I'd have a hard time identifying a legitimate climate skeptic because my background is in astrophysics rather than climatology. (Simply put, I could critque anything based upon solar flux but not much else.) That said, I have seen legitimate and illegitimate critics in terms of astrophysics. The former do a pretty good job at advancing the science, even though their message takes longer to propagate than it should. Then again, that is probably more of a defence mechanism against poor ideas than anything else. The illegitimage critics are typically ignored, and do nothing for or against the science. Then again, astrophysics is mostly apoltical, while climatology is very politicized. In that case the illigitimate critics seem to have more weight than they have earned.
I was in unusual circumstances a few years back, which made social gaming not only necessary but desirable. (Necessary in the respect that there were very few alternatives for socialization, since we were working in an isolated area.)
I learned an important lesson from that: accessible multiplayer games can be a lot of fun. The only requirement is that there are a bunch of people in a room, and that those people want to have a good time. Once the games become online multiplayer, the lack of face-to-face interaction removes huge chunk of the fun. Once the games become too complex, skilled players do all of the winning and novices do all of the losing. (And how many people have fun when they are consistently losing?)
Now I can't speak for Ouya since I've never used the platform, but Nintendo did a good job of it with the Wii. From what I've seen of Android games, developers have done a good job of creating accessible games. (But since I've only ever played Android games on tablets, I don't know what face-to-face multiplayer is like.)
Older workers frequently have a better work-ethic in the workplace, and have more experience to draw upon. Younger workers have a better work-ethic in terms of the amount of time they are willing to dedicate to work and frequently (but not always) contribute new ideas.
What it seems to come down to is: do you want experienced workers who will contribute more per hour, but who will also draw a firm line between their work and personal life, or a young worker who is willing to put in the extra time, even though a lot of their time will be spent relearning what a more experience worker already knows?
I suppose software development also has other factors. Some products depends upon experienced developers (e.g. anything considered mission critical) while other products depend upon fresh ideas (e.g. most software targetted at consumers).
Has there been a corresponding increase in service? By that I mean the number of channels delivered for the given tier, since cable companies usually pay the broadcaster a certain rate per channel.
(I don't subscribe to cable, so I don't know how things have changed over the decade since I've left home.)
It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
Try to find strong or independent "princesses" that can serve as positive role models and encourage her to express her interests in constructive and creative ways.
This doesn't mean that you should give in to her desires. You should be taking away toys that create destructive images of womanhood (impossible body image, subservience to the patriarchy, etc.). On the other hand, forcing a child to be what you expect of them is equally destructive.
I would be hesitant about classifying him as a 'grumpy old man.' As the interview pointed out, he does use more modern software for non-writing tasks. He simply chooses to use an older computer for his writing because it does what he needs and it doesn't interfere with his work.
The thing with new computers, as with any other technology, is that they have benefits and drawbacks. Writers commonly cite distractions as a problem. These include everything from the urge to edit or format their writing to early, to temptations like the Internet. (Heck, some readers prefer printed books and dedicated ereaders to avoid distractions.) In other cases, writers don't want to mess with their workflow once they have figured out something that works. None of this involves being a grumpy old man, anti-technology, or whatever else you choose to label it as.
The other thing is that we're talking about production machines here. Many people avoid upgrading production machines because there is a lot of overhead to deal with. For example, turning off all of those features is something that you may have to perform with each software upgrade and it is almost certainly something that you have to perform with each hardware upgrade. If you are in the middle of a project, or picking up on an old project, data must be transferred between machines (in the case of hardware upgrades) and there may be issues with the portability of your files between different versions of the software (in the case of software upgrades). While the latter probably isn't an issue for a novelist upgrading between versions of their word processor, it is certainly true for an author who is switching word processors (which Martin would have had to do at some point if he wanted to stay current) and it is true for people who create more complex documents.
Now if Martin was griping about his publisher being unable to handle WordStar documents while expressing a fear of modern computers, you may have a point. The thing is, he isn't. Something tells me that the people who are translating his writing into a book aren't complaining about this quirk either -- if for no other reason than Martin's success.
