Slashdot Mirror

Except of course technology changes too fast. Do you really want to to be using a 1987 form factor laptop (with 2007 components) now? Something like: the Spark near the bottom of: http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2608.asp

My laptop upgrades tend to get smaller and smaller, it'd be hard to swap out components and end up with something physically smaller without completely replacing the machine anyway.

There's a big difference between inventing something and using something.

I have my own personal theory that very few ideas are original. I wouldn't be surprised if collectively people all over the Earth has had every idea Google has manifested.

The importance of innovation vs invention is moot, as one is totally useless without the other.

My favourite definition of innovation (from the results returned by Google's define: operator) is "the process of adopting a new thing, idea, or behavior pattern into a culture." from the Tel el-Far-ah dictionary.

Along these lines, I recently attended a rountable discussion of career trends in IT with several CIOs of large companies. They identified a few key things:
1) They know that what they are asking for now are "purple squirrels". What this means is that they are asking for something they know is very hard, if not impossible to get.
2) They stressed the importance of understanding the BUSINESS. They felt that knowing a business and IT makes you invaluable.
3) Get a higher degree. I go to one of the few graduate level Schools of Information Science in the country (http://is.cgu.edu). Or, if you already have IS skills get an MBA.
4) Most of the CIOs believe that outsourcing is just a passing trend, and that we truly have hit rock bottom of IT hiring. They feel it can only go up from here.
5) Everyone who attended this roundtable (which included people who were IT professionals but not CIOs) agreed that outsourcing is just another tool and not suitable for everything else. Knowing and learning what "everything else" is, is therefore the key to getting a job.

Just a few musings, maybe they'll help. -6d

According to this case study (ppt), MapQuest was founded in the 60's.. hit the electronic front in 91, and launched on the web in '96. So if we're talking the web based MapQuest, 7 tops.. 40's if they used the paper maps :) But heck, I was a young computer user, so who knows - though I can't recall using maps at that age.

The more important question to answer is "how many have died or been injured while using a cell phone." The number of cancers will pale in comparision. Well Harvard studied it and came up with a new point of view that there is a risk to benefit to be considered that precludes all of the above.

To myself it it is all about improving the quality of life and the cell phone does not improve my life.

Despite what it says in your chart, the speed of light in a medium DOES equal the speed of light in a vacuum.

Then why is the speed of light different when being measured in the atmosphere than it is when measured in a vacuum?

When measuring the speed of light in a medium, they are not measuring the actual speed at which the light particles are travelling, but simply the time it takes for the light to pass through the medium.

1. What is the difference between the rate of travel (distance / time) in a medium and the time it takes to pas through a medium (distance / time)? It seems that the two are the same.

2. When measuring the speed of light in a medium from a reference point in that medium, how do you mark entering and leaving that medium, and how is this different from measuring the speed of light in a vacuum from within that vacuum (aside from the difficulty of locality)?

The light is then re-emitted in a fairly random direction after a very short duration. This gives us the _apparent_ slowing of light. It also gives us refraction.

How does the light being "re-emitted in a fairly random direction" give us refraction, which is a predictable phenomenon that is analagous to the effect observed when a round projectile travels through mediums of differing density (such as carefully prepared gelatin layers, or from the atmosphere into water)?

I am not a physicist, but I do have experience repairing optical equipment, such as these, these, and these along with other less glamorous but nonetheless important optical equipment.

Its possibly one of the best keyboards I've ever used, including an old "clicky" IBM one I had in one of my old jobs.

I'm incredibly surprised to hear comments like this. All of Apple's current keyboards are ergonomic hazards, unless you perhaps have really small hands or have replaced your hands with cybernetic limbs. There is no wrist support, the keys do not bounce back well, and the keys are too close together. In the case of their keyboards, Apple has chosen form over function.

Only two Apple keyboards have ever been good enough for day-to-day usage. One was the Apple Extended Keyboard (the original, not the II), which had good tactile response, though its ergonomic features were slim-to-none. The other was the Apple Ergonomic Keyboard -- you know, the one they released in 1992 which could split into two sections and had a separate numpad. It was more ergonomic than anything MS puts out, its keys were reminescent of the early IBM clickity-clackity keyboards, and the keys had ample space between themselves. It's one of the best keyboards I've ever used, though it was a bit on the large side.

Sadly, Apple stopped making ergonomic keyboards, even though it helped to popularize their usage with the mainstream. I guess Steve has a secretary to dictate all his typing; I'm not sure why else he would be so ambivalent about the risks of CTS (I got minor nerve damage from use of the Mac Plus keyboard while in college).

Drucker suggests it is happening already, and that some of the long term causes of it are the longer term aging of our society (with the attendent problems with SS), and the lack of long term prospects with a single employeer.

I think I'll have to pick up the book, since I really enjoyed Drucker's articles, and as I've indicated, I expect the conclusions to be similar, and likewise interesting.

Seriously. Harry Knowles has exactly NO journalistic integrity whatsoever. All these junkets, etc. are avoided by legitimate journalists. Only the swill you see discussed in this article are brainwash victims of Hollywood's PR machine. This group squarely includes Harry Knowles and has included him for a LONG time.

His biggest problem (other than his terminal weight situation) is that any caress of his ego by an actor or director inevitably leads to positive reviews on his site of any POS they release. This effect can also be seen in his tendency not to ever write a bad review of ANYTHING.

Case in point: The studio responsible for Godzilla flew Harry to NYC to watch the premier. The atmosphere was like a rock concert complete with beach balls bouncing around the crowd. Result: Hypnotized Harry came back writing "Godzilla good movie."

Another example: Detroit Rock City makers flew Harry out to see Kiss in LA and see the premiere. Keep in mind that this is a guy who at the age of 26 still lives with his dad and has no job prospects outside his ad banner sales. When rich studios come along dangling trips to LA or NY, this guy is powerless to resist.

How do the big league journalists handle these enticements? Credible reviewers such as Roger Ebert refuse to ever go on junkets. They watch the movies and write about them. Period. When the subject of a review requires that a writer do something that could be considered a gift, the publisher will usually pay the way of the journalist or refuse to send her. An example of this would be if a travel writer has to write about some new concorde flight to Germany. The writer might go on the plane and check it out, but the magazine or newspaper would pay for the ticket.

Here's a VERY good one-pager on this topic.