I think it is more of an issue of age. When we were young, these were new concepts to us, and the popular shows of the time that we watch got our attention and such ideas were interesting and radical. However as we grew older we see the same thing over and over again, and no longer gains the same attention, and just seems more blunt, while in actually it isn't as bad as you think it is, but as you got older you ability to spot the deeper meaning has improved, and your views on things get more firmly fixed. So if a show has a "non-standard relationship" a younger person will see this and realize not all families follow the same structure, while the older person will see it as the group you grew up to learn to hate and fear as a threat to your way of life.
The view is that culture peaked when you hit your 20's no matter what your age is, everything else past that is either repetitive or just lazy and shotty. The Boomers are pining for the easy life of the 1950's and 1960's. Gen X thinks the 1970's and 1980's, Menials are now pining for the 1990's and 2000's
For me as a late Gen X Star Trek TNG was my first experience with it. And its stances allowed me to approach things differently beyond the strict code of my parents. TOS which I watched covered many of the same topics, but showed its age and I didn't enjoy it as much, Voyager and Enterprise just seemed repetitive and just preachy. But if you were to ask a boomer about Star Trek TOS was far superior to all the others...
For most people in the first world, your late teens and early 20's is your most optimistic part of your life, despite the stress and depression we have trying to attract a mate, the future is wide open to us, still under our parents to cover necessities, but the freedom to explore and do what we want. Where in a decade we are tied down with a Job and Family, while brings a new form of joy, means you just cannot getup and leave and explore a different country, take that job where you travel all the time, get the higher paid 1099 work, because you don't need to worry about those benefits.
Both methods of Faxing and Emails are bad options for sharing Medical Data. The better method which would actually require strong IT in healthcare would be appropriate HL7 communications either via Clearing House or direct VPN connection between systems. This technology isn't new, but it better for sending healthcare info, as the data can be parsed and categories more easily into the EHR and EDM systems.
There is nothing wrong witch scripted shows. They actually have a lot of value. Star Trek for example, was used to express the problems of society of its time, while being unique enough to not seem threatening. Issue like the cold war and its problems were expressed without latching onto our current prejudice. Or often take such ideas and express them to the extreme to show flaws in the ideas.
This is different from propaganda, which tells you how to think, vs enlightenment gives you more factors to think about.
A successful YouTube Chanel, would be an abysmal failure on network television, just on numbers alone. But it is cheap to produce on YouTube so these bad numbers are still making you a big channel, because a quality production is costing thousands of dollars per episode vs millions for broadcast.
Sue YouTube production quality is often poor compared to broadcast. But because of the relatively low risk, interesting story ideas and shows can be made. Because an absolute failure will not bankrupt you for life.
It isn't the employer They say you should work 9-5 with a 1/2 hour lunch break (or even a full hour). It is we employees who decide that we should be working these extra hours and judging those who don't.
It isn't about us necessarily being an asshole, but conditions in our lives that direct us to make such decisions. US/CAD we have strict rules when we are late for work. Normally within 5 minutes of the prescribed time, if we are late a lot, our living income can be cut, because you would get fired. So we rush to work, Grabbing prepared fast food along the way, or picking up something from your fridge, while on the run you will need energy, so we have coffee at hand. The 9:00 to 5:00 has became 8:30 - 5:30 with that 1/2 hour lunch break only being a loophole for the lazy who doesn't want to do work.
In America our way of life and our place in society is based on your job and what you do. When meting someone new, it is common for a person to ask what is their job is. (Or in college what their major is, so we can figure what their job will be) We do this to try to figure out the persons status in America. In other countries this is taboo or just rude, but they will use other criteria to figure out the persons class, such as where they live, who is their family, your religion...
This cultural normal, which was once just part of our culture, is now causing environmental impact, to change that would be very difficult. It isn't about just being jerks, we may care deeply for the environment, but we are stuck in a culture where to prosper you will need to make choices that may not be environmental.
A stronger economy creates higher carbon. Also normally whatever energy savings we find, we will use the excess into an other area, so the net energy use is increased.
We build more fuel efficient engines, we buy bigger cars and trucks. A company who saves 40% in fuel, will grow their company 80%.
