Well... that is primarily because that generation has no identity... so they think they can find one in the city.
I don't blame them for not having an identity. It is the fault of society for not giving them one; for not teaching them in the school system what it means to be British or American or Canadian.
I live in the city, but not because I need to find myself or because it is more entertaining. I'm there purely to be close to work.
Urbanization won't give anyone an identity. That comes from within you and your relationship with people. Something small towns have, something suburbs have, and something cities have.
If you view suburbs as a cultural wasteland... chances are the city will disappoint as well... after the superficial activities are done.
The kids who have real issues are not going to be serviced by 'experts'. Their problems have more to do with social control and the home environment. I'd rather have an army of social workers, teaching assistants, and community nurses than 'expert' teachers. I say this as a teacher/engineer BTW.
Kids who are already smart and motivated... well... lets just say you don't have to do much. They learn on their own and rarely benefit from your expertise in a general classroom. Maybe in a gifted program or at the university level you need to enhance that kind of expertise.
So I think this a gross waste of resources that should be deployed elsewhere and it won't solve anything.
But this is all part of a variety of beliefs and narratives the population has that generally don't hold up to much scrutiny.
It's like them saying we have a shortage of skilled people. No you don't. You're actually laying many of them off and not paying them well relative to other professions in society.
Or they say things like R&D will support the new economy. Well jeez... maybe a small country can support itself with innovation. But a large one in a globalized world? There's just not that much innovation work to do. The US already does so much of the world's commercial innovation and profits immensely from it. If the US is still in deficits while already exporting so much technology, innovation will not fix our economy. Especially as the world catches up.
Or even healthcare. Almost all studies show that most healthcare costs occur near the end of life. Something like 70% of the healthcare costs occur on people who are going to die in the next few years. But they keep ranting about how prevention will fix healthcare... not it won't. Of the few studies to actually look at it found healthy people cost more as they live long and spend more time in old age (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/02/05/unhealthy-study.html). The simplest and most effective way to fix healthcare costs is to admit we're going to die and ration care at old age / have palliative care.
But of course most of these narratives have one thing in common... they help enrich a special interest group while stifling resources from programs that will actually solve the problem. In this case, teacher unions are Obamas favorite pet group.
No, I'd rather see it going to people without jobs or menial jobs so the money is more distributed.
Teachers make a decent living in most states. To spend more on them (or police officers...) or anyone else in the public sector with a job is immoral as far as I'm concerned.
It seems so much of the article can be summed by a very simple business statement.
"Give the customer what they want"
(yes... sometimes the customer themselves doesn't know what they want until you give it to them)
Microsoft's early success was all about giving the customer what they wanted. Windows 95 gave people a GUI with DOS with pretty low requirements. I remember trying to toss on some Linux distros on older hardware... and none performed as well Windows 95. Now yes, Windows 95 made a lot of sacrifices to make it speedy... but it was what the customer wanted. Office scripting/VBS are along the same lines, but it worked.
Microsoft's lost decade I think is kind of unique... in that they forgot about this. They began focusing on things outside of providing for the customer. Some of it actually needed from a technical standpoint (gutting/rewriting legacy stuff). But much of it not.
For Vista, where was the demand for a database file system? They also focused too much on making things work with Windows or giving them a Windows feel. All things customers really don't care about. The initial windows smart phones complete with start menu... seems so silly now.
"So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions..."
Homeschooling is great in a libertarian society... which doesn't happen to be the world we live in.
Do tell me who gets to be a doctor in your homeschooled education? How do you get admission to medical school without grades? Do you want medical school without grades?
That is the point you're missing. Grades are not 100% about the making the student better. They are used in the greater context of society.
No, any smart person who cannot pass a decent multiple choice test is either not very smart or not very hard working. Both of which are required to be successful and both are good values.
And most multiple choice tests aren't just about rote memorization. They often require thinking and analysis... but they only care if you get the answer right or wrong.
Well no, I think what has changed is that Microsoft doesn't need OEMs as much as they used to.
I could be wrong on my computer history here, but I think the rise of the contract manufacturer like FoxConn has replaced the need for an OEM. These guys offer cheap pricing, rapid turn around, and build just about everything...
Not to mention most people don't go to the local supply shop to build a computer. Computers are mass produced these days and you can barely beat the price at BestBuy or others. Microsoft can easily deal with these larger players.
So what value does a Dell or HP offer anymore? At best, they offer supply chain management and business contracts.
The business contracts will be driven by business needs for servicing... which means HP and others will still work with MS in that area. Not to mention Microsofts own arsenal of business services.
Supply chain management can be tricky. Here again, companies like FoxConn reduce the risk with rapid turn around. As well Microsoft has built some expertise here with their experience with the XBox... and they have a huge cash base to make some mistakes in this area.
Sure... and how do you grade projects. How do you revamp the system? It is insanely easy to find flaws in anything. Now try working out a solution.
Having gone through university in Canada... I cannot comprehend how anyone advocates project based testing. Projects are the easiest to copy, team up with a smart person who does all the work...
No doubt, some will say... but the teacher should create new and innovative projects every single year and keep an eye on their students. Yeah... good luck with that. Try being a teacher with a large number of students and keeping an eye on all of them and making every project unique.
It ain't gonna happen.
So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions...
Standardized choice are a basic testing requirement. All the 'smart' kids I knew who had decent work ethic all did well on the standardized choice test. It isn't a guarantee of success and it might seem tedious and bothersome... but they are a bare minimum to determine success.
"Somewhere in the middle, a resonably free enterprise system with some government sponsored investment and a public safety net is where you're going to get the best overal quality of life over the span of decades."