The most important thing is to gain employment experience before you graduate, and the more the better. If at all possible, get a job that is somehow related to your career objectives. This will help you gain experince, find direction, and develop relationships that will help you later on. If that fails, try to find work that will have skills that are transferrable to your desired industry. Even mundane office work will allow you to acquire the skills required of technical workers, even if those are soft skills (e.g. how to interact with managers). If that fails, take anything -- but continue to look for something that will lead you down the career path that you desire.
The reality of the matter is that the hardest part of starting your career is entering the job market. Part of that is just getting people to recognise that you exist, but part of it is being able to function in the workplace. Businesses are far more likely to look at you if they already know who you are, see that you have relevant experience, or know that you can function in the workplace (e.g. interact with colleagues, can take initiative, have a good work ethic, etc.). Unfortunately a fresh college graduate with little work experience only touches upon those with their schooling. On the other hand a fresh college graduate with four years of work experience has a much more solid foundation.
As with others, I do see teaching programming in the early grades as a bit counter productive. However, teaching problem solving skills at an early age is valuable. Furthermore, using code to teach problem solving skills offers opportunities for visualizing problems. While that isn't useful for all learners, it is certainly useful for some learners.
There is something else that we should consider. Computers are going to be introduced into the curriculum whether we agree with it or not. Some of that is going to be the perception of keeping the curriculum relevant or to appear progressive. Some of that is going to be due to slick sales pitches from educational publishers, both of the textbook and software variety. If we go around nay-saying this, we are very much removing our voice from the table. Rather, we ought to be looking at what we want education to gain from the introduction of technology and to try to steer the education system away from counterproductive implementations. (For example: focus upon transferrable skills rather than pandering to industry interests.)
You can still do that with Arduino boards. The ATmega is socketed on the Uno, so you can pop it out and place it on your own board when it is time to deploy. In the case of surface mount chips, you can still use the Arduino when prototyping and program the chip on your own board when it comes time to deploy.
The benefits are tremendous. You have a standard platform for prototyping and most of the debugging. Since there is nothing "magical" about the Arduino (e.g. expensive supporting circuitry or proprietary libraries that are difficult to incorporate outside of the standard development tools), it is also easy to build compact and inexpensive circuits when it comes time to deploy.
All of this technology is great, especially if you focus upon the stuff that will make actual improvements in the quality of life and ignore the fluff. Yet most of the cities that I've lived in have management problems rather than technological problems. These problems include the failure to make decisions, the failure to do proper planning before implementation, the failure to communicate between (or even within) departments, and the failure to allocate resources. And all of those failure assume city managers are making an honest effort to fulfill their responsibilities. In reality you have to also factor in everything from sloth, to corruption, to over-zealousness.
While some of those issues can be diminished by the technology behind "smart cities", none of those issues can actually be solved with technology.
Though the article does note that this is the case for a lot of people, but the big advantage of reading over other media (e.g. audio or video) is that reading is self-pacing. When reading information rich texts, it allows me to gloss over details that I already know while focusing upon details that I don't. When I'm in a lousy state of mind (e.g. having difficulty concentrating due to lack of sleep or external concerns) it allows me to slow down. When I'm in a good state of mind (e.g. I'm motivated to read the text or am well rested) it allows me to speed up.
Simply put: I read rather than watch or listen because my mind is in control of the flow of information.
Until we can make vast improvements in launcher reliability, perhaps we should stick to 1960's technology for that aspect of space exploration. Getting off of and back onto Earth's surface is an extraordinarily difficult task and it will remain so for the decades to come.
Rather, in my opinion, we should be focusing upon building infrastructure in and beyond Earth orbit so that we can get people into space for longer durations. The infrastructure that we do develop needs to be fully repairable and upgradable in space, rather than retired after a relatively short duration. Simply put, it is too expensive (in terms of energy and dollars) to transport materials into orbit only to dump those materials back into Earth's atmosphere a decade or two later.
Once we get the foundations in place, developing reusable launchers will be necessary. Hopefully they will also be much more viable by that point in time.
That means things like learning how to manage your money: learning what is a necessary and unnecessary expense, learning how to shop for bargains, learning how to do things for yourself in order to save money (e.g. cooking), learning tricks to reduces bills (e.g. heating), learning how to share resources, and so forth.
