I consider it comfortable at this point. I can use it without thinking about how I'm holding it and I've never dropped it or fumbled with it. (FWIW, it's the same physical size as the S3, so if you want information on what its like to hold it/use it, you'll learn just as much from the S3 reviews.)
I know that for a while people thought 4" screens were overkill, too big for people's hands, etc. I'm using a 5" Galaxy now and, while it took some getting used to, it's manageable with one hand (and I don't have large hands).
However, 6.3" just seems like a deadzone. Too big to hold in a hand and use effectively, unless you're Shaq, but smaller than a 7 or 8" tablet like the Nexus 7 or iPad mini, which perform tablet duties pretty well.
Conventional wisdom on device size has been proved wrong time and again over the last few years, so who knows? Maybe what we're seeing is devices for every size. With rumored smart watches on the way, we may have 1-2" smart watches, followed up with 3.5-6" phones, and 7-11" tablets, after which the ultrabook/laptop market takes over. Maybe every device will excel at somethings while providing enough functionality for other basics (email, media) to keep people happy.
This version features more tie-dyed interfaces and even thin sans serif fonts. They continued to use the "grid" feature in Photoshop for icons. This changes everything, again.
Question is: Will it work on Linux? If so, that's the big story here. Then I (and many others) wouldn't have to Hackintosh or put Windows on their (HT)PC to watch Netflix.
No, what they're saying is that if you want to make comparisons between any groups, you better make sure the comparison groups are indeed comparable. This paper tries to do that. Take it or leave it.
Imagine if a study of health outcomes compared, say, the obese of one country, say, the United States, to the non-obese of another country and then tried to make claims about the health outcomes of the *general population* of each country. Would you then say, "Oh, so now we're supposed to just claim that Americans aren't fat?" No. American can still be fat (or dumb). They're just saying they might not be as relatively fat (or dumb) as they appear next to other countries.
Equal comparison groups constructed through randomization are the fundamental building block of medical research that saves lives by making causal inferences about treatments.
I won't fault some economists for trying to apply the same methodological standard to research in economics and education where randomization isn't so easy. It's good science.
I like your vision of a privacy-invasion free world.
Don't want to be videotaped? Don't go outside. Don't want to be wiretapped? Don't use a phone. Don't want medical records in the wild? Don't go to a doctor.
Just to add on: Multiple times I've been in situations where someone talks about Ayn Rand as an intellectual (or worse, a philosopher), and all those who actually read stuff have to kind of embarrassingly smile as not to shame the person. It's not even spiteful, it's just an embarrassing moment. Granted, usually the people in these conversations are useless slackers who sit around and read all day while collecting degrees (i.e., intellectuals). I guess this tells you what counts as erudition now, for better of for worse.
Two reasons to be skeptical of any of the claims about BRAIN SIZE. (The abstract emphasizes other things like "global connectivity" so pelase don't read these comments as a destruction of TFA. More how Slashdot reported it.)
1. The history of intelligence testing. Read S. J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" and you'll find good reason to immediately be skeptical of any research such at this. 2. The statistical assumptions. So what's on the left hand side of the model? Obviously, some measure of intelligence. Thus the right hand side variables (size of different regions, etc.) are predicting an intelligence composite. Which assumes that intelligence is something determined in part by those right hand side variables or something correlated with those variables. These studies assume an at least semi-valid measure of intelligence. If they want to claim a causal relationship, I want a damn good measure of intelligence. Otherwise they're finding connections between something that may well be correlated with whatever we call intelligence, and we have no reason to believe brain size.
Furthermore, to say 6% of the variance is explained by brain size, we're assuming there's nothing unmeasured that doesn't also correlated with brain size and the dependent variable (intelligence). Historically, this situation has often presented itself. For example, when the better nourished happened to be more intelligent AND have bigger brains because of their nourishment.
A final problem with ALL intelligence research that wants to claim a causal relationship is that intelligence isn't something we can really manipulate in the lab, so we're always going to have to worry about endogeneity and selection issues. we can't control "how people get assigned to intelligence," and so we always may have something unmeasured which really explains what we find (by way of correlating with, for example, "global connectivity.")