Now it is political suicide for the leaders to tell their whole population that they need to sacrifice for the greater good, unless there is an opposing army knocking on its borders. And giving our politicians that much power to press the population to sacrifice on a seemingly abstract threat, would open the door for many other abuses, because we have more problems then just the environment.
The United States is still a growing country. But unfortunately our culture has been fixated on being the largest economy and judges itself superior to others based on that. While other countries may have a happier population and longer life spans, the US will have more wealth. To fix the environment the US needs a major culture shift in values, which would be very difficult, and if a slight mistake is done could get violent very fast.
Your attitude to problems will not fix it, but it may be a cog in the process. But like everything it needs to be well balanced. IT negativity and sarcasm often backfires with non IT folks. Because they think they are getting a product while they are getting a solution to a particular problem. This means a bug in the code will need to evaluate to see if it a bug where the code isn’t working as designed or the user is trying something it wasn’t meant to do and causing problems. Store computer repair personnel whither called genius or a squad of geeks can only replace some parts which may have failed, Change a configuration, train on an existing feature and so some workarounds.
The issue that always comes up. The individual will normally go for the short term gain, while the government when working properly is looking at the bigger picture. The government will imply rules intended for the greater good to follow even if we do not necessarily want to follow them. Speed limits, product safety requirements, environmental regulations... Normally the laws in a free society are designed for cases where liberties are in conflict must be determined.
My freedom to live in a safe environment vs my freedom to build a house any way I want.
Now this isn't Left wants to increase government control vs Right who wants to reduce it. The American Right has a reputation of being very heavy handed in enforcing laws, and will often make laws just as restrictive as well. Which is the point of my original statement. Solar Panels is something that conservatives would support if the idea wasn't tied to Hippy Greenies,
There is plenty of money to be made with Solar. Mining of materials to make them, setup and installation, and even manufacturing as the US does seem to excel in efficient manufacturing when given the opportunity. The main issue is too many people fell for the propaganda. Now with that being said, Solar isn't free or have no environmental impact. It needs rare earth minerals, and will work mostly when there is little overcast so trees will need to be cut down. However it does solve the current first problem is about carbon polution
Unfortunately this attitude was common during that time. Having been a software engineer myself, I understand that feeling, you put in a lot of work and focus on trying to make something so perfect, getting it to do everything that everyone says it wants. Only to have created something so complex that the end users actively avoid. Sure you can use this application no problem, but it like trying to explain a dream to someone else. It makes so much sense to you until you try to get someone else to figure out such madness.
As I have matured in my career I had grown to a point where I have to say No to a lot of development requests. Not because they are bad ideas or I am unable to program them. But because it would add complexity to the program that would become a sliding scale of bringing a product into becoming unusable. A lot of younger developers don't get it yet, and get confused when I OK a complex change to a product while reject a simple one. Mostly due to having experience with a full life cycle of a product, and I know what type of changes would become a rabbit hole of pain.
Notes was one of those early Windows GUI applications, so there was little experience with development for that platform, so the Notes design was innovated and brilliant and solved all the problems it was suppose to solve. However it was too much to what people actually really wanted, and most of these "stupid" people actually just had different sets of priories and interests, and never really wanted to dedicate a few weeks on learning a new product, where they only wanted to send email.
Lotus Notes was built for business administration more then End User functionality. It was one of these tools that worked well (at the time) in Large institutions, but became a huge headache for smaller companies, and god help you if you had it for your home PC
It took a while for Outlook to get a hold in the business market, it took some maturity in Exchange before the big businesses can get conned into using it.
It it wasn't for the Oil Iobbies putting doubt in Green Energy, Solar Energy would seem to be a Conservative dream. Take your homes off these Highly regulated and expensive infrastructure, allow you be independent and generate your own power for your own land, with less government control on the power you make. In case of war the American Power infrastructure would be resilient. As there would be less of an infrastructure to attack, and every self sufficient citizen could carry one and endure. If you want less government, green energy is a good solution, because you yourself can make your own power.