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I'm not arguing for either capitalism or socialism... but taking two systems and mixing them doesn't automatically make the best system.
Classic car analogy coming up: If two sides want to build a car. One side wants a hummer for its ruggedness and carrying capacity. The other side wants a small Civic for its fuel economy and agility.
Compromising by taking the body of Hummer with the engine of a Civic isn't going to be a better compromise.
As a matter of fact, you'll end up with a car that is worse than either the Hummer or Civic on its own.
If I were to place my bets... I would actually bet on the end of the mixed-market economy. Let's remember, we're dealing with a fairly short time span here. The modern mixed-market economy is only 50 years old at the most... and I would argue has been completely financed via debt and economic growth... both of which can't grow forever and we're seeing it unravel.
My bets on the future are either a more libertarian future or a heavily socialized/protectionist one.
1. It is a highly regulated field. To be able to sell a medical device is extremely costly in terms of regulations and paperwork and testing. I spent less than a year in the medical device field and I would never go back. It is simply more costly to bring a medical device to market.
2. Lack of a 'good enough' mentality. When it comes to healthcare, all the health professionals and politicians and the public obsess over quality. Rarely does cost and access seem to enter their minds. Suppose someone was able to bring to market a general purpose hearing aid which was not custom tuned for you, but cost $100 and did a *good enough* job (hint... they exist). Do you think your doctor or medical professional is going to recommend you get that? Nope, they would lose business on the installation and fine tuning of the device. The reason costs go down in areas like computer is because of the good enough mentality. Yes, you can always pay extra and get the high quality one, but people can always opt for good enough. In many areas of healthcare, this is not popular and in many cases, illegal as the health care professionals and lobbyists ban competition under the name of quality.
3. Insurance often pays Insurance hides the cost from many people. Just like the in the auto sector, you can get a dent repaired for $1000 taking it to a private shop and paying without insurance... or you can tell them you have insurance and the cost magically jumps to $4000. And you are probably guilty to... because you would probably have the dent repaired at the dealer... maximizing your insurance claim. The same goes for healthcare devices. You will maximize your claim. The health professional wants to maximize your claim. The medical device manufacturers want you to maximize your claim....
Yes... annoyed customers are not happy customers. But that doesn't mean you can make good mobile ads.
When ads first hit the desktop, there were insanely annoying. Pop-ups everywhere, blinkers... then some like Google figured it out.
The same rules apply on the phone as they do to the web. Your ads must not be annoying and if possible, they must be useful.
Every Google search is a potential ad. Heck, there are times, I don't know where to buy something or don't know about competitors... and Google does the ads for it. Now, they need to get better at that...even on the desktop.
Just recently my umbrella failed me due to excessive winds. I was in the market for a new one. Perfect opportunity for Google to present me with good ads and sales for my region. Wasn't very useful though...Why is Google showing me ads for WIND mobile? But the potential is there. I did eventually click on some gustbuster link... I'm guessing google gets some money from that.
The same goes for mobile use. They can figure out a way... especially for searches and localization. Targeted advertising has huge potential even if they don't do much personal information. Just what you searched for and your location could be huge.
There's even money for the mobile device makers... and not just Google. As you say due to real-estate, it might be hard to just show ads. So maybe instead of Gmail going through your mail for ads, your OS (iphone, android. Windows phone...) does some analysis and can provide you with notifications in a their app / os in a mobile optimized way.
Sure, in theory, students might learn more by doing labs or projects. Which is all fine and dandy.
Except lets look at how the results of testing are used
1. Admission to universities. How do you determine who gets into which program? Just let everyone in? Subjective measures based on the teachers input? Subjectivity rarely works on any large scale.
2. Admission to professions. Follow up the chain in terms of educational credentials. Who gets to be a doctor, lawyer, nurse...
3. Now some libertarian might argue... yes.. just let everyone be anything and let the market work it out. Sure, that would work in a libertarian paradise. But not in a world where government provides a lot of services and regulates it. Want universal healthcare? Who gets to be a doctor and get paid from the government purse?
Rote learning might suck, but if you can't learn it by rote, you're
1. not smart enough 2. not hardworking or conforming enough to work in our institutionalized and regulated society.
Well no. Something out there has to bring out the risks associated with sea level rises.
1. You could legislate it from the government level. Basically prevent business and people from taking risks by building on the shore. It's a bit safer this way but also a loss of opportunity.
2. You let people make their choices and let the 'market' handle risk. I don't use the 'market' in any sarcastic manner here. Insurance in this case will be the dominant market force. Sure, build near the cost. The insurance company will do the risk analysis and increase your premium if the risk of floods or other natural disasters are too high. So you can choose to build on the shore, but it might up being a horrible purchase as your insurance claims will be too high.
It's actually a very good thing if insurance premiums rake folks over the coals for building int he one meter zone. That's the cost of risk. That's what people mean when they say 'let the market' work it out.
Now that rarely happens. Normally people cry to the government to stop the proper pricing of risk. Or insurance companies cry to the government because they can't pay what they actually insured, or you end up with government mandating insurance so people aren't free to take risk and just eat their losses... All kinds of weird twisted things happen.
Absolutely. I'm of Indian descent... living in Canada. Canadians suffer from this 'we have no culture'.
I honestly don't get it.
How is an Indian sari any more cultural than a white wedding dress? How are Indian songs any more cultural than a Britney Spears pop song? This one always gets me. I guess if you don't know the language you might think they are saying something meaningful... but in reality Indian songs have about as much depth as your average pop song. How are samosas any more cultural than hotdogs or hamburgers?
And that is all just superficial culture.