Aside from being good business sense on the accounting side of things, this is also a PR move. The hip company pays the nerds who can help them out taking advantage of the CLOUD! I mean crowd. Did I say cloud?
I built a computer a few years ago for two reasons:
1) to show the class I was teaching how a computer was built 2) to have a computer to be hooked up to a TV for watching TV/movies/etc.
I put linux on it but to my annoyance, Netflix was impossible because of Silverlight/DRM. That pretty much ruined it for me and I put Windows on it. Little things like that, I think, explain a lot of why people won't switch.
What are all those aerospace researching bureaucrats doing all day if not sending people to the moon? The brilliance of this question is that it reveals a new way to determine whether or not we should cut government funded programs:
Is the program doing precisely what middle school students expect it to do? If not, the axe.
Consequently, this is a great way to connect with the average voter.
They note the importance of reading before the class in the article but don't follow up much on that. This is crucial.
This problem presents itself when teaching interactively: If students don't prepare ahead of time, the lesson totally stalls. Then they are trying to figure out problems with no basis for it. What happens? The professor often ends up lecturing. Then no time is left.
My intuition (based upon TAing Statistics as a PhD student and being a high school teacher of history, philosophy, and information technology) is that very few students read before lecture. I often didn't as an undergrad. Why? Because as long as the lectures re-tread text material, student can get away with using the text only as a reference, not as a primarily source of information. If students are required to be active participants, they HAVE to read ahead of time. Otherwise they have no way of actually figuring out how to use the knowledge from the reading.
I agree with the poster who mentioned the importance of assessing theoretically. A lot of students think that theoretical assessment is easy -- they don't have to remember a lot and can just use their brain to figure out the test. At least in the Stats class I helped teach, this simply wasn't true. Whenever we had problems sets or exam problems which were more or less plug and chug, the students did GREAT. However, when we started asking theoretical questions (which statistical test is appropriate here? Why? How do you test assumptions...? Critique this statistically informed research piece.), students really struggled -- which means they don't get it. That tells me they weren't really ready to use statistics.
I bet this could have been alleviated significantly if we had spent more time in class really working through problems which asked tough theoretical questions in groups as a class. But alas, we lectured, then I had 50 minutes weekly to try to answer their questions -- never enough -- and the quality of work struggled. Many students never really seemed ready to work independently with the concepts: I think a big reason for this is they were taught by being talked at... so when it was time to show they knew stats, the brightest did fine but the majority freaked out.
Though I'm not a fan of DRM, and I generally avoid the iTunes store because I'm not sold on 128kbps sound files, this is their choice. If people want to play iTunes store songs on other digital media players, then they can work around it by burning CDs, or they can obtain the music some other way. Unfortunately, one of those ways is piracy, which Apple surely knows.
I hate to be the person that says "they are making a business decision," but in a sense, they are. It makes sense for them to keep their users "locked in" to the iPod/iPhone/iWhatever line.
And quite honestly, most people don't know about DRM's specifics, nor do they care. What do they do? Buy an iPod, if they didn't already have one. Techy people get upset, but I really doubt the techy people are the market in this case. I DJ using a digital solution and I prefer 320kbps mp3s to balance size and sound quality. I don't buy from iTunes store almost at all, because it's not what I'm looking for. Over and done with.
It does seem to me a bit unfair to complain, as the lady does, about her other music players not playing iTunes store stuff. The flip is that people who use those media players aren't going to buy from the iTunes store -- bad for Apple. OR they buy an iPod. Good for Apple! There are still trade-offs involved.
I dislike DRM. But for all the fuss, it's never really got to my nerves very much, and I buy more music in formats from mp3 to cd to good old vinyl records. I primarly buy digital music.
People are not entitled to DRM-free music from iTunes store. It's part of the bargain. And as long as people see it worth it to buy a low quality m4a file with DRM, which 2 billion purchases suggest they do, then what's all the fuss?
