• Posts 105
  • Member Since
  • Last Active
All Posts Topics Started
Brain: Go Mobile or Die
Quote: As for me, I've had to make the hard decision to start looking for an alternative application.   I haven't switched yet, but if I find an adequate app for my i-Devices, I'll make the switch reluctantly.

gmalone, I don't want you to switch, but you may want to try EverNote (http://www.evernote.com/).  I am using both. 
EverNote is great for Notes that you want to be able to reach anywhere in the World, through the Internet. It has down grade version (Sometime read only, or append capability) for most of the phones and tablets.

 Even with the phone support, don't expect to be able to do the same thing on the devices.
Can not type in Search Panel Java 1.7
I've forgot the mentioned that I am using Windows Vista.

Can not type in Search Panel Java 1.7
I upgraded my Java to Java 1.7.0.
I can not type in the Search Panel, which is on the left hand side.
My brains are useless.
I upgraded to the latest PB to Oct 4, 2011, but the same problem.
Please help.
Is anybody using Java 1.7.0?

Open a Brain on a mounted drive with open dialog window
Here how to reproduce the problem :
1.) Have a SD memory card where you have a brain data.
2.) Insert the SD memory card to the computer.
3.) Using Disk Manager, mount the SD memory card to a directory on the C drive.
4.) Start PersonalBrain.
5.) Select "Open Brain..."
6.) A File dialog window shows up.
7.) Try to go to the mounted drive on drive C. 
The mounted drive is not recognized as a folder, I think it is recognized as a file.
And the end result is that You are not able to select the brain to open it on the mounted folder.

I am using Personal Brain
I am using Vista.

Two major issues with Expanded View that require change

Quote: This implies that one may be able to edit the note of a thought without activating it, which would fix your problem. I'm not sure whether one can do this without activating the thought too. Maybe some 6.0 user can tell us. 


Yes, in PB V6 beta 6.0, you can right click on the Thought anywhere on the Plex and Select "Open Notes Window". A separate window will be open for the Notes. I tried in Normal View only because I have the PB free version that does not include EV.

This is a working solution to my problem, even if this requires some extra clicks. Thanks. One more reason to upgrade to PB 6.0, when it becomes available.

Two major issues with Expanded View that require change

Wow rhodes, that is a nice reply, thanks.

Although, I can not comment on the EV related comments as I am not using EV.

My suggestion was for Standard mode and not for EV, but it may be applicable for EV as well, I don't know.


Quote:  I agree with you that we should be able to activate/edit any thought in EV without disturbing the plex at all. 

I never meant any Thought. I meant all visible Thought on the Plex. And I meant edit the Thought without activate it, that is without moving it to the center.


Quote: I'm not sure what you mean by Highlighting and Activation here, though I reason that Highlighting means making it active  

No, Highlighting makes it semi-active. What it means is (in Standard mode) that the clicked Thought stays as it was clicked and do not move to the center, but highlighted and it’s Note and attachments can be changed.


In Standard mode if you want to change a Thought, the Thought must be moved to the center, and by doing this the whole Plex structure changes and Thought are moved around.

Many times I identify a Thought by its location on the Plex. But if the Plex changes, I have to look for my Thought again or search for it again.


For example, let say you have a Thought called girlfriends, and that Thought have 50 children. When I activate the girlfriend Thought, it moved to the center and the all children girlfriend Thoughts are visible. I know that Susan is in the first column, and Kate is on the third column, and Jacky is in the last.

If I want to add a note for Susan, Kate, and Jacky, I visually know where they are, so it would be much easier just highlight Susan, edit her Notes and move to Kate, edit her Note and so on. Changing the Plex just hinders my effort. Because now without the highlighting feature, I have to activate Susan, meaning Susan is moved to the center. Kate and Jacky Thoughts are moved around in the Plex, so I have to look for Kate on the Plex move her to the center and so on.

Sorry, I posted about Standard mode here, when your original post was about EV. Is that applicable what I said to EV?