Regulations and Taxes are not bad. However something that is missing is the ability to objectively evaluate the effects of the actions. I would be find paying Taxes for an idea that didn't work. However if shown it doesn't work, it needs to stop. Both political sides love to point out how their idea often many decades old, is better then the other, however with little showing on what works and what doesn't
Being that this is part of a New House build. Adding Solar panels would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other costs involved. And I don't see many Middle/lower class people buying new homes. If they are a home owner they will buy an existing home, or a fixer upper. As well the savings of lower power bills may compensate for the extra costs. It is more expensive for those you need to add solar panels to existing homes, as their infrastructure may not be suited for them.
The $140 isn't the true cost of the product either. There is a lot of money in the Administrative costs of such a device. The R&D probably factoring in hundreds of rejected designed and ideas that cost a lot money before it was rejected, staff from the executives down to the maintenance workers, who needs to get paid no matter how many units are sold. Now Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world, they are making a good amount of profit off each unit sold, but the cost to build one unit, isn't the true cost.
Now that being said, there is danger in the Race to the bottom sales tactic. Where you sell your product less then your competitor, then your competitor cuts their prices to be below you and then you return back again. At first you may assume that this is good for the consumer, however it isn't long in this race to the bottom sacrifices are made to where the product gets crappier and crappier every price cut, because the company will still try to keep its margins, and will not sell at a loss.
If you look at historic Desktop PC makers back in the late 1990's 1995ish, Gateway 2000 was gaining a lot of ground, one of its biggest points was its product quality. Sure you will pay more for it but it is worth it. Then in a few years it tried to compete with lower cost competitors such as Compaq which then caused the quality to drop rapidly as your $2k PC is now $900 but the drives will fail, and 3rd party components would undoubtedly crash Windows rapidly because the drivers were never quite right. 1997ish, Dell begin to gain a lot of ground, one of its biggest points was its product quality. Sure you will pay more for it but it is worth it. Then in a few years it was trying to compete with eMachenes which then caused the quality to drop rapidly as your $2k PC is now $900 but the drives will fail, 3rd party components would crash win....
Apple isn't the perfect company and their products are not perfect. However they have mostly maintained a high quality in their products (with their share of duds) often the big scandals like the iPhones 4 antenna problem and the iPhones 6+ bending problems, are actually small problems, however people got angry because of the standard that Apple normally has. But if Apple would try to make their products cheaper it will only open the door for their competition to sell better quality products and take Apples spot.
But should Standards Compliant be based off the same code set? There is often more then one way to code a product and still follow the same standards, some features will run faster then others, others may be sacrificed. A newer build would be based on current browsing habits vs older ones. Also this could mean greater security issues, as there will be mostly a unified browser engine across all the major browsers, so with the same code set behind it, a flaw will have more of a universal problem.
I would assume that the browsers would be competing against features (the stuff outside the actual web page) Things like developer debugging tools, handling hot keys and bookmarks.
They actually have plans for limited ICE cars for some areas. However going 50/50 is often a good chance of wasting 50% of your money. There is more risk going 90/10 but the reward is much greater.
Gasoline still offers higher energy density and is rather safe. It only recently battery technology is getting good enough. Mostly due to advancement needed for cellphones and laptops. While not always the same type of battery it means the money from the technology r&d went to side development of what can be a good automobile battery.
Now There is a problem where a business sector is becoming obsolete and there is more of an effort to keep it on life support vs having a migration plan. Because the fossil fuel industry has an other generation of work to be done.
Risk is the nature of business. If VW does nothing new, they could be on a case study on how a company treaded too carefully in a market that seems to be changing more rapidly then before. I expect most car companies have an electric car plan in the works. I think most are just waiting for battery costs to go down for wider scale release. The electric car isn’t new technology and the charging infrastructure is growing too. And charging stations are much easier to implement then gas stations. A shopping mall can have a charging station implemented in a couple of days. Vs taking weeks to dig for tanks and make sure they are environmentally safe.
I just remember and old VW commercial advertising its clean desiel cars. And they were making fun of hybrids because they were less cool because they didn’t loud engine noise.
Thinkpads have normally been built to be rugged laptops. Meant to be on factory floors. But MacBook are meant to go from desk to desk. In a rather clean room.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is more of an issue of age.