There's more lifestyle culture as well. How are kids staying in multi-generational homes with their parents any more cultural than the living on your own culture?
Never does this astound me more than when Canadians or Americans talk about Europe... as if Europe has culture. Sure it has old buildings... but the people in Europe have the same culture as Americans. I remember walking through the street of Paris after university. The one thing that stuck with me the most was that everywhere I went, they played American music. That Usher song (tododo) was playing everywhere.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are different levels of culture. Some cultures are more refined than others. And I can see parts of America that are grossly uncultured... being don't seem to have any way of life.
But anyways... that's just my view as an outsider.
Again, largely theoretical. It also complicates the purchasing experience. There's also the issue of client applications. How do you detect them? How do you make sure they are obeying their protocol? What if a user intends to throttle bit torrent traffic thinking it is for downloads... but this accidentally hits their World of Warcraft traffic too? And of course the complexity of traffic shaping added into the whole mix.
I don't really know of any proper solution for the mass market.
At one time I thought a simple rule like ISPs can only throttle the user... not per application would be best.
But I don't know. In the end, it is just complicated. I think we'll probably end up with some general rules, as well as a regulatory body to oversee what throttling policies are in use and if they violate monopoly.
Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.
Yes, you want to make sure monopolies don't exploit their position. BUT, you also you want to make sure the ISPs are capable of managing their network.
I've worked in the telecom equipment space, and the issue is complex. Attitudes that say things "Don't block or throttle anything" don't jive well when actually trying to provide service.
Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
So would it not make sense for ISPs to prioritize such traffic above others? To some people this violates net neutrality. I think its a reasonable think to have a discussion on.
Theoretically, you could complicate the entire purchasing experience by having people purchase bands for real time data and modify clients to take advantage of those things, but again... now you're introducing crazy complexity in what used to be a simple purchase.
It's not as simple as saying we want net neutrality. It's getting into the nitty gritty of the actual laws that is complicated.
Well they didn't say culturally enough, because so much of our society ignores culture. In reality, culture is extremely dominant in our life.
Where this has been grossly distorted is in the progressive culture; on both the left and right; which seeks to prove their culture correct by claiming the mantle of science.
We ask ourselves what is the 'public good'. Now, everyone has a different definition of the public good. The public good is based on values, whatever they might be. The Islamist thinks the public good is to make the public sphere more Islamic. The egalitarians think reducing income inequality is for the public good. The capitalists, think generating wealth is for the public good. The libertarians think freedom is for the public good.
The progressives have long believed they could avoid these silly public good debates if people just trusted in science. Science will tell us the public good. Evidence-based policy they claim.
Yet, in reality, progressives will rarely subject their core ideas to evidence based policy; nor do they base their public good ideas on scientific policy. Everything stems from values anyways.
The example I often come up against is the idea of healthcare. I'm Canadian and when seeking cures to the funding of our healthcare system, all the progressives I meet sit around saying how we need prevention. Prevention will save us money. Stop people from smoking and being obese. That's the key.
Then when you point out that pretty much all the studies show that most of the healthcare costs occur in old age in the last years of life and that generally speaking, unhealthy people die younger and actually save the healthcare system money, they refuse to believe the available science.
The progressives are at the end of the day just like every other cultural group in society. They have a vague value-based ideology that they try and push on society and attain power.
This makes progressives a very dangerous threat to the scientific community, because they claim the mantle of science as their basis.
Lastly, note... I speak of progressive culture. I don't care what a 'pure progressive' is. I'm sure there are intellectually honest progressives and intellectually honest libertarians and intellectually honest communists...
These academics have created it a forgone conclusion that global warming is such a great threat demanding urgent action beyond almost any other concern. That is their belief in the public good and that is ultimately all that matters. They refuse to balance it with all the other concerns people have in life (healthcare spending, education, freedom, political stability, democracy...)
A bit long... but yes, culture is EVERYTHING. We don't speak about it enough.
While Facebook is no doubt technology and very useful, there is point lurking in the article.
There is 'shallow' innovation and 'deep' innovation.
Deep innovation requires very specific knowledge and advanced study. I can't just wake up one day and decide to build a CPU company or GPU. I know the basics, but I have no idea where to start with manufacturing it, advanced optimizations... to make it a useful product. Similarly with the example in the article... that of advanced drugs.
'Shallow' innovation is something a decently intelligent person can grasp in short time. Websites like Facebook are just that. Most of us could build Facebook. Most of us didn't of course, but we could have.
I want to emphasize, I'm not saying shallow innovation is bad. Shallow innovation is good. I only use the word shallow in relation to the depth of knowledge needed to reasonably enter the field.
Now if investors can make money on such shallow innovation, they're not likely to invest in the deep innovation. A valid point I think... but not one we can do much about. It's more a reflection of what is needed now in terms of the market and the lack of long term profits in long term R&D.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 0
Life is always a two way steak.
Yes, companies have changed... if your view for the worse. But employees are also changed.
Today is the IPO of Facebook. There's a link there. The link between the decline in the long-term innovative company and the innovative-startup culture.
I tell my tech-friends. It is a two-way streak. It's an odd worldview that we cheer the startup culture and the innovation economy... while at the same time complaining about the modern company as you do.
Life is about trade offs. And we have traded stable boring R&D for rapid innovation and profits.
Perhaps it was a good trade. Perhaps not.
Perhaps the startup culture was merely a response to the old boring R&D being thrown out in favor of crazy profiteering business.
You ask about the long-term? Well maybe you haven't noticed the new government model of innovation. The long term is handled by the public sector and universities getting public funds to do research. The private sector runs on short term and fights to the death for the best products. This way progressives think we get the best of both worlds. We get rapid innovation and long term R&D.
