I agree on the working from home angle, but school is different. Work is generally done in 8 hour shifts, but when I did my online grad program, I only worked an hour or so a day on school stuff (longer on the weekends). Most of us can find an hour or two a day to get away from distractions like kids, tv, whatever, but keeping those distractions away for 8 hours a day would be impossible.
I made the mistake (well, my only option) of attending an online degree program. Digital books suck. I'm not even a hater of DRM (digital books are the only DRM products that have ever gotten in my way of legal access, btw). E-books flat out suck. Call me old (more like spatial), but seeing print in the traditional left side right side alignment of a book is the only way I remember anything I read. E-books are good in one regard--I can use spotlight on my Mac to find specific words within the PDF e-books of my college, which makes it easy to find stuff I remembered reading about, but couldn't remember what class it was for or what book it was in.
I hope that is a comment in jest. Otherwise my marriage is screwed. Or, as I like to think, I didn't marry a materialistic bitch, and our combined $150,000 year income is great for both of us, even if she does make about more than me. Seriously, are there still 1950s era small-minded assholes out there who think it is a bad thing for a woman to make more money than "their man"? Seriously? I live in Texas, and if common stereotypes have any truth to them, I'd expect to hear that sentiment a lot, but I don't.
"I've been having trouble swimming in a tuxedo, so I bought a wetsuit that is much easier to swim in. Now you're saying that it might be easier to swim naked than in a tuxedo?"
That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, that seems to be what the no-shoes crowd is saying. Perhaps I don't understand your analogy, but my stance is that a scientifically designed wetsuit (shoe), that is designed to improve performance (like expensive high end running shoes are) would indeed be superior to swimming naked (running barefoot) as demonstrated by 99.9% of amateur/olympic athletes around the globe, every year, at every event. Had Zola Budd not tripped Mary Decker Tabb Slaney (What's my name today)20 (25?) years ago, people wouldn't even be aware that.01% of runners do so barefoot.
Well, buying something from the same company for many years, even when there might be better stuff out there, counts as brand loyalty in my book. Apple, Mazda, Nike, Yamaha...yep, always good stuff, so why bother with the alternatives? That Chevy Cobalt looks like a smokin' hot car, but why should I ditch my Mazdaspeed3 for it, when I know the Protege was a great car and the Cavalier was a steamy pile of dog doo?
I see your point about the Nike wristbands, though. Same could be said for buying a Samsung toaster, because I like my Samsung HD TV. However, why not buy a Nike t-shirt, if you really like Nike shoes? Why do we personalize anything, display yard signs, bumper stickers, funny email sigs, if not to at least make a statement about what we like or what we are about?
My home "notebook" is far more powerful than my work desktop computer. Why should "notebooks" be limited to three programs...as if they were second class citizens to desktops? Perhaps the summary meant "netbooks"?
In any case, this demonstrates that Microsoft just doesn't get it. If they want to make the OS "easy", why not just offer one version like that other OS?
Brand loyalty isn't a "silly" consideration. Why would I not be loyal to Nike (or Asics, or New Balance,or any other serious running brand), when they've produced the right type of shoe for my running type for more than 25 years now? Should I give 'Roos a shot, so as not to be branded a "loyalist"?
So you just supported his correlation. Shoes that cost more than $95 (which is pretty much every serious running shoe) are more likely to have injuries associated with them. They are also more likely to have lots of miles associated with them, due to the fact that only serious runners spend more than $95 on shoes. People who buy "running" shoes for under $40 are the same guys I work with who think sneakers, jeans and an Atari t-shirt count as business casual. I'm pretty sure those guys don't run even one time a week.
Wait, so as his shoes start to break down and get closer to the state of barefoot, his feet hurt, but he's supposed to expect barefoot to suddenly reverse the trend?
Every single NFL star here would be crying pussies if they were in ONE Australian rules football match.
Bull and shit. Ray Lewis begs to differ, and he's really old, and only a medium sized NFL player. Your wussy Australian rules players are barely big enough to be wide-receivers and defensive backs, except for the fact they are too slow. Remember, the Arizona Cardinals have an Australian Rules (or is it Rugby?) player, and he plays, you guessed it, punter. I'm sure he was a big strong stud before he came to the NFL. Now he is just a big strong punter.
Do me a favor and google "Igor Olshansky" and tell me that guy would be a pussy in Australian rules or rugby (he played soccer in the Ukraine, so he's not above that either).
That's because the longest distance event on a track is only a 10k. Most of the events that use those shoes are middle distances. 1500meters are done in less than four minutes, so it's not like big, heavy padded shoes are necessary.
To demonstrate how absurd this entire thread is, show me world-class steeplechase runners that prefer to run barefoot. I say steeplechase, because their shoes get wet, so that would be one incentive to not run with shoes.
