldn't be surprised if they in 10-15 years could replace tones with phonemes (~= bits of words) to allow for basic communication. (Sci-Fi? Well, not long ago the thought of artificial hearts was pure sci-fi)


The problem with these approaches is that they are basically the equivalent of trying to track down a driver/kernel bug, by picking up the electromagnetic interference a motherboard of the computer that hosts it emits. Don't get me wrong, it can be done -- I've done it before on an old W95 box, attach a speaker and listen in, most of the audible EMI is from traffic from the long wires of the ISA bus, if the pattern becomes prevalently repetitive, a driver is not handling it's interrupt right -- but I think you get my point by now. The up to 25 electrodes they are capable of sticking into the brain so far simply will not do in the task of trying to reverse engineer it.

I may also mention that the brain, unlike most of our other technology, was not intended and is not able to have it's sensory capacity extended in this fashion. You could probably interface external technology with existing sensory and motor circuits, but you could never add new ones due to certain quite physical limitations. Which makes the entire transhumanist use of computer-brain-interfaces quite useless and inferior in comparison to wearing more casual above-the-skin interface technology and just making it intuitive.

Quote:
By "truly" I'm mean they also provide feedback (i.e. feeling when the can starts to buckle in your grip, so you can stop pressing knowing you have a firm grip). I may already be outdated, but iirc currently the technology is at the level that prosthetic hands can be controlled by nervimpulses, alas, with no sensory feedback (other than hearing/seeing, and very crude feedback (think "pain can be induced", not "this feels rugged", etc)) making it hard to grab a can of coke with out crushing it.


Although I'm sure feedback would be cool, I blame the problem you describe purely and wholly on the crazed use of stepper motors everywhere. I mean why?! It's not like the robot has to know the exact angle at which the fingers grip the glass to 0.1˚, when each glass is in fact different. If the materials and motors were instead as weak / flexible / sticky as the organic tissue, one could easily grab X without crushing it.

LP,
Jure
Post 07 Jan 2010, 22:46
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think actually that a limb is not an extension of yourself but part of yourself... unlike a device. The reason is the DNA code. In every cell it is written how "you" are and what "components" you have, there's no external devices there. DNA to me is like definition of "yourself" Razz
Post 08 Jan 2010, 16:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.