It just sucks to be a private sector worker who doesn't hit it big in the rapid innovation part.
You can have a problem with patents in general. I have no issue there. Abolish all patents. That would treat all industries the same.
Or prove somehow that the software industry is very unique... and then you can create an exception for it.
For example... the right to bare arms extends to all new weapons in so far as the rule of law should be concerned.
This doesn't mean that you can't create exceptions. A nuclear bomb is significantly different than a gun given the potential damage. You can create a law banning personal possession of a nuclear bomb given how different it is from a gun.
The goal of the law is always to treat each industry the same. I don't see a developed country where this is not the goal.
There are exceptions and people rightfully make a complaint out of it. Whether it is agricultural subsidies or military spending... Sometimes it just justified... other times not so much.
The more it ventures into treating sector differently, the less your society is based on the rule of law.
That's the only point. There's a whole class of people who don't believe in the rule of law, but believe in discretion. They might think that's a better way, but let's not pretend that's consistent with the rule of law.
That's pretty dangerous ground you're operating on.
I think if you value a society based on the rule of law where every person/industry... is treated equally by law, the existence of patents in other industries should carry over to the software industry. You'd have to prove somehow that software is radically different than the rest of the industries.
The same goes for the other ways in which government operations (safety, quality, national security...). They all extend naturally to new industries.
As to justify itself... well... that's pretty easy to do. Pretty much any law can be justified. It's just a matter of who gets to judge the justification.
For example, I happen to think the startup culture is actually bad for long term scientific progress. It prevents science from being seen as a long term career, so who is going to invest in such a field? I think the period we're in right now is we're 'burning' through the last generation of people brought up in the more traditional company environment. It's one of the reasons most grad students in the sciences in the US are not US citizens. I don't believe it is because US citizens are not smart enough... it is that they rightfully see the field as not one worth such a long term investment. For the talent you have, you might as well be a doctor, nurse, teacher, finance person...
Now that's just my view and not the point of this post... I'm sure people have different views. I'd venture to say most would disagree with me... but what it shows is the amount of discretion in terms of justification. And the more discretion you have, the lower the rule of law is.
Given my experience in industry... there is little that differs from software. People who claim software patents are radically different... are generally people who just haven't seen chemical or hardware patents. They're just as obvious... as anything you'd complain about in the software realm. The only difference I'd say is that the companies involved in those other industries are used to the whole patent and licensing system. Partly because they are always used to charging for their products (they have to... they're made up of physical parts)... so the licensing is easily built into the cost. They're also more mature fields so there's less activity going on.
And its the same for everyone. Not just increases in gas prices. Blaming the oil crowd for beign selfish.
Let's check with our buddy Hansen here. I'm pretty sure he is quite well paid and well off. Now if we're facing 'global catastrophe' if we don't stop global warming, how much is he and all the AGW supporters willing to cough up to fight?
You know when floods happen, people get out of their homes and volunteer to sandbag to prevents their community from being destroyed.
Where are all the scientists and engineers willing to volunteer and work for less money so the government has more resources to give towards sustainable energy? Not to mention the army of people who could volunteer to manufacture and maintain this stuff?
Ill take the AGW seriously when they're willing to make some sacrifices for a cause they say is going to have serious global climate repercussions.
Until that time, ill continue to view global warming as something that is happening, but is something we'll deal with as it happens. Being Canadian, its so far been all good... much nicer weather this winter. It's not an emergency.
What is shows is that both parties have strong enough governance to actually know what crazy is. I know some may laugh at that. But it shows for example that the political democrats know how serious the fiscal situation is. The political republicans know how silly various social issues or ideologies are.
But they have to play to their voters, so they put forth proposals knowing they will be shot down.
I'm Canadian and I keep in touch with US policies. The one thing people miss about US politics... is that it is mainly a lot of noise and hoopla. Such as in this case of actively trying to block bills. Or the crazy political figures. But if you look at it as a whole, it functions just like any other large country.
I don't even think a third party will bring any big changes. I think the government the Americans elect actually reflects the American people. Even the George Bush years... when you actually look at policies... they weren't that out of line. Similarly, Obama is not out of line.
I see the same thing in Canada. Canadians love to think proportional representation or minority parties will somehow change government.
I just don't see it. You even look at countries with PR or lots of minority parties and in the big picture, they don't govern better or change the nature of politics.
Sure, it is *theoretically* possible for doctors to provide more, but they generally don't.
I'm in Canada and I'm on thyroid medication. Every single year:
I go to the doctor He orders the same blood test I take it The results come in. He uses a computer program to see the dosage required (I see the program) , and writes a prescription.
I could do this whole thing myself given that computer program and ability to prescribe myself. Well, a nurse could certainly do it and a pharmacist could certainly do it.
This is the case for most general practice. You simply don't need a family doctor for most things. A lesser health professional will do in most cases.
If there are complications, you will no doubt be referred to a specialist anyways.
I 100%, we need a new 'basic doctor'... or empower nurses or nurse practitioners more like they do in Washington State.
If engineers worked like doctors worked, you'd need a licensed professional engineer with a PhD to install a wireless router in your home.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... that is primarily because that generation has no identity... so they think they can find one in the city.
I don't blame them for not having an identity. It is the fault of society for not giving them one; for not teaching them in the school system what it means to be British or American or Canadian.
I live in the city, but not because I need to find myself or because it is more entertaining. I'm there purely to be close to work.
Urbanization won't give anyone an identity. That comes from within you and your relationship with people. Something small towns have, something suburbs have, and something cities have.