I've seen many students complain about how poor they are. Yet they were spending money like their parents were spending money, which was fine for the parents because they had a lifetime to establish themselves financially (e.g. good paying job, accrued assets). Worse yet, some were spending money like they were still living with their parents (i.e. they didn't cut back on the discretionary expenses since leaving home).
Yeah, losing the luxuries suck. On the other hand, most students would be able to provide themselves with the necessities and lead a happy life without those luxuries.
In many cases what you suggest is sound. In many other cases, it is not.
For instance, you could probably get away with an apprenticeship for computer programming. Yet you would not get away with an apprenticeship for computer science. There is too much background knowledge that must be acquired for that to be viable. Besides, universities are pretty much an apprenticeship for computer scientists once they hit graduate school. (Assuming that the student is going into research, of course.)
Universities also serve many other functions. At least that is the case for students who are going about things in an intelligent manner. Since the goal is learning, rather than training, the student is free to think. You also have opportunities to make contact with other people in the field, may they be your peers or your instructors. This opens up both research and employment opportunities.
That all assumes that the student is doing more than attending lectures, reading books, and completing assignments. It assumes that the student is being more than a student. One of my professors put it best when he said that he isn't the instructor and we aren't his students. Rather, we are all colleagues. Unfortunately, most of the students didn't get that.
While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.
(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)
I need to improve my knowledge and skills related to 3-D printing first, then I'll make the plunge.
As many have noted, 3-D printing isn't easy. A big part of the reason is that the technology isn't well developed yet. As others have noted, 3-D printing is also over hyped. A big part of the reason is that the idea is exciting, but it takes a particular type of personality to have a use for it.
Yet this simply means that 3-D printing is of limited value as it stands, and as it will continue to stand. (It will become more reliable, but it will never become convenient.) It does mean that the people who end up using it will have a mindset where they want to create their own stuff. Some of those people will be inventive, while others will want to know how their stuff work. Some will be tinkerers, while others will take pride in what they create.
So please stop with the negativity. If it's not for you, that's fine. If you can't honestly recommend it to other people, that's fine. But also understand that there are other people who want to use 3-D printing and have good uses for 3-D printing.
Government run institutions are among the last to change, except when they are among the first to change. The thing is that there are a lot of government institutions out there. Some of them have a lot of motivation to institute change, because the scale of the problem is so large that traditional methods won't work. Some of them have a lot of motivation to avoid change, because the amount of effort required to institute change exceeds the returns. So you are in a sense right: there are cases where there is no reason to change. Yet you are also wrong: it is a feature (i.e. they aren't changing in order to control costs) rather than a problem.
Empty? We are talking about the Solar System here. Even if you ignore the Sun and planets, this place is remarkably full. This sample from STARDUST demonstrates just how incredibly full it is.
(No sarcasm intended. A lot of the matter out there is in the form of an incredibly tenuous gas rather than particles.)
There is a lot more to this article than the mythical labor shortage. There is a discussion of the complexity of the issue. That includes things like labor market cycles, shortages in some specializations with surpluses in many, the cost of misinformation to graduates, and a fair bit more.
To the summary skimmers, this article is probably worth your time.
The big reason: you aren't in the target demographic for TV commercials. I suspect that you would find the advertising in a trade publication that interests you similarly interesting, because you would be in the target demographic.
Time is another consideration. This is a 1 minute commercial, so they have time to "tell a story". I'm pretty sure that most commercials are 30 seconds, and even 15 seconds, in length. That's barely enough time to get a person's attention and blurt out your product name.
It is understandable when people see something that they don't like, then proceed to create an opinion without informing themselves in even the most basic manner.
Private funding is great in many areas. This is particularly true of science that addresses problems that society needs to solve (e.g. medicine) or that captures people's imaginations (e.g. astronomy).
However, there is a lot of science that needs to be done that doesn't fit into either category. That is where governments need to step in.