This fear-mongering about American education has been going on since 1983, with the publication of "A Nation At Risk."
The problem with American schools doesn't lie across the board. It lies with the "have-nots" -- that segment of schools, primarily black but not only, that are truly neglected. Read Jon Kozol's "The Shame of the Nation" to see what I'm talking about.
Also read Biddle's "The Manufactured Crisis" -- a book published in 1995 that elucidates how much of this "crisis" is really just, well, crap.
America has one of the best education systems in the world. Unfortunately, it also has one of the worst -- and that is the one that really needs attention but doesn't get it.
And America has an EXCELLENT higher education system. Amazing how well it does when it's being fed by all of these allegedly "uneducated" people the American public school system is putting out.
A lot of the problems that have "arose" since, coincidentally, the civil rights movement are not really problems. They are the inevitable result of making a genuine attempt to educate the entire population fairly. Why did SATs scores drop? Not because people got stupider, but because a segment of poorer folk who had never gone to college decided they should go to college and thus they took the SAT. Disaggregate the scores and you'll see that those who were doing "well" before are doing "well" now -- actually better.
Stop worrying people. Really.
-An Oxford graduate student in Comparative Education
I almost sense a disappointment that MySpace users didn't come out looking stupider. Give the MySpace users a break! Their computer illiteracy is made painfully clear, but imagine if Slashdot had a comparable way to highlight its posters social illiteracy. Perhaps there would be MySpacers writing on message boards about how stupid all Slashdot users were for their poor fashion sense. Yes, that would be stupid, but comparably as stupid as the blind, generalizing hate for MySpace users that is prevalent here.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider it comfortable at this point. I can use it without thinking about how I'm holding it and I've never dropped it or fumbled with it. (FWIW, it's the same physical size as the S3, so if you want information on what its like to hold it/use it, you'll learn just as much from the S3 reviews.)
I know that for a while people thought 4" screens were overkill, too big for people's hands, etc. I'm using a 5" Galaxy now and, while it took some getting used to, it's manageable with one hand (and I don't have large hands).
However, 6.3" just seems like a deadzone. Too big to hold in a hand and use effectively, unless you're Shaq, but smaller than a 7 or 8" tablet like the Nexus 7 or iPad mini, which perform tablet duties pretty well.
Conventional wisdom on device size has been proved wrong time and again over the last few years, so who knows? Maybe what we're seeing is devices for every size. With rumored smart watches on the way, we may have 1-2" smart watches, followed up with 3.5-6" phones, and 7-11" tablets, after which the ultrabook/laptop market takes over. Maybe every device will excel at somethings while providing enough functionality for other basics (email, media) to keep people happy.
Interesting times.
This version features more tie-dyed interfaces and even thin sans serif fonts. They continued to use the "grid" feature in Photoshop for icons. This changes everything, again.
Question is: Will it work on Linux? If so, that's the big story here. Then I (and many others) wouldn't have to Hackintosh or put Windows on their (HT)PC to watch Netflix.
If so, this is a story.
No, what they're saying is that if you want to make comparisons between any groups, you better make sure the comparison groups are indeed comparable. This paper tries to do that. Take it or leave it.
Imagine if a study of health outcomes compared, say, the obese of one country, say, the United States, to the non-obese of another country and then tried to make claims about the health outcomes of the *general population* of each country. Would you then say, "Oh, so now we're supposed to just claim that Americans aren't fat?" No. American can still be fat (or dumb). They're just saying they might not be as relatively fat (or dumb) as they appear next to other countries.
Equal comparison groups constructed through randomization are the fundamental building block of medical research that saves lives by making causal inferences about treatments.
I won't fault some economists for trying to apply the same methodological standard to research in economics and education where randomization isn't so easy. It's good science.
Tin Hat Linux by the looks of it.
I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.
The Canadian economy cannot afford a shortage of both maple syrup and hockey sticks.
I'm told that police have a way of "shutting the whole thing down" in the case of illegitimate DNA transfer.
