It's really not that hard to discern quality, especially if we are talking about furniture or kitchen ware. Wood and metal are definitively sturdier than consumer plastics, and the fewer attachment points, the sturdier they are (say, a chair carved out of solid wood vs a chair fitted together from several parts, or a knife made from one piece of metal). And I mean "real" wood and metal here -- not aluminum or particle board or other pressed woods.
Ceramic and glass are also a good investment, unless you are really clumsy:)
Can you name some code that might illustrate this? It sounds interesting or at least amusing. I feel like I have come across really bad code in "simple" languages, code that would be easy to implement elegantly in a "complex" language, but I can't recall anything specific at the moment. I remember seeing a lot of truly bizarre code written in Apple BASIC back in the day (but then, some really cool hacks too).
No there isn't. But it does not follow that that screen will continue (?) to be most popularly found on a desktop PC than on a home media console. I couldn't confirm with a bit of Googling, but haven't PC gaming sales been on the decline for years? I'm not arguing for or against the merits of PC gaming vs console gaming, but I do wonder if the general populace hasn't spoken somewhat on that issue already (and they decide what hardware to buy).I really don't know, but that's the way I see it.
I think that is an argument for the death of desktops. I really don't see why people's lives will continue to evolve around "the desktop;" I really think people will continue to live mostly as they always have and that technology will evolve to suit peoples' lives, instead of the other way around, as we have now, while we still push a 40 year old paradigm of computer, the desktop being after all, merely a mainframe of yore (plus a killer graphics card) that sits on a desk.
Desktop tech now is merely the 80-column card ad nauseum;)
You would "rather have one relatively versatile box," but would most people? If you don't need a desktop, those devices combined do not more fill an apartment than a desk + desktop + monitor + keyboard+ mouse + webcam + etc... I know as a developer I will continue to need a desktop for a long time, but I do not see why the average user would need one.
I mean for instance, what is more efficient between what most people do with their desktops now as opposed to a (stylized) vt100? Or even the electric typewriter (with a larger screen)? What drives a person to type on a desktop more than a netbook, for average use? It is safe to say that most people type little more than emails or short messages. How is "the web" as we know it better than specialized information retrieval devices?
As a programmer, I know the desktop will serve me well into the future. But I don't see the appeal for the average user.
For what though? Movies and games perhaps, but I can't help thinking that those two applications are better suited to appliances designed for them... I'd really like to know!
In the long term, desktops will definitely be phased out of general-purpose uses. Most people use desktops as glorified typewriters and as web browsers. If there is a reason that desktops will continue to be the most efficient way for your average person to perform their everyday tasks, I fail to see it.
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay.
This is the legacy of humanity. Everything is built off others' work.
God is the universe (or more?), or as the Hindus call their Supreme God Head, Brahma: literally "Reality."
I'm not religious but some can be learnt, for good or ill, from the various faiths of the world.
Anyway, their is seriously only one entity -- Reality -- over which we and everything else are more or less a distribution of matter and energy (or who knows what more).
You probably think that's all poppycock, but I wondered...
there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves.
I would find that statement more credible if medical malpractice wasn't one of the top three killers in the US. I know that sounds like ravings from some loony, but it's not.
I can't wait to read the comments on this article. You can be sure of learning a lot. This is the kind of article I miss being featured on Slashdot more frequently.
I have to completely agree with you. I have somewhat of a background in music theory, and I tend to like a lot of "weird" music -- dissonance, noise, melding of genres, but too be frank Zappa is merely relying on novelty and silliness, rather than much ingenuity or creative vision. Not that a few of his pieces aren't interesting or even brilliant, but the majority of them are rather like sticking a kazoo up your ass and farting through it.