When we were young, these were new concepts to us, and the popular shows of the time that we watch got our attention and such ideas were interesting and radical. However as we grew older we see the same thing over and over again, and no longer gains the same attention, and just seems more blunt, while in actually it isn't as bad as you think it is, but as you got older you ability to spot the deeper meaning has improved, and your views on things get more firmly fixed. So if a show has a "non-standard relationship" a younger person will see this and realize not all families follow the same structure, while the older person will see it as the group you grew up to learn to hate and fear as a threat to your way of life.
The view is that culture peaked when you hit your 20's no matter what your age is, everything else past that is either repetitive or just lazy and shotty.
The Boomers are pining for the easy life of the 1950's and 1960's. Gen X thinks the 1970's and 1980's, Menials are now pining for the 1990's and 2000's
For me as a late Gen X Star Trek TNG was my first experience with it. And its stances allowed me to approach things differently beyond the strict code of my parents. TOS which I watched covered many of the same topics, but showed its age and I didn't enjoy it as much, Voyager and Enterprise just seemed repetitive and just preachy. But if you were to ask a boomer about Star Trek TOS was far superior to all the others...
For most people in the first world, your late teens and early 20's is your most optimistic part of your life, despite the stress and depression we have trying to attract a mate, the future is wide open to us, still under our parents to cover necessities, but the freedom to explore and do what we want. Where in a decade we are tied down with a Job and Family, while brings a new form of joy, means you just cannot getup and leave and explore a different country, take that job where you travel all the time, get the higher paid 1099 work, because you don't need to worry about those benefits.
Both methods of Faxing and Emails are bad options for sharing Medical Data.
The better method which would actually require strong IT in healthcare would be appropriate HL7 communications either via Clearing House or direct VPN connection between systems.
This technology isn't new, but it better for sending healthcare info, as the data can be parsed and categories more easily into the EHR and EDM systems.
There is nothing wrong witch scripted shows. They actually have a lot of value. Star Trek for example, was used to express the problems of society of its time, while being unique enough to not seem threatening. Issue like the cold war and its problems were expressed without latching onto our current prejudice. Or often take such ideas and express them to the extreme to show flaws in the ideas.
This is different from propaganda, which tells you how to think, vs enlightenment gives you more factors to think about.
A successful YouTube Chanel, would be an abysmal failure on network television, just on numbers alone.
But it is cheap to produce on YouTube so these bad numbers are still making you a big channel, because a quality production is costing thousands of dollars per episode vs millions for broadcast.
Sue YouTube production quality is often poor compared to broadcast. But because of the relatively low risk, interesting story ideas and shows can be made. Because an absolute failure will not bankrupt you for life.
It isn't the employer They say you should work 9-5 with a 1/2 hour lunch break (or even a full hour). It is we employees who decide that we should be working these extra hours and judging those who don't.
It isn't about us necessarily being an asshole, but conditions in our lives that direct us to make such decisions.
US/CAD we have strict rules when we are late for work. Normally within 5 minutes of the prescribed time, if we are late a lot, our living income can be cut, because you would get fired.
So we rush to work, Grabbing prepared fast food along the way, or picking up something from your fridge, while on the run you will need energy, so we have coffee at hand.
The 9:00 to 5:00 has became 8:30 - 5:30 with that 1/2 hour lunch break only being a loophole for the lazy who doesn't want to do work.
In America our way of life and our place in society is based on your job and what you do. When meting someone new, it is common for a person to ask what is their job is. (Or in college what their major is, so we can figure what their job will be) We do this to try to figure out the persons status in America. In other countries this is taboo or just rude, but they will use other criteria to figure out the persons class, such as where they live, who is their family, your religion...
This cultural normal, which was once just part of our culture, is now causing environmental impact, to change that would be very difficult. It isn't about just being jerks, we may care deeply for the environment, but we are stuck in a culture where to prosper you will need to make choices that may not be environmental.
A stronger economy creates higher carbon. Also normally whatever energy savings we find, we will use the excess into an other area, so the net energy use is increased.
We build more fuel efficient engines, we buy bigger cars and trucks. A company who saves 40% in fuel, will grow their company 80%.