Two major issues with Expanded View that require change

I agree. I am not using EV much, may be because of those reasons you mentioned. 

I don't like when Flex changing too much even in Standard mode.


I think they should separate and have two user action. One is to activate a Thought. That is the Thought is moved to the center, and Thought links are changing.

The other action is to Highlight a Thought for editing. Even if the Thought is not active, I'd like to edit it.

Similar to your example, when you activate a Thought having lot of children, I'd like to be able to Highlight Children from one to the other one by one and edit them, without changing the Flex at all.


Do you agree?

I thought out the different mouse action, also. One could be the simple left click. The other is left click and hold it for one or two seconds.

When you do a fast click the Thought is Highlighted, but stays on the Flex. With a slow click, the Thought is Highlighted and also Activated.

Allies Thoughts

@rhodes, thanks for your feedbacks, I appreciate them.


It depends how easy to implement alias/spouse Thought, to see if that is worth it. There are many other features out there waiting to be implemented.


In the mean time, alias Thought, as you described, can be represented either by child or jump Thought. Both have advantages and disadvantages. It requires more discipline to create them, than having the spouse relationships feature, but they work too.

Too bad, PB is not open source. Instead of talking about it, we could actually developed the feature.

Allies Thoughts

Quote: In that case one solution would be to create a parent thought named MyComputer plus two child thoughts, MyComputer, accounting and MyComputer,hardware. You could regard these child thoughts as spouses of each other, though they are really siblings.

Yes, this is a solution. I am doing something like this already. However a spouse relationship would be nicer, to my opinion.


Quote: I get your point, though am not sure whether this would be a draw or a drawback. The downside to this would appear to be that whichever alias/spouse happens to be active, one would have no idea of the total number of parents, children or jumps linked to it, unless one switches between the aliases to get the big picture. 

That was one of the main points of the spouse relationship, not having to see the spouse’s parents and children that may clatter your view. At the same time your spouse’s information is close by a click away. The closeness is important. Because all the aliases/spouses are visible together, I think alias Thought would give you the big picture more than currently possible.


  Quote:   This after all is how virtual folders operates. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hide alias/spouse thoughts inside the main thoughts as can be done (I think) with virtual folders?

This is interesting. Actually, alias Thought would do exactly that, hide the aliases (in your solution: the children) from view, but at the same time make it visible them, on the “parent” Thought, ready to be activated if you need them.


Allies Thoughts

Quote: My understanding from Ervinn's description is that spouse and alias thoughts are the same thing. Of course, I could be misunderstanding, hopefully Ervinn will clarify.

I am happy to explain.
Alies does not have separate Note and attachments. 

Initially, I was thinking about having the option to give an alias name to a Thought. The alias could have different type and tags from the original one. The alias would have the same Notes and attachments. Also the alias would have the same parents and children.


Later, I was thinking to let the alias have different parents and children, so it would be able to participate in different hierarchical structures. The easy way to do that is to let the alias be a normal Thought, and somehow link it to the source Thought. I called this link the spouse relationship.


I don't know which one would be easier to implement.

I think the important thing is to be able the alias Thought having different parents and children. If an alias can have that, than the only different between alias and spouse are, that alias Thoughts point to the same data. And in spouse Thought each thought have separate data.



Allies Thoughts

zenrain, thanks for the feedback,


Quote: First, the thought must be clearly identified as an alias. This is in addition to any tags and thought types. 

Based on my designed, you don't need to identify that, since all spouses are equal, and have the same name, so there is no conflict, which name to display on the Plex. The way you would create a spouse is similar you create child and parent. On the right had side you would click, hold and move your mouse, a Thought create window would be shown. You would select the type and tags, and so on…


Quote: I think I would use it in certain cases, as it would allow me to bypass Type and contextual limitations without filtering. 

Thanks, that what I wanted to hear. If you would use it, it means it would be useful.


Quote: It may also be useful in a GTD context 

I don't know what is GTD context?