Some of those points are good, but not all of them. First of all, America might not be in the richest 1% of nations, but it certainly is in the top 4 to 8 nations, depending on whose data you use. Bear in mind that those figures are adjusted for cost of living. Furthermore, there is no reason we would have to drive all around the countryside to individual farmers to get their products. We had localist infrastructure until we started our love affair with McDonald's and TV dinners. Farmer's markets also work to solve this problem. Having food shipped to a number of surrounding cities and towns is far more efficient, in terms of shipping energy, than getting those products from across the globe. Hell, most grocery stores employ butchers, so the idea that we would have to go to a farm and butcher our own meat is a bit hyperbolic. Nothing wrong with doing that, but it's certainly not very convenient or efficient.
In conclusion, if people stopped eating cheap meat and other products imported from very far away, the producers wouldn't have incentive to produce more meat. That makes it an ethical/moral problem rather than an economical one. What is needed is an efficient, rational, ethical system that prioritizes low environmental impact and high quality over wanting to eat cheap crap so we can afford XBoxes, Wiis, big TV's, fast graphics cards, new cars, etc.
I agree with you that the most expedient way to deal with these problems is probably diplomatic. It's hard to change peoples' minds as quickly as they may need to be. On the other hand, I do not think your Library metaphor truly serves in this case. There are certainly many options outside of the Library that the world does not explore because our priorities are all wrong.
Well, off the top of my head, "localism" or "regionalism" is desirable for a number reasons -- less fuel spent moving the product to its point of sale, less reliance on import, fresher, higher quality and more nutritious products, etc. I mean, sure, it could take radical change, maybe -- eating less meat and junk food, forgoing fast food, grow-your-own type operations, co-ops, using sustainable wood or wood alternatives like bamboo, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really not that hard to discern quality, especially if we are talking about furniture or kitchen ware. Wood and metal are definitively sturdier than consumer plastics, and the fewer attachment points, the sturdier they are (say, a chair carved out of solid wood vs a chair fitted together from several parts, or a knife made from one piece of metal). And I mean "real" wood and metal here -- not aluminum or particle board or other pressed woods. Ceramic and glass are also a good investment, unless you are really clumsy :)
Can you name some code that might illustrate this? It sounds interesting or at least amusing. I feel like I have come across really bad code in "simple" languages, code that would be easy to implement elegantly in a "complex" language, but I can't recall anything specific at the moment. I remember seeing a lot of truly bizarre code written in Apple BASIC back in the day (but then, some really cool hacks too).
No there isn't. But it does not follow that that screen will continue (?) to be most popularly found on a desktop PC than on a home media console. I couldn't confirm with a bit of Googling, but haven't PC gaming sales been on the decline for years? I'm not arguing for or against the merits of PC gaming vs console gaming, but I do wonder if the general populace hasn't spoken somewhat on that issue already (and they decide what hardware to buy).I really don't know, but that's the way I see it.
Sure, but that is a specialized application. The average user is not a graphic designer.
I think that is an argument for the death of desktops. I really don't see why people's lives will continue to evolve around "the desktop;" I really think people will continue to live mostly as they always have and that technology will evolve to suit peoples' lives, instead of the other way around, as we have now, while we still push a 40 year old paradigm of computer, the desktop being after all, merely a mainframe of yore (plus a killer graphics card) that sits on a desk.
;)
Desktop tech now is merely the 80-column card ad nauseum
No, not mobility. Just specialization whether it's mobile or not.
I agree with you. My stance is that the average user is not a person who must type frequently and at length. I don't know; it's just conjecture.
If "the web" as we know it is around in 10 years, I would feel like we as the tech community had slacked off.
You would "rather have one relatively versatile box," but would most people? If you don't need a desktop, those devices combined do not more fill an apartment than a desk + desktop + monitor + keyboard+ mouse + webcam + etc... I know as a developer I will continue to need a desktop for a long time, but I do not see why the average user would need one.
I mean for instance, what is more efficient between what most people do with their desktops now as opposed to a (stylized) vt100? Or even the electric typewriter (with a larger screen)? What drives a person to type on a desktop more than a netbook, for average use? It is safe to say that most people type little more than emails or short messages. How is "the web" as we know it better than specialized information retrieval devices?