I like your vision of a privacy-invasion free world.
Don't want to be videotaped? Don't go outside.
Don't want to be wiretapped? Don't use a phone.
Don't want medical records in the wild? Don't go to a doctor.
Visionary indeed.
At the rate Microsoft is going, they might as well add a "Windows 8 opt-out feature."
Imagine the analogies section:
Creationism : True ::
A) Science : Real
B) Evolution : False
C) Blacks : First-class Citizens
D) Education : Important
Guess the correct answer.
Just to add on: Multiple times I've been in situations where someone talks about Ayn Rand as an intellectual (or worse, a philosopher), and all those who actually read stuff have to kind of embarrassingly smile as not to shame the person. It's not even spiteful, it's just an embarrassing moment. Granted, usually the people in these conversations are useless slackers who sit around and read all day while collecting degrees (i.e., intellectuals). I guess this tells you what counts as erudition now, for better of for worse.
Ryan is the so-called "intellectual leader" of the Republican party. According to him, his intellectual hero is Ayn Rand. That is all.
Two reasons to be skeptical of any of the claims about BRAIN SIZE. (The abstract emphasizes other things like "global connectivity" so pelase don't read these comments as a destruction of TFA. More how Slashdot reported it.)
1. The history of intelligence testing. Read S. J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" and you'll find good reason to immediately be skeptical of any research such at this.
2. The statistical assumptions. So what's on the left hand side of the model? Obviously, some measure of intelligence. Thus the right hand side variables (size of different regions, etc.) are predicting an intelligence composite. Which assumes that intelligence is something determined in part by those right hand side variables or something correlated with those variables. These studies assume an at least semi-valid measure of intelligence. If they want to claim a causal relationship, I want a damn good measure of intelligence. Otherwise they're finding connections between something that may well be correlated with whatever we call intelligence, and we have no reason to believe brain size.
Furthermore, to say 6% of the variance is explained by brain size, we're assuming there's nothing unmeasured that doesn't also correlated with brain size and the dependent variable (intelligence). Historically, this situation has often presented itself. For example, when the better nourished happened to be more intelligent AND have bigger brains because of their nourishment.
A final problem with ALL intelligence research that wants to claim a causal relationship is that intelligence isn't something we can really manipulate in the lab, so we're always going to have to worry about endogeneity and selection issues. we can't control "how people get assigned to intelligence," and so we always may have something unmeasured which really explains what we find (by way of correlating with, for example, "global connectivity.")
Aside from being good business sense on the accounting side of things, this is also a PR move. The hip company pays the nerds who can help them out taking advantage of the CLOUD! I mean crowd. Did I say cloud?
I built a computer a few years ago for two reasons:
1) to show the class I was teaching how a computer was built
2) to have a computer to be hooked up to a TV for watching TV/movies/etc.
I put linux on it but to my annoyance, Netflix was impossible because of Silverlight/DRM. That pretty much ruined it for me and I put Windows on it. Little things like that, I think, explain a lot of why people won't switch.
What are all those aerospace researching bureaucrats doing all day if not sending people to the moon? The brilliance of this question is that it reveals a new way to determine whether or not we should cut government funded programs:
Is the program doing precisely what middle school students expect it to do? If not, the axe.
Consequently, this is a great way to connect with the average voter.
They note the importance of reading before the class in the article but don't follow up much on that. This is crucial.
This problem presents itself when teaching interactively: If students don't prepare ahead of time, the lesson totally stalls. Then they are trying to figure out problems with no basis for it. What happens? The professor often ends up lecturing. Then no time is left.
My intuition (based upon TAing Statistics as a PhD student and being a high school teacher of history, philosophy, and information technology) is that very few students read before lecture. I often didn't as an undergrad. Why? Because as long as the lectures re-tread text material, student can get away with using the text only as a reference, not as a primarily source of information. If students are required to be active participants, they HAVE to read ahead of time. Otherwise they have no way of actually figuring out how to use the knowledge from the reading.