Now it is political suicide for the leaders to tell their whole population that they need to sacrifice for the greater good, unless there is an opposing army knocking on its borders. And giving our politicians that much power to press the population to sacrifice on a seemingly abstract threat, would open the door for many other abuses, because we have more problems then just the environment.
The United States is still a growing country. But unfortunately our culture has been fixated on being the largest economy and judges itself superior to others based on that. While other countries may have a happier population and longer life spans, the US will have more wealth. To fix the environment the US needs a major culture shift in values, which would be very difficult, and if a slight mistake is done could get violent very fast.
Your attitude to problems will not fix it, but it may be a cog in the process.
But like everything it needs to be well balanced. IT negativity and sarcasm often backfires with non IT folks. Because they think they are getting a product while they are getting a solution to a particular problem. This means a bug in the code will need to evaluate to see if it a bug where the code isn’t working as designed or the user is trying something it wasn’t meant to do and causing problems.
Store computer repair personnel whither called genius or a squad of geeks can only replace some parts which may have failed, Change a configuration, train on an existing feature and so some workarounds.
The issue that always comes up. The individual will normally go for the short term gain, while the government when working properly is looking at the bigger picture. The government will imply rules intended for the greater good to follow even if we do not necessarily want to follow them.
Speed limits, product safety requirements, environmental regulations... Normally the laws in a free society are designed for cases where liberties are in conflict must be determined.
My freedom to live in a safe environment vs my freedom to build a house any way I want.
Now this isn't Left wants to increase government control vs Right who wants to reduce it. The American Right has a reputation of being very heavy handed in enforcing laws, and will often make laws just as restrictive as well. Which is the point of my original statement. Solar Panels is something that conservatives would support if the idea wasn't tied to Hippy Greenies,
There is plenty of money to be made with Solar. Mining of materials to make them, setup and installation, and even manufacturing as the US does seem to excel in efficient manufacturing when given the opportunity. The main issue is too many people fell for the propaganda.
Now with that being said, Solar isn't free or have no environmental impact. It needs rare earth minerals, and will work mostly when there is little overcast so trees will need to be cut down. However it does solve the current first problem is about carbon polution
Unfortunately this attitude was common during that time. Having been a software engineer myself, I understand that feeling, you put in a lot of work and focus on trying to make something so perfect, getting it to do everything that everyone says it wants. Only to have created something so complex that the end users actively avoid. Sure you can use this application no problem, but it like trying to explain a dream to someone else. It makes so much sense to you until you try to get someone else to figure out such madness.
As I have matured in my career I had grown to a point where I have to say No to a lot of development requests. Not because they are bad ideas or I am unable to program them. But because it would add complexity to the program that would become a sliding scale of bringing a product into becoming unusable. A lot of younger developers don't get it yet, and get confused when I OK a complex change to a product while reject a simple one. Mostly due to having experience with a full life cycle of a product, and I know what type of changes would become a rabbit hole of pain.
Notes was one of those early Windows GUI applications, so there was little experience with development for that platform, so the Notes design was innovated and brilliant and solved all the problems it was suppose to solve. However it was too much to what people actually really wanted, and most of these "stupid" people actually just had different sets of priories and interests, and never really wanted to dedicate a few weeks on learning a new product, where they only wanted to send email.
Lotus Notes was built for business administration more then End User functionality. It was one of these tools that worked well (at the time) in Large institutions, but became a huge headache for smaller companies, and god help you if you had it for your home PC
It took a while for Outlook to get a hold in the business market, it took some maturity in Exchange before the big businesses can get conned into using it.
It it wasn't for the Oil Iobbies putting doubt in Green Energy, Solar Energy would seem to be a Conservative dream.
Take your homes off these Highly regulated and expensive infrastructure, allow you be independent and generate your own power for your own land, with less government control on the power you make. In case of war the American Power infrastructure would be resilient. As there would be less of an infrastructure to attack, and every self sufficient citizen could carry one and endure.
If you want less government, green energy is a good solution, because you yourself can make your own power.
Regulations and Taxes are not bad. However something that is missing is the ability to objectively evaluate the effects of the actions.
I would be find paying Taxes for an idea that didn't work. However if shown it doesn't work, it needs to stop.