For usability, you need to look at your target market. This means that you should be asking the people who will buy your product, rather than the people on Slashdot. (If we are your target market, at least let us know what you are developing so that we can provide meaningful input.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have a hard time identifying a legitimate climate skeptic because my background is in astrophysics rather than climatology. (Simply put, I could critque anything based upon solar flux but not much else.) That said, I have seen legitimate and illegitimate critics in terms of astrophysics. The former do a pretty good job at advancing the science, even though their message takes longer to propagate than it should. Then again, that is probably more of a defence mechanism against poor ideas than anything else. The illegitimage critics are typically ignored, and do nothing for or against the science. Then again, astrophysics is mostly apoltical, while climatology is very politicized. In that case the illigitimate critics seem to have more weight than they have earned.
I was in unusual circumstances a few years back, which made social gaming not only necessary but desirable. (Necessary in the respect that there were very few alternatives for socialization, since we were working in an isolated area.)
I learned an important lesson from that: accessible multiplayer games can be a lot of fun. The only requirement is that there are a bunch of people in a room, and that those people want to have a good time. Once the games become online multiplayer, the lack of face-to-face interaction removes huge chunk of the fun. Once the games become too complex, skilled players do all of the winning and novices do all of the losing. (And how many people have fun when they are consistently losing?)
Now I can't speak for Ouya since I've never used the platform, but Nintendo did a good job of it with the Wii. From what I've seen of Android games, developers have done a good job of creating accessible games. (But since I've only ever played Android games on tablets, I don't know what face-to-face multiplayer is like.)
I've found that young vs. old is a trade-off.
Older workers frequently have a better work-ethic in the workplace, and have more experience to draw upon. Younger workers have a better work-ethic in terms of the amount of time they are willing to dedicate to work and frequently (but not always) contribute new ideas.
What it seems to come down to is: do you want experienced workers who will contribute more per hour, but who will also draw a firm line between their work and personal life, or a young worker who is willing to put in the extra time, even though a lot of their time will be spent relearning what a more experience worker already knows?
I suppose software development also has other factors. Some products depends upon experienced developers (e.g. anything considered mission critical) while other products depend upon fresh ideas (e.g. most software targetted at consumers).
Has there been a corresponding increase in service? By that I mean the number of channels delivered for the given tier, since cable companies usually pay the broadcaster a certain rate per channel.
(I don't subscribe to cable, so I don't know how things have changed over the decade since I've left home.)
It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
Try to find strong or independent "princesses" that can serve as positive role models and encourage her to express her interests in constructive and creative ways.
This doesn't mean that you should give in to her desires. You should be taking away toys that create destructive images of womanhood (impossible body image, subservience to the patriarchy, etc.). On the other hand, forcing a child to be what you expect of them is equally destructive.
I would be hesitant about classifying him as a 'grumpy old man.' As the interview pointed out, he does use more modern software for non-writing tasks. He simply chooses to use an older computer for his writing because it does what he needs and it doesn't interfere with his work.
The thing with new computers, as with any other technology, is that they have benefits and drawbacks. Writers commonly cite distractions as a problem. These include everything from the urge to edit or format their writing to early, to temptations like the Internet. (Heck, some readers prefer printed books and dedicated ereaders to avoid distractions.) In other cases, writers don't want to mess with their workflow once they have figured out something that works. None of this involves being a grumpy old man, anti-technology, or whatever else you choose to label it as.
The other thing is that we're talking about production machines here. Many people avoid upgrading production machines because there is a lot of overhead to deal with. For example, turning off all of those features is something that you may have to perform with each software upgrade and it is almost certainly something that you have to perform with each hardware upgrade. If you are in the middle of a project, or picking up on an old project, data must be transferred between machines (in the case of hardware upgrades) and there may be issues with the portability of your files between different versions of the software (in the case of software upgrades). While the latter probably isn't an issue for a novelist upgrading between versions of their word processor, it is certainly true for an author who is switching word processors (which Martin would have had to do at some point if he wanted to stay current) and it is true for people who create more complex documents.
Now if Martin was griping about his publisher being unable to handle WordStar documents while expressing a fear of modern computers, you may have a point. The thing is, he isn't. Something tells me that the people who are translating his writing into a book aren't complaining about this quirk either -- if for no other reason than Martin's success.