If you view suburbs as a cultural wasteland... chances are the city will disappoint as well... after the superficial activities are done.
Yes.
This is the fundamental problem.
The kids who have real issues are not going to be serviced by 'experts'. Their problems have more to do with social control and the home environment. I'd rather have an army of social workers, teaching assistants, and community nurses than 'expert' teachers. I say this as a teacher/engineer BTW.
Kids who are already smart and motivated... well... lets just say you don't have to do much. They learn on their own and rarely benefit from your expertise in a general classroom. Maybe in a gifted program or at the university level you need to enhance that kind of expertise.
So I think this a gross waste of resources that should be deployed elsewhere and it won't solve anything.
But this is all part of a variety of beliefs and narratives the population has that generally don't hold up to much scrutiny.
It's like them saying we have a shortage of skilled people. No you don't. You're actually laying many of them off and not paying them well relative to other professions in society.
Or they say things like R&D will support the new economy. Well jeez... maybe a small country can support itself with innovation. But a large one in a globalized world? There's just not that much innovation work to do. The US already does so much of the world's commercial innovation and profits immensely from it. If the US is still in deficits while already exporting so much technology, innovation will not fix our economy. Especially as the world catches up.
Or even healthcare. Almost all studies show that most healthcare costs occur near the end of life. Something like 70% of the healthcare costs occur on people who are going to die in the next few years. But they keep ranting about how prevention will fix healthcare... not it won't. Of the few studies to actually look at it found healthy people cost more as they live long and spend more time in old age (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/02/05/unhealthy-study.html). The simplest and most effective way to fix healthcare costs is to admit we're going to die and ration care at old age / have palliative care.
But of course most of these narratives have one thing in common... they help enrich a special interest group while stifling resources from programs that will actually solve the problem. In this case, teacher unions are Obamas favorite pet group.
No, I'd rather see it going to people without jobs or menial jobs so the money is more distributed.
Teachers make a decent living in most states. To spend more on them (or police officers...) or anyone else in the public sector with a job is immoral as far as I'm concerned.
It seems so much of the article can be summed by a very simple business statement.
"Give the customer what they want"
(yes... sometimes the customer themselves doesn't know what they want until you give it to them)
Microsoft's early success was all about giving the customer what they wanted. Windows 95 gave people a GUI with DOS with pretty low requirements. I remember trying to toss on some Linux distros on older hardware... and none performed as well Windows 95. Now yes, Windows 95 made a lot of sacrifices to make it speedy... but it was what the customer wanted. Office scripting/VBS are along the same lines, but it worked.
Microsoft's lost decade I think is kind of unique... in that they forgot about this. They began focusing on things outside of providing for the customer. Some of it actually needed from a technical standpoint (gutting/rewriting legacy stuff). But much of it not.
For Vista, where was the demand for a database file system? They also focused too much on making things work with Windows or giving them a Windows feel. All things customers really don't care about. The initial windows smart phones complete with start menu... seems so silly now.
"So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions..."
Homeschooling is great in a libertarian society... which doesn't happen to be the world we live in.
Do tell me who gets to be a doctor in your homeschooled education? How do you get admission to medical school without grades? Do you want medical school without grades?
That is the point you're missing. Grades are not 100% about the making the student better. They are used in the greater context of society.
No, any smart person who cannot pass a decent multiple choice test is either not very smart or not very hard working. Both of which are required to be successful and both are good values.
And most multiple choice tests aren't just about rote memorization. They often require thinking and analysis... but they only care if you get the answer right or wrong.
Well no, I think what has changed is that Microsoft doesn't need OEMs as much as they used to.
I could be wrong on my computer history here, but I think the rise of the contract manufacturer like FoxConn has replaced the need for an OEM. These guys offer cheap pricing, rapid turn around, and build just about everything...
Not to mention most people don't go to the local supply shop to build a computer. Computers are mass produced these days and you can barely beat the price at BestBuy or others. Microsoft can easily deal with these larger players.
So what value does a Dell or HP offer anymore?
At best, they offer supply chain management and business contracts.
The business contracts will be driven by business needs for servicing... which means HP and others will still work with MS in that area. Not to mention Microsofts own arsenal of business services.
Supply chain management can be tricky. Here again, companies like FoxConn reduce the risk with rapid turn around. As well Microsoft has built some expertise here with their experience with the XBox... and they have a huge cash base to make some mistakes in this area.
Sure... and how do you grade projects. How do you revamp the system?
It is insanely easy to find flaws in anything. Now try working out a solution.
Having gone through university in Canada... I cannot comprehend how anyone advocates project based testing. Projects are the easiest to copy, team up with a smart person who does all the work...
No doubt, some will say... but the teacher should create new and innovative projects every single year and keep an eye on their students. Yeah... good luck with that. Try being a teacher with a large number of students and keeping an eye on all of them and making every project unique.
It ain't gonna happen.
So long as grades are required, things like standardized tests are essential for objective testing. Grades are required to determine who gets into which program, who gets what job, who gets into professions...
Standardized choice are a basic testing requirement. All the 'smart' kids I knew who had decent work ethic all did well on the standardized choice test. It isn't a guarantee of success and it might seem tedious and bothersome... but they are a bare minimum to determine success.
"Somewhere in the middle, a resonably free enterprise system with some government sponsored investment and a public safety net is where you're going to get the best overal quality of life over the span of decades."
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
I'm not arguing for either capitalism or socialism... but taking two systems and mixing them doesn't automatically make the best system.
Classic car analogy coming up:
If two sides want to build a car.
One side wants a hummer for its ruggedness and carrying capacity.
The other side wants a small Civic for its fuel economy and agility.