I agree with the poster who mentioned the importance of assessing theoretically. A lot of students think that theoretical assessment is easy -- they don't have to remember a lot and can just use their brain to figure out the test. At least in the Stats class I helped teach, this simply wasn't true. Whenever we had problems sets or exam problems which were more or less plug and chug, the students did GREAT. However, when we started asking theoretical questions (which statistical test is appropriate here? Why? How do you test assumptions...? Critique this statistically informed research piece.), students really struggled -- which means they don't get it. That tells me they weren't really ready to use statistics.
I bet this could have been alleviated significantly if we had spent more time in class really working through problems which asked tough theoretical questions in groups as a class. But alas, we lectured, then I had 50 minutes weekly to try to answer their questions -- never enough -- and the quality of work struggled. Many students never really seemed ready to work independently with the concepts: I think a big reason for this is they were taught by being talked at... so when it was time to show they knew stats, the brightest did fine but the majority freaked out.
The 128kbps m4as, particularly with dance music, tend to have really flat bass. Doesn't sound too good.
Though I'm not a fan of DRM, and I generally avoid the iTunes store because I'm not sold on 128kbps sound files, this is their choice. If people want to play iTunes store songs on other digital media players, then they can work around it by burning CDs, or they can obtain the music some other way. Unfortunately, one of those ways is piracy, which Apple surely knows. I hate to be the person that says "they are making a business decision," but in a sense, they are. It makes sense for them to keep their users "locked in" to the iPod/iPhone/iWhatever line. And quite honestly, most people don't know about DRM's specifics, nor do they care. What do they do? Buy an iPod, if they didn't already have one. Techy people get upset, but I really doubt the techy people are the market in this case. I DJ using a digital solution and I prefer 320kbps mp3s to balance size and sound quality. I don't buy from iTunes store almost at all, because it's not what I'm looking for. Over and done with. It does seem to me a bit unfair to complain, as the lady does, about her other music players not playing iTunes store stuff. The flip is that people who use those media players aren't going to buy from the iTunes store -- bad for Apple. OR they buy an iPod. Good for Apple! There are still trade-offs involved. I dislike DRM. But for all the fuss, it's never really got to my nerves very much, and I buy more music in formats from mp3 to cd to good old vinyl records. I primarly buy digital music. People are not entitled to DRM-free music from iTunes store. It's part of the bargain. And as long as people see it worth it to buy a low quality m4a file with DRM, which 2 billion purchases suggest they do, then what's all the fuss?
This fear-mongering about American education has been going on since 1983, with the publication of "A Nation At Risk." The problem with American schools doesn't lie across the board. It lies with the "have-nots" -- that segment of schools, primarily black but not only, that are truly neglected. Read Jon Kozol's "The Shame of the Nation" to see what I'm talking about. Also read Biddle's "The Manufactured Crisis" -- a book published in 1995 that elucidates how much of this "crisis" is really just, well, crap. America has one of the best education systems in the world. Unfortunately, it also has one of the worst -- and that is the one that really needs attention but doesn't get it. And America has an EXCELLENT higher education system. Amazing how well it does when it's being fed by all of these allegedly "uneducated" people the American public school system is putting out. A lot of the problems that have "arose" since, coincidentally, the civil rights movement are not really problems. They are the inevitable result of making a genuine attempt to educate the entire population fairly. Why did SATs scores drop? Not because people got stupider, but because a segment of poorer folk who had never gone to college decided they should go to college and thus they took the SAT. Disaggregate the scores and you'll see that those who were doing "well" before are doing "well" now -- actually better. Stop worrying people. Really. -An Oxford graduate student in Comparative Education
I almost sense a disappointment that MySpace users didn't come out looking stupider. Give the MySpace users a break! Their computer illiteracy is made painfully clear, but imagine if Slashdot had a comparable way to highlight its posters social illiteracy. Perhaps there would be MySpacers writing on message boards about how stupid all Slashdot users were for their poor fashion sense. Yes, that would be stupid, but comparably as stupid as the blind, generalizing hate for MySpace users that is prevalent here.