I guess you and I are the only runners in all of slashdot land. Of course running shoes matter. If any of these bozos claiming to know better actually got up and ran, they'd realize that running shoes also have a limited life span. I change mine out every four months or so (at about 20 miles a week).
the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury;
Or, the more expensive the running shoe, the more serious the runner, the more miles per week run, leading to the greater probability of getting an injury. Fortunately since I cut back my running from 20 miles a week to zero, I no longer have running related injuries.
There's enough horrible content on TV as it is. I don't need heavily pixelated, monaural YouTube and Hulu videos looking extra bad on my 50" 1080 HD tv.
Of course the tech is going to get better as time goes on.
The tech is already here, but YouTube chooses not to use it. Why should I expect that to change? It's not like YouTube is so cutting edge, ahead-of-the-times, their resolution options are restricted by technology (because it isn't).
I'm not stating that we see ENTIRE words for their shape, just parts of words. This is why ligatures are important in professional typesetting. Not only are the aesthetically pleasing, they also guide the eye into seeing familiar word shapes.
I completely agree with this Microsoft paper in that the outline of a word isn't as important as previous studies would indicate. But, in one study I read (sorry, at work, no citation) they demonstrated that at least the top half of a word is important. They took a bunch of sentences and chopped them in half. One group tried to read the passages just seeing the top half of the words, and another only got the bottom half. The top half readers were much more successful. When the same experiment was done in all caps, neither the top half nor the bottom half had much success, because of the blocky shapes. Granted, we don't read cut-off words, but their methodology tracked things like eye-movement, tracking, blinking etc. which indicate that we see at least some words in whole.
Try for yourself. Read this passage as fast as you can and tell me you weren't able to recognize whole words without sounding them out phonetically and looking at each letter. We teach young learners to recognize letters, then phonetics, then whole words. We don't expect them to have to sound out words their whole life, though. At some point they become good readers and start seeing word shapes, and not just letters.
When I lived in the UK I accessed US iTunes via my US-bank issued Mastercard. I know others that wasn't possible but I continued to do it from 2004-2007. Maybe it will be the same for this product.
It's a shame you aren't half as intelligent as you want us to believe. Read my profile, genius. There is more to the field of education than being a school teacher or administrator. As a training development and curriculum specialist, I create software TRAINING simulations based on cognitive principles of human-machine interfaces. That is my area of expertise, and obviously not yours.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree on the working from home angle, but school is different. Work is generally done in 8 hour shifts, but when I did my online grad program, I only worked an hour or so a day on school stuff (longer on the weekends). Most of us can find an hour or two a day to get away from distractions like kids, tv, whatever, but keeping those distractions away for 8 hours a day would be impossible.
I made the mistake (well, my only option) of attending an online degree program. Digital books suck. I'm not even a hater of DRM (digital books are the only DRM products that have ever gotten in my way of legal access, btw). E-books flat out suck. Call me old (more like spatial), but seeing print in the traditional left side right side alignment of a book is the only way I remember anything I read. E-books are good in one regard--I can use spotlight on my Mac to find specific words within the PDF e-books of my college, which makes it easy to find stuff I remembered reading about, but couldn't remember what class it was for or what book it was in.
I hope that is a comment in jest. Otherwise my marriage is screwed. Or, as I like to think, I didn't marry a materialistic bitch, and our combined $150,000 year income is great for both of us, even if she does make about more than me. Seriously, are there still 1950s era small-minded assholes out there who think it is a bad thing for a woman to make more money than "their man"? Seriously? I live in Texas, and if common stereotypes have any truth to them, I'd expect to hear that sentiment a lot, but I don't.
"I've been having trouble swimming in a tuxedo, so I bought a wetsuit that is much easier to swim in. Now you're saying that it might be easier to swim naked than in a tuxedo?"
That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, that seems to be what the no-shoes crowd is saying. Perhaps I don't understand your analogy, but my stance is that a scientifically designed wetsuit (shoe), that is designed to improve performance (like expensive high end running shoes are) would indeed be superior to swimming naked (running barefoot) as demonstrated by 99.9% of amateur/olympic athletes around the globe, every year, at every event. Had Zola Budd not tripped Mary Decker Tabb Slaney (What's my name today)20 (25?) years ago, people wouldn't even be aware that .01% of runners do so barefoot.
Well, buying something from the same company for many years, even when there might be better stuff out there, counts as brand loyalty in my book. Apple, Mazda, Nike, Yamaha...yep, always good stuff, so why bother with the alternatives? That Chevy Cobalt looks like a smokin' hot car, but why should I ditch my Mazdaspeed3 for it, when I know the Protege was a great car and the Cavalier was a steamy pile of dog doo?
I see your point about the Nike wristbands, though. Same could be said for buying a Samsung toaster, because I like my Samsung HD TV. However, why not buy a Nike t-shirt, if you really like Nike shoes? Why do we personalize anything, display yard signs, bumper stickers, funny email sigs, if not to at least make a statement about what we like or what we are about?
My home "notebook" is far more powerful than my work desktop computer. Why should "notebooks" be limited to three programs...as if they were second class citizens to desktops? Perhaps the summary meant "netbooks"?