Compromising by taking the body of Hummer with the engine of a Civic isn't going to be a better compromise.
As a matter of fact, you'll end up with a car that is worse than either the Hummer or Civic on its own.
If I were to place my bets... I would actually bet on the end of the mixed-market economy. Let's remember, we're dealing with a fairly short time span here. The modern mixed-market economy is only 50 years old at the most... and I would argue has been completely financed via debt and economic growth... both of which can't grow forever and we're seeing it unravel.
My bets on the future are either a more libertarian future or a heavily socialized/protectionist one.
1. It is a highly regulated field. To be able to sell a medical device is extremely costly in terms of regulations and paperwork and testing. I spent less than a year in the medical device field and I would never go back. It is simply more costly to bring a medical device to market.
2. Lack of a 'good enough' mentality. When it comes to healthcare, all the health professionals and politicians and the public obsess over quality. Rarely does cost and access seem to enter their minds. Suppose someone was able to bring to market a general purpose hearing aid which was not custom tuned for you, but cost $100 and did a *good enough* job (hint... they exist). Do you think your doctor or medical professional is going to recommend you get that? Nope, they would lose business on the installation and fine tuning of the device. The reason costs go down in areas like computer is because of the good enough mentality. Yes, you can always pay extra and get the high quality one, but people can always opt for good enough. In many areas of healthcare, this is not popular and in many cases, illegal as the health care professionals and lobbyists ban competition under the name of quality.
3. Insurance often pays
Insurance hides the cost from many people. Just like the in the auto sector, you can get a dent repaired for $1000 taking it to a private shop and paying without insurance... or you can tell them you have insurance and the cost magically jumps to $4000. And you are probably guilty to... because you would probably have the dent repaired at the dealer... maximizing your insurance claim. The same goes for healthcare devices. You will maximize your claim. The health professional wants to maximize your claim. The medical device manufacturers want you to maximize your claim....
Yes... annoyed customers are not happy customers. But that doesn't mean you can make good mobile ads.
When ads first hit the desktop, there were insanely annoying. Pop-ups everywhere, blinkers... then some like Google figured it out.
The same rules apply on the phone as they do to the web. Your ads must not be annoying and if possible, they must be useful.
Every Google search is a potential ad. Heck, there are times, I don't know where to buy something or don't know about competitors... and Google does the ads for it. Now, they need to get better at that.. .even on the desktop.
Just recently my umbrella failed me due to excessive winds. I was in the market for a new one. Perfect opportunity for Google to present me with good ads and sales for my region. Wasn't very useful though...Why is Google showing me ads for WIND mobile? But the potential is there. I did eventually click on some gustbuster link... I'm guessing google gets some money from that.
The same goes for mobile use. They can figure out a way... especially for searches and localization. Targeted advertising has huge potential even if they don't do much personal information. Just what you searched for and your location could be huge.
There's even money for the mobile device makers... and not just Google. As you say due to real-estate, it might be hard to just show ads. So maybe instead of Gmail going through your mail for ads, your OS (iphone, android. Windows phone...) does some analysis and can provide you with notifications in a their app / os in a mobile optimized way.
I read all the 5 comments until I found this.
Sure, in theory, students might learn more by doing labs or projects. Which is all fine and dandy.
Except lets look at how the results of testing are used
1. Admission to universities. How do you determine who gets into which program? Just let everyone in? Subjective measures based on the teachers input? Subjectivity rarely works on any large scale.
2. Admission to professions. Follow up the chain in terms of educational credentials. Who gets to be a doctor, lawyer, nurse...
3. Now some libertarian might argue... yes.. just let everyone be anything and let the market work it out. Sure, that would work in a libertarian paradise. But not in a world where government provides a lot of services and regulates it. Want universal healthcare? Who gets to be a doctor and get paid from the government purse?
Rote learning might suck, but if you can't learn it by rote, you're
1. not smart enough
2. not hardworking or conforming enough to work in our institutionalized and regulated society.
Well no.
Something out there has to bring out the risks associated with sea level rises.
1. You could legislate it from the government level. Basically prevent business and people from taking risks by building on the shore. It's a bit safer this way but also a loss of opportunity.
2. You let people make their choices and let the 'market' handle risk. I don't use the 'market' in any sarcastic manner here. Insurance in this case will be the dominant market force. Sure, build near the cost. The insurance company will do the risk analysis and increase your premium if the risk of floods or other natural disasters are too high. So you can choose to build on the shore, but it might up being a horrible purchase as your insurance claims will be too high.
It's actually a very good thing if insurance premiums rake folks over the coals for building int he one meter zone. That's the cost of risk. That's what people mean when they say 'let the market' work it out.
Now that rarely happens. Normally people cry to the government to stop the proper pricing of risk. Or insurance companies cry to the government because they can't pay what they actually insured, or you end up with government mandating insurance so people aren't free to take risk and just eat their losses... All kinds of weird twisted things happen.
Absolutely. I'm of Indian descent... living in Canada. Canadians suffer from this 'we have no culture'.
I honestly don't get it.
How is an Indian sari any more cultural than a white wedding dress?
How are Indian songs any more cultural than a Britney Spears pop song? This one always gets me. I guess if you don't know the language you might think they are saying something meaningful... but in reality Indian songs have about as much depth as your average pop song.
How are samosas any more cultural than hotdogs or hamburgers?
And that is all just superficial culture.
There's more lifestyle culture as well. How are kids staying in multi-generational homes with their parents any more cultural than the living on your own culture?