As a programmer, I know the desktop will serve me well into the future. But I don't see the appeal for the average user.
For what though? Movies and games perhaps, but I can't help thinking that those two applications are better suited to appliances designed for them... I'd really like to know!
In the long term, desktops will definitely be phased out of general-purpose uses. Most people use desktops as glorified typewriters and as web browsers. If there is a reason that desktops will continue to be the most efficient way for your average person to perform their everyday tasks, I fail to see it.
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay.
This is the legacy of humanity. Everything is built off others' work.
Sir, I have 1999 on the phone. They're calling in regards to wanting their cracker catchphrases back.
Or Brahman, even. Or the Tao, maybe. "The Way." That part of human Reason that doesn't understand names. Anyway...
God is the universe (or more?), or as the Hindus call their Supreme God Head, Brahma: literally "Reality."
I'm not religious but some can be learnt, for good or ill, from the various faiths of the world.
Anyway, their is seriously only one entity -- Reality -- over which we and everything else are more or less a distribution of matter and energy (or who knows what more).
You probably think that's all poppycock, but I wondered...
there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves.
I would find that statement more credible if medical malpractice wasn't one of the top three killers in the US. I know that sounds like ravings from some loony, but it's not.
I can't wait to read the comments on this article. You can be sure of learning a lot. This is the kind of article I miss being featured on Slashdot more frequently.
The moderation on this comment pretty much proves my point.
It is saddening that regionalism/classism is so prevalent among Slashdotters.
I have to completely agree with you. I have somewhat of a background in music theory, and I tend to like a lot of "weird" music -- dissonance, noise, melding of genres, but too be frank Zappa is merely relying on novelty and silliness, rather than much ingenuity or creative vision. Not that a few of his pieces aren't interesting or even brilliant, but the majority of them are rather like sticking a kazoo up your ass and farting through it.
Some of those points are good, but not all of them. First of all, America might not be in the richest 1% of nations, but it certainly is in the top 4 to 8 nations, depending on whose data you use. Bear in mind that those figures are adjusted for cost of living. Furthermore, there is no reason we would have to drive all around the countryside to individual farmers to get their products. We had localist infrastructure until we started our love affair with McDonald's and TV dinners. Farmer's markets also work to solve this problem. Having food shipped to a number of surrounding cities and towns is far more efficient, in terms of shipping energy, than getting those products from across the globe. Hell, most grocery stores employ butchers, so the idea that we would have to go to a farm and butcher our own meat is a bit hyperbolic. Nothing wrong with doing that, but it's certainly not very convenient or efficient.
In conclusion, if people stopped eating cheap meat and other products imported from very far away, the producers wouldn't have incentive to produce more meat. That makes it an ethical/moral problem rather than an economical one. What is needed is an efficient, rational, ethical system that prioritizes low environmental impact and high quality over wanting to eat cheap crap so we can afford XBoxes, Wiis, big TV's, fast graphics cards, new cars, etc.
I agree with you that the most expedient way to deal with these problems is probably diplomatic. It's hard to change peoples' minds as quickly as they may need to be. On the other hand, I do not think your Library metaphor truly serves in this case. There are certainly many options outside of the Library that the world does not explore because our priorities are all wrong.
Well, off the top of my head, "localism" or "regionalism" is desirable for a number reasons -- less fuel spent moving the product to its point of sale, less reliance on import, fresher, higher quality and more nutritious products, etc. I mean, sure, it could take radical change, maybe -- eating less meat and junk food, forgoing fast food, grow-your-own type operations, co-ops, using sustainable wood or wood alternatives like bamboo, etc.
You miss the point that they are largely deforesting to supply demand in other parts of the world -- whether its for "cheap" agriculture, wood, etc.
The thing is, we are not facing any extreme temperature-like metaphor. We are sacrificing them for our own comfort, not for our survival.