Allies Thoughts

Quote: Instant Search can't filter on thought types,
In PB version 6, it can. If you mean the search box on the left side.

rhodes, All your suggestion would work, but I feel that is a work around because we do not have spouse relationship.

Quote: If all the information was in one thought but in more than one "compartment" within that Thought, you would still have to click a button to select which compartment you wanted to see, thus negating any advantage.

Yes, you still have do something to get the information, until PB cannot read our minds.
And yes, Parent and Child relationships can be used to represent spouse relationship.

I think what you are saying is to try to use what we got in PB, instead of expecting new features. That is fare. I agree. What I am looking for is opinions about the spouse relationship in general. Like, well it is a good/bad idea, but we do not have it, in PB. Or, it is stupid. Or if it is a good idea, for what else could we use it for.

Allies Thoughts

Alan, thanks for the interest.

I had this idea, not strong, but I think it is an excellent idea. 

It would solve couple of issues, I had. One is having multiple types, for example. The main benefit though is to be able for one Thought to participate in different hierarchical structures.


Let say, you buy a computer. That computer can participate in you accounting structure, business, and software, hardware, and maintenance structure.

Currently you have two options.


1. You create one Thought for the new computer and link all the different structure to it, accounting, business, and so on, ....


2. You create different Thoughts for each category, one for accounting, and so on.


Both are not perfect. The first having the problem of clattering each other space. When I focus my attention of computer administration; I don't want to see accounting aspects, like where I bought the computer, and so on.


The second option has the problem that some information may be over lapping, among the different categories. For example the type of computer, the model number may be prevalent for accounting and maintenance aspects of the computer, so I may store it one place. For that information I need to be able to easily flip to it. The spouse relationship would help to consolidate that information.


I didn’t say that PB can not be used for those issues without a spouse relationship, but having it would make it easier to use.


Multiple Types
My colleague Susan would have different parent and child Thought, but the same jumps, than the Girlfriend Susan, and I would be able to flip through all three Susan's easily if I don't remember where I stored her address. That's why showing all three Susan's together is important.

I think this is handled well in PB by creating additional "alias" jump thoughts with different types (colors or icons),

True, one may use Jump Thoughts for this purpose; I usually use Jumps for related, but not for the same concept Thoughts. Also I have to make sure that I link up all Susan's to each other. I link Friend Susan to Girlfriend Susan and Colleague Susan. I still need to link up Girlfriend with Colleague, and so on.  I guess Jump was not designed for spouse relationships.
Jump is good for represent "sibling" relationship. I would link Susan with Kathy in a Jump link.

Thanks for the link, though it is taking us away from George's original idea of using multiple types as the way of displaying multiple icons for the same thought.

All Thought in spouse relationship would have the same name.  However, clicking the Thought icons, that are displayed together, one could flip through the spouses. This would satisfy George's multiple icon requirement.

Thoughts in the spouse relationship would have the same name, but could have different label be set. The label would be shown moving the mouse over the Thought icon.

In a spouse relationship there are no primary Thought. All Thoughts are equal.

The above comments are made based on my design. In different design you may let each Thought in the spouse relationship have different name and you would give one name for the whole collection that would be displayed on the Plex. That whole collection could be the primary Thought, and so on.

Multiple Types

Multiple types make sense spatially if one uses the Reporting tool heavily.

A person, let say Susan, can be your friend, a colleague and your girlfriend at the same time. I'd like her to show up on all the type searches, I make, Friend, Colleague, and Girlfriend.

An idea was posted about that before, allies Thought having spouse relationships. See here --> http://forums.thebrain.com/post?id=3687430

The spouse relationship is an additional one to the Parent, Child, Jump; and Thoughts in spouse relationships would be displayed on top of each other, like in UML, when a collection of classes is represented.

My colleague Susan would have different parent and child Thought, but the same jumps, than the Girlfriend Susan, and I would be able to flip through all three Susan's easily if I don't remember where I stored her address. That's why showing all three Susan's together is important.


count post selected

Add a Website Forum to your website.