Never does this astound me more than when Canadians or Americans talk about Europe... as if Europe has culture. Sure it has old buildings... but the people in Europe have the same culture as Americans. I remember walking through the street of Paris after university. The one thing that stuck with me the most was that everywhere I went, they played American music. That Usher song (tododo) was playing everywhere.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are different levels of culture. Some cultures are more refined than others. And I can see parts of America that are grossly uncultured... being don't seem to have any way of life.
But anyways... that's just my view as an outsider.
Again, largely theoretical. It also complicates the purchasing experience. There's also the issue of client applications. How do you detect them? How do you make sure they are obeying their protocol? What if a user intends to throttle bit torrent traffic thinking it is for downloads... but this accidentally hits their World of Warcraft traffic too? And of course the complexity of traffic shaping added into the whole mix.
I don't really know of any proper solution for the mass market.
At one time I thought a simple rule like ISPs can only throttle the user... not per application would be best.
But I don't know. In the end, it is just complicated. I think we'll probably end up with some general rules, as well as a regulatory body to oversee what throttling policies are in use and if they violate monopoly.
Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.
Yes, you want to make sure monopolies don't exploit their position. BUT, you also you want to make sure the ISPs are capable of managing their network.
I've worked in the telecom equipment space, and the issue is complex. Attitudes that say things "Don't block or throttle anything" don't jive well when actually trying to provide service.
Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
So would it not make sense for ISPs to prioritize such traffic above others? To some people this violates net neutrality. I think its a reasonable think to have a discussion on.
Theoretically, you could complicate the entire purchasing experience by having people purchase bands for real time data and modify clients to take advantage of those things, but again... now you're introducing crazy complexity in what used to be a simple purchase.
It's not as simple as saying we want net neutrality. It's getting into the nitty gritty of the actual laws that is complicated.
Well they didn't say culturally enough, because so much of our society ignores culture. In reality, culture is extremely dominant in our life.
Where this has been grossly distorted is in the progressive culture; on both the left and right; which seeks to prove their culture correct by claiming the mantle of science.
We ask ourselves what is the 'public good'. Now, everyone has a different definition of the public good. The public good is based on values, whatever they might be. The Islamist thinks the public good is to make the public sphere more Islamic. The egalitarians think reducing income inequality is for the public good. The capitalists, think generating wealth is for the public good. The libertarians think freedom is for the public good.
The progressives have long believed they could avoid these silly public good debates if people just trusted in science. Science will tell us the public good. Evidence-based policy they claim.
Yet, in reality, progressives will rarely subject their core ideas to evidence based policy; nor do they base their public good ideas on scientific policy. Everything stems from values anyways.
The example I often come up against is the idea of healthcare. I'm Canadian and when seeking cures to the funding of our healthcare system, all the progressives I meet sit around saying how we need prevention. Prevention will save us money. Stop people from smoking and being obese. That's the key.
Then when you point out that pretty much all the studies show that most of the healthcare costs occur in old age in the last years of life and that generally speaking, unhealthy people die younger and actually save the healthcare system money, they refuse to believe the available science.
"http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/02/05/unhealthy-study.html"
The progressives are at the end of the day just like every other cultural group in society. They have a vague value-based ideology that they try and push on society and attain power.
This makes progressives a very dangerous threat to the scientific community, because they claim the mantle of science as their basis.
Lastly, note... I speak of progressive culture. I don't care what a 'pure progressive' is. I'm sure there are intellectually honest progressives and intellectually honest libertarians and intellectually honest communists...
These academics have created it a forgone conclusion that global warming is such a great threat demanding urgent action beyond almost any other concern. That is their belief in the public good and that is ultimately all that matters. They refuse to balance it with all the other concerns people have in life (healthcare spending, education, freedom, political stability, democracy...)
A bit long... but yes, culture is EVERYTHING. We don't speak about it enough.
While Facebook is no doubt technology and very useful, there is point lurking in the article.
There is 'shallow' innovation and 'deep' innovation.
Deep innovation requires very specific knowledge and advanced study. I can't just wake up one day and decide to build a CPU company or GPU. I know the basics, but I have no idea where to start with manufacturing it, advanced optimizations... to make it a useful product. Similarly with the example in the article... that of advanced drugs.
'Shallow' innovation is something a decently intelligent person can grasp in short time. Websites like Facebook are just that. Most of us could build Facebook. Most of us didn't of course, but we could have.
I want to emphasize, I'm not saying shallow innovation is bad. Shallow innovation is good. I only use the word shallow in relation to the depth of knowledge needed to reasonably enter the field.
Now if investors can make money on such shallow innovation, they're not likely to invest in the deep innovation. A valid point I think... but not one we can do much about. It's more a reflection of what is needed now in terms of the market and the lack of long term profits in long term R&D.
Life is always a two way steak.
Yes, companies have changed... if your view for the worse.
But employees are also changed.
Today is the IPO of Facebook. There's a link there. The link between the decline in the long-term innovative company and the innovative-startup culture.
I tell my tech-friends. It is a two-way streak. It's an odd worldview that we cheer the startup culture and the innovation economy... while at the same time complaining about the modern company as you do.
Life is about trade offs. And we have traded stable boring R&D for rapid innovation and profits.
Perhaps it was a good trade. Perhaps not.
Perhaps the startup culture was merely a response to the old boring R&D being thrown out in favor of crazy profiteering business.
You ask about the long-term? Well maybe you haven't noticed the new government model of innovation. The long term is handled by the public sector and universities getting public funds to do research. The private sector runs on short term and fights to the death for the best products. This way progressives think we get the best of both worlds. We get rapid innovation and long term R&D.
It just sucks to be a private sector worker who doesn't hit it big in the rapid innovation part.