In any case, this demonstrates that Microsoft just doesn't get it. If they want to make the OS "easy", why not just offer one version like that other OS?
No? Your only legal recourse would be not to buy it.
Brand loyalty isn't a "silly" consideration. Why would I not be loyal to Nike (or Asics, or New Balance,or any other serious running brand), when they've produced the right type of shoe for my running type for more than 25 years now? Should I give 'Roos a shot, so as not to be branded a "loyalist"?
So you just supported his correlation. Shoes that cost more than $95 (which is pretty much every serious running shoe) are more likely to have injuries associated with them. They are also more likely to have lots of miles associated with them, due to the fact that only serious runners spend more than $95 on shoes. People who buy "running" shoes for under $40 are the same guys I work with who think sneakers, jeans and an Atari t-shirt count as business casual. I'm pretty sure those guys don't run even one time a week.
Oh man, I posted the same thing. Somebody go mod me redundant! Excellent post, btw.
Wait, so as his shoes start to break down and get closer to the state of barefoot, his feet hurt, but he's supposed to expect barefoot to suddenly reverse the trend?
Every single NFL star here would be crying pussies if they were in ONE Australian rules football match.
Bull and shit. Ray Lewis begs to differ, and he's really old, and only a medium sized NFL player. Your wussy Australian rules players are barely big enough to be wide-receivers and defensive backs, except for the fact they are too slow. Remember, the Arizona Cardinals have an Australian Rules (or is it Rugby?) player, and he plays, you guessed it, punter. I'm sure he was a big strong stud before he came to the NFL. Now he is just a big strong punter.
Do me a favor and google "Igor Olshansky" and tell me that guy would be a pussy in Australian rules or rugby (he played soccer in the Ukraine, so he's not above that either).
I can't figure out how to mod this--it's the most insightful off-topic post ever!
That's because the longest distance event on a track is only a 10k. Most of the events that use those shoes are middle distances. 1500meters are done in less than four minutes, so it's not like big, heavy padded shoes are necessary.
To demonstrate how absurd this entire thread is, show me world-class steeplechase runners that prefer to run barefoot. I say steeplechase, because their shoes get wet, so that would be one incentive to not run with shoes.
I guess you and I are the only runners in all of slashdot land. Of course running shoes matter. If any of these bozos claiming to know better actually got up and ran, they'd realize that running shoes also have a limited life span. I change mine out every four months or so (at about 20 miles a week).
Yes, because all women care about how much money their potential mates have, and no women actually make MORE money than their partners.
the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury;
Or, the more expensive the running shoe, the more serious the runner, the more miles per week run, leading to the greater probability of getting an injury. Fortunately since I cut back my running from 20 miles a week to zero, I no longer have running related injuries.
Time Warner is halting their tiered pricing in Rochester as well: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090416/BUSINESS/90416024/1001
I heard it on the radio, but here's a site that confirms the story: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42055/103/
Time Warner dropped the GB/month bandwidth metering.
There's enough horrible content on TV as it is. I don't need heavily pixelated, monaural YouTube and Hulu videos looking extra bad on my 50" 1080 HD tv.
Of course the tech is going to get better as time goes on.
The tech is already here, but YouTube chooses not to use it. Why should I expect that to change? It's not like YouTube is so cutting edge, ahead-of-the-times, their resolution options are restricted by technology (because it isn't).
I'm not stating that we see ENTIRE words for their shape, just parts of words. This is why ligatures are important in professional typesetting. Not only are the aesthetically pleasing, they also guide the eye into seeing familiar word shapes.
I completely agree with this Microsoft paper in that the outline of a word isn't as important as previous studies would indicate. But, in one study I read (sorry, at work, no citation) they demonstrated that at least the top half of a word is important. They took a bunch of sentences and chopped them in half. One group tried to read the passages just seeing the top half of the words, and another only got the bottom half. The top half readers were much more successful. When the same experiment was done in all caps, neither the top half nor the bottom half had much success, because of the blocky shapes. Granted, we don't read cut-off words, but their methodology tracked things like eye-movement, tracking, blinking etc. which indicate that we see at least some words in whole.
Try for yourself. Read this passage as fast as you can and tell me you weren't able to recognize whole words without sounding them out phonetically and looking at each letter. We teach young learners to recognize letters, then phonetics, then whole words. We don't expect them to have to sound out words their whole life, though. At some point they become good readers and start seeing word shapes, and not just letters.
When I lived in the UK I accessed US iTunes via my US-bank issued Mastercard. I know others that wasn't possible but I continued to do it from 2004-2007. Maybe it will be the same for this product.
It's a shame you aren't half as intelligent as you want us to believe. Read my profile, genius. There is more to the field of education than being a school teacher or administrator. As a training development and curriculum specialist, I create software TRAINING simulations based on cognitive principles of human-machine interfaces. That is my area of expertise, and obviously not yours.