Both political sides love to point out how their idea often many decades old, is better then the other, however with little showing on what works and what doesn't
What is wrong living in California? You don't need to live in the Cities. They are a lot of wonderful rural areas available.
Being that this is part of a New House build. Adding Solar panels would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other costs involved.
And I don't see many Middle/lower class people buying new homes. If they are a home owner they will buy an existing home, or a fixer upper.
As well the savings of lower power bills may compensate for the extra costs.
It is more expensive for those you need to add solar panels to existing homes, as their infrastructure may not be suited for them.
I never stated that Billions were spent in R&D. But there is more to the cost of such a device. Then the parts and labor to make it.
The $140 isn't the true cost of the product either. There is a lot of money in the Administrative costs of such a device. The R&D probably factoring in hundreds of rejected designed and ideas that cost a lot money before it was rejected, staff from the executives down to the maintenance workers, who needs to get paid no matter how many units are sold.
Now Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world, they are making a good amount of profit off each unit sold, but the cost to build one unit, isn't the true cost.
Now that being said, there is danger in the Race to the bottom sales tactic. Where you sell your product less then your competitor, then your competitor cuts their prices to be below you and then you return back again. At first you may assume that this is good for the consumer, however it isn't long in this race to the bottom sacrifices are made to where the product gets crappier and crappier every price cut, because the company will still try to keep its margins, and will not sell at a loss.
If you look at historic Desktop PC makers back in the late 1990's
1995ish, Gateway 2000 was gaining a lot of ground, one of its biggest points was its product quality. Sure you will pay more for it but it is worth it. Then in a few years it tried to compete with lower cost competitors such as Compaq which then caused the quality to drop rapidly as your $2k PC is now $900 but the drives will fail, and 3rd party components would undoubtedly crash Windows rapidly because the drivers were never quite right.
1997ish, Dell begin to gain a lot of ground, one of its biggest points was its product quality. Sure you will pay more for it but it is worth it. Then in a few years it was trying to compete with eMachenes which then caused the quality to drop rapidly as your $2k PC is now $900 but the drives will fail, 3rd party components would crash win....
Apple isn't the perfect company and their products are not perfect. However they have mostly maintained a high quality in their products (with their share of duds) often the big scandals like the iPhones 4 antenna problem and the iPhones 6+ bending problems, are actually small problems, however people got angry because of the standard that Apple normally has. But if Apple would try to make their products cheaper it will only open the door for their competition to sell better quality products and take Apples spot.
But should Standards Compliant be based off the same code set?
There is often more then one way to code a product and still follow the same standards, some features will run faster then others, others may be sacrificed. A newer build would be based on current browsing habits vs older ones. Also this could mean greater security issues, as there will be mostly a unified browser engine across all the major browsers, so with the same code set behind it, a flaw will have more of a universal problem.
I would assume that the browsers would be competing against features (the stuff outside the actual web page)
Things like developer debugging tools, handling hot keys and bookmarks.
They actually have plans for limited ICE cars for some areas. However going 50/50 is often a good chance of wasting 50% of your money. There is more risk going 90/10 but the reward is much greater.
Gasoline still offers higher energy density and is rather safe.
It only recently battery technology is getting good enough. Mostly due to advancement needed for cellphones and laptops. While not always the same type of battery it means the money from the technology r&d went to side development of what can be a good automobile battery.
Now There is a problem where a business sector is becoming obsolete and there is more of an effort to keep it on life support vs having a migration plan. Because the fossil fuel industry has an other generation of work to be done.
Risk is the nature of business. If VW does nothing new, they could be on a case study on how a company treaded too carefully in a market that seems to be changing more rapidly then before.
I expect most car companies have an electric car plan in the works. I think most are just waiting for battery costs to go down for wider scale release.
The electric car isn’t new technology and the charging infrastructure is growing too. And charging stations are much easier to implement then gas stations. A shopping mall can have a charging station implemented in a couple of days. Vs taking weeks to dig for tanks and make sure they are environmentally safe.
I just remember and old VW commercial advertising its clean desiel cars. And they were making fun of hybrids because they were less cool because they didn’t loud engine noise.
Thinkpads have normally been built to be rugged laptops. Meant to be on factory floors. But MacBook are meant to go from desk to desk. In a rather clean room.