You can have a problem with patents in general. I have no issue there. Abolish all patents. That would treat all industries the same.
Or prove somehow that the software industry is very unique... and then you can create an exception for it.
For example... the right to bare arms extends to all new weapons in so far as the rule of law should be concerned.
This doesn't mean that you can't create exceptions. A nuclear bomb is significantly different than a gun given the potential damage. You can create a law banning personal possession of a nuclear bomb given how different it is from a gun.
That is the rule of law at work.
The goal of the law is always to treat each industry the same. I don't see a developed country where this is not the goal.
There are exceptions and people rightfully make a complaint out of it. Whether it is agricultural subsidies or military spending... Sometimes it just justified... other times not so much.
The more it ventures into treating sector differently, the less your society is based on the rule of law.
That's the only point. There's a whole class of people who don't believe in the rule of law, but believe in discretion. They might think that's a better way, but let's not pretend that's consistent with the rule of law.
That's pretty dangerous ground you're operating on.
I think if you value a society based on the rule of law where every person/industry... is treated equally by law, the existence of patents in other industries should carry over to the software industry. You'd have to prove somehow that software is radically different than the rest of the industries.
The same goes for the other ways in which government operations (safety, quality, national security...). They all extend naturally to new industries.
As to justify itself... well... that's pretty easy to do. Pretty much any law can be justified. It's just a matter of who gets to judge the justification.
For example, I happen to think the startup culture is actually bad for long term scientific progress. It prevents science from being seen as a long term career, so who is going to invest in such a field? I think the period we're in right now is we're 'burning' through the last generation of people brought up in the more traditional company environment. It's one of the reasons most grad students in the sciences in the US are not US citizens. I don't believe it is because US citizens are not smart enough... it is that they rightfully see the field as not one worth such a long term investment. For the talent you have, you might as well be a doctor, nurse, teacher, finance person...
Now that's just my view and not the point of this post... I'm sure people have different views. I'd venture to say most would disagree with me... but what it shows is the amount of discretion in terms of justification. And the more discretion you have, the lower the rule of law is.
Given my experience in industry... there is little that differs from software. People who claim software patents are radically different... are generally people who just haven't seen chemical or hardware patents. They're just as obvious... as anything you'd complain about in the software realm. The only difference I'd say is that the companies involved in those other industries are used to the whole patent and licensing system. Partly because they are always used to charging for their products (they have to... they're made up of physical parts)... so the licensing is easily built into the cost. They're also more mature fields so there's less activity going on.
And its the same for everyone. Not just increases in gas prices. Blaming the oil crowd for beign selfish.
Let's check with our buddy Hansen here. I'm pretty sure he is quite well paid and well off. Now if we're facing 'global catastrophe' if we don't stop global warming, how much is he and all the AGW supporters willing to cough up to fight?
You know when floods happen, people get out of their homes and volunteer to sandbag to prevents their community from being destroyed.
Where are all the scientists and engineers willing to volunteer and work for less money so the government has more resources to give towards sustainable energy?
Not to mention the army of people who could volunteer to manufacture and maintain this stuff?
Ill take the AGW seriously when they're willing to make some sacrifices for a cause they say is going to have serious global climate repercussions.
Until that time, ill continue to view global warming as something that is happening, but is something we'll deal with as it happens. Being Canadian, its so far been all good... much nicer weather this winter. It's not an emergency.
That is... in a very limited way... a good thing.
What is shows is that both parties have strong enough governance to actually know what crazy is. I know some may laugh at that. But it shows for example that the political democrats know how serious the fiscal situation is. The political republicans know how silly various social issues or ideologies are.
But they have to play to their voters, so they put forth proposals knowing they will be shot down.
I'm Canadian and I keep in touch with US policies. The one thing people miss about US politics... is that it is mainly a lot of noise and hoopla. Such as in this case of actively trying to block bills. Or the crazy political figures. But if you look at it as a whole, it functions just like any other large country.
I don't even think a third party will bring any big changes. I think the government the Americans elect actually reflects the American people. Even the George Bush years... when you actually look at policies... they weren't that out of line. Similarly, Obama is not out of line.
I see the same thing in Canada. Canadians love to think proportional representation or minority parties will somehow change government.
I just don't see it. You even look at countries with PR or lots of minority parties and in the big picture, they don't govern better or change the nature of politics.
Exactly.
Sure, it is *theoretically* possible for doctors to provide more, but they generally don't.
I'm in Canada and I'm on thyroid medication. Every single year:
I go to the doctor
He orders the same blood test
I take it
The results come in. He uses a computer program to see the dosage required (I see the program) , and writes a prescription.
I could do this whole thing myself given that computer program and ability to prescribe myself. Well, a nurse could certainly do it and a pharmacist could certainly do it.
This is the case for most general practice. You simply don't need a family doctor for most things. A lesser health professional will do in most cases.
If there are complications, you will no doubt be referred to a specialist anyways.
I 100%, we need a new 'basic doctor'... or empower nurses or nurse practitioners more like they do in Washington State.
If engineers worked like doctors worked, you'd need a licensed professional engineer with a PhD to install a wireless router in your home.
No it doesn't.
Mistake implies there was an error in the standard operation.
For example, suppose I want to go eat Bob's Burgers, so I use my GPS to take me there. But the GPS makes mistakes and I make a few wrong turns.
Now even though I didn't end up at Bob's Burgers... suppose I look around at find a new restaurant that is even better.
I might be very glad at where I ended up, but it doesn't change the fact that my GPS malfunctioned or made a mistake.
The mistake in this case, is in the genetic copying operation. That is it's purpose... and it screwed up.