The most important thing is to gain employment experience before you graduate, and the more the better. If at all possible, get a job that is somehow related to your career objectives. This will help you gain experince, find direction, and develop relationships that will help you later on. If that fails, try to find work that will have skills that are transferrable to your desired industry. Even mundane office work will allow you to acquire the skills required of technical workers, even if those are soft skills (e.g. how to interact with managers). If that fails, take anything -- but continue to look for something that will lead you down the career path that you desire.
The reality of the matter is that the hardest part of starting your career is entering the job market. Part of that is just getting people to recognise that you exist, but part of it is being able to function in the workplace. Businesses are far more likely to look at you if they already know who you are, see that you have relevant experience, or know that you can function in the workplace (e.g. interact with colleagues, can take initiative, have a good work ethic, etc.). Unfortunately a fresh college graduate with little work experience only touches upon those with their schooling. On the other hand a fresh college graduate with four years of work experience has a much more solid foundation.
As with others, I do see teaching programming in the early grades as a bit counter productive. However, teaching problem solving skills at an early age is valuable. Furthermore, using code to teach problem solving skills offers opportunities for visualizing problems. While that isn't useful for all learners, it is certainly useful for some learners.
There is something else that we should consider. Computers are going to be introduced into the curriculum whether we agree with it or not. Some of that is going to be the perception of keeping the curriculum relevant or to appear progressive. Some of that is going to be due to slick sales pitches from educational publishers, both of the textbook and software variety. If we go around nay-saying this, we are very much removing our voice from the table. Rather, we ought to be looking at what we want education to gain from the introduction of technology and to try to steer the education system away from counterproductive implementations. (For example: focus upon transferrable skills rather than pandering to industry interests.)
You can still do that with Arduino boards. The ATmega is socketed on the Uno, so you can pop it out and place it on your own board when it is time to deploy. In the case of surface mount chips, you can still use the Arduino when prototyping and program the chip on your own board when it comes time to deploy.
The benefits are tremendous. You have a standard platform for prototyping and most of the debugging. Since there is nothing "magical" about the Arduino (e.g. expensive supporting circuitry or proprietary libraries that are difficult to incorporate outside of the standard development tools), it is also easy to build compact and inexpensive circuits when it comes time to deploy.
"All of our security products come with a free back^H^H^H^H^H emergency exit."
All of this technology is great, especially if you focus upon the stuff that will make actual improvements in the quality of life and ignore the fluff. Yet most of the cities that I've lived in have management problems rather than technological problems. These problems include the failure to make decisions, the failure to do proper planning before implementation, the failure to communicate between (or even within) departments, and the failure to allocate resources. And all of those failure assume city managers are making an honest effort to fulfill their responsibilities. In reality you have to also factor in everything from sloth, to corruption, to over-zealousness.
While some of those issues can be diminished by the technology behind "smart cities", none of those issues can actually be solved with technology.
Though the article does note that this is the case for a lot of people, but the big advantage of reading over other media (e.g. audio or video) is that reading is self-pacing. When reading information rich texts, it allows me to gloss over details that I already know while focusing upon details that I don't. When I'm in a lousy state of mind (e.g. having difficulty concentrating due to lack of sleep or external concerns) it allows me to slow down. When I'm in a good state of mind (e.g. I'm motivated to read the text or am well rested) it allows me to speed up.
Simply put: I read rather than watch or listen because my mind is in control of the flow of information.
Mildly off topic:
Until we can make vast improvements in launcher reliability, perhaps we should stick to 1960's technology for that aspect of space exploration. Getting off of and back onto Earth's surface is an extraordinarily difficult task and it will remain so for the decades to come.
Rather, in my opinion, we should be focusing upon building infrastructure in and beyond Earth orbit so that we can get people into space for longer durations. The infrastructure that we do develop needs to be fully repairable and upgradable in space, rather than retired after a relatively short duration. Simply put, it is too expensive (in terms of energy and dollars) to transport materials into orbit only to dump those materials back into Earth's atmosphere a decade or two later.
Once we get the foundations in place, developing reusable launchers will be necessary. Hopefully they will also be much more viable by that point in time.
That means things like learning how to manage your money: learning what is a necessary and unnecessary expense, learning how to shop for bargains, learning how to do things for yourself in order to save money (e.g. cooking), learning tricks to reduces bills (e.g. heating), learning how to share resources, and so forth.
I've seen many students complain about how poor they are. Yet they were spending money like their parents were spending money, which was fine for the parents because they had a lifetime to establish themselves financially (e.g. good paying job, accrued assets). Worse yet, some were spending money like they were still living with their parents (i.e. they didn't cut back on the discretionary expenses since leaving home).
Yeah, losing the luxuries suck. On the other hand, most students would be able to provide themselves with the necessities and lead a happy life without those luxuries.
In many cases what you suggest is sound. In many other cases, it is not.
For instance, you could probably get away with an apprenticeship for computer programming. Yet you would not get away with an apprenticeship for computer science. There is too much background knowledge that must be acquired for that to be viable. Besides, universities are pretty much an apprenticeship for computer scientists once they hit graduate school. (Assuming that the student is going into research, of course.)
Universities also serve many other functions. At least that is the case for students who are going about things in an intelligent manner. Since the goal is learning, rather than training, the student is free to think. You also have opportunities to make contact with other people in the field, may they be your peers or your instructors. This opens up both research and employment opportunities.
That all assumes that the student is doing more than attending lectures, reading books, and completing assignments. It assumes that the student is being more than a student. One of my professors put it best when he said that he isn't the instructor and we aren't his students. Rather, we are all colleagues. Unfortunately, most of the students didn't get that.
While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.
(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)
I need to improve my knowledge and skills related to 3-D printing first, then I'll make the plunge.
As many have noted, 3-D printing isn't easy. A big part of the reason is that the technology isn't well developed yet. As others have noted, 3-D printing is also over hyped. A big part of the reason is that the idea is exciting, but it takes a particular type of personality to have a use for it.
Yet this simply means that 3-D printing is of limited value as it stands, and as it will continue to stand. (It will become more reliable, but it will never become convenient.) It does mean that the people who end up using it will have a mindset where they want to create their own stuff. Some of those people will be inventive, while others will want to know how their stuff work. Some will be tinkerers, while others will take pride in what they create.
So please stop with the negativity. If it's not for you, that's fine. If you can't honestly recommend it to other people, that's fine. But also understand that there are other people who want to use 3-D printing and have good uses for 3-D printing.
Government run institutions are among the last to change, except when they are among the first to change. The thing is that there are a lot of government institutions out there. Some of them have a lot of motivation to institute change, because the scale of the problem is so large that traditional methods won't work. Some of them have a lot of motivation to avoid change, because the amount of effort required to institute change exceeds the returns. So you are in a sense right: there are cases where there is no reason to change. Yet you are also wrong: it is a feature (i.e. they aren't changing in order to control costs) rather than a problem.
Empty? We are talking about the Solar System here. Even if you ignore the Sun and planets, this place is remarkably full. This sample from STARDUST demonstrates just how incredibly full it is.
(No sarcasm intended. A lot of the matter out there is in the form of an incredibly tenuous gas rather than particles.)
There is a lot more to this article than the mythical labor shortage. There is a discussion of the complexity of the issue. That includes things like labor market cycles, shortages in some specializations with surpluses in many, the cost of misinformation to graduates, and a fair bit more.
To the summary skimmers, this article is probably worth your time.
The big reason: you aren't in the target demographic for TV commercials. I suspect that you would find the advertising in a trade publication that interests you similarly interesting, because you would be in the target demographic.
Time is another consideration. This is a 1 minute commercial, so they have time to "tell a story". I'm pretty sure that most commercials are 30 seconds, and even 15 seconds, in length. That's barely enough time to get a person's attention and blurt out your product name.
It is understandable when people see something that they don't like, then proceed to create an opinion without informing themselves in even the most basic manner.
Private funding is great in many areas. This is particularly true of science that addresses problems that society needs to solve (e.g. medicine) or that captures people's imaginations (e.g. astronomy).
However, there is a lot of science that needs to be done that doesn't fit into either category. That is where governments need to step in.
For usability, you need to look at your target market. This means that you should be asking the people who will buy your product, rather than the people on Slashdot. (If we are your target market, at least let us know what you are developing so that we can provide meaningful input.)