Just because someone points out the issues with globalization doesn't mean that they are fighting against globalization.
The way things stand today, globalization is for the multinational corporations who desire international trade to push down the costs of production while increasing the cost of goods. Very little regard is given to the individual who is ultimately affected by these laws.
Now if globalization was negotiated in terms of those people, raising the standards of living for the disadvantaged, then you'd find that a lot of the anti-globalization types would actually back globalization.
The brain drain is hurting the nation that the educated immigrant left behind (e.g. that immigrant is not filling positions nor creating opportunities in their homeland).
The immigrant is taking opportunities from educated Americans and likely reducing the potential wages of that educated American.
Convergence may have gotten rid of the need for multiple devices, but devices are much more personal these days. Rather than one phone per household, it is one phone per person. Instead of one computer per household, it is one computer or tablet per person.
A lot of the old gadgets will still exist anyway. An individual may have a tablet to watch TV alone, but they will also have a TV to watch as a family. An individual may have a tablet for web browsing, but there will still be a computer for the kids to type up their school papers. While most families will be perfectly happy with their camera phone, any family with a photo nut will also have a digital camera. (The prior statement applies for most hobbies.)
As for that disappearing microwave, I don't see how he managed that. It was a lot easier to cook eggs with your CPU in 2005 after all.
Everything that you mentioned is a thing. They aren't family, nor friends, nor pets, nor anything else that ought to be the true source of your emotions. Invest your emotions in the people who matter. Just use the tools that work.
If you ignore the visual similarities between the devices, such has shape and stylus input, you would find that the Palm and Newton were different devices. The design criteria were different, from an end-user and engineering perspective. This resulted in Palm cutting more corners. That benefited them because they ended up with the more successful product. (Not that it helped Palm in the long run, but that's a different story.)
Graffiti was one of the results of the corner cutting. A lot of us were fine with graffiti, but it is easy to see why it wouldn't have a mass market appeal. But it did get the job done effectively in a palm sized device. That's a lot more than could be said for other devices of the era.
This is probably a poor way to phrase it, but a government's responsibility is also to do what is in the best interest of the people. The people tend to have a poor understanding of the limitations placed upon them by physics (e.g. momentum) and by biology (e.g. reaction times). They also have a very poor understanding of engineering, which dictates the limits imposed upon drivers in order for the roads to be safe, and urban planning, which imposes limits based upon the surrounding infrastructure.
Now if the people decide that they want the roads to be safe, they must trust the restrictions placed upon the users of that road. If the people decide that they don't care about road safety, then it is a different matter altogether.
We must also consider who "the people" are. Is it just the subset of drivers who have no concern for the safety of themselves and others? Is it the set of all drivers? Is it the set of people who live in the community, and may have to use the roads for other reasons (e.g. pedestrians crossing, cyclists sharing). Is it the set of people who live in or pass through the community? Different sets of people will have different concerns regarding road safety. Reckless drivers are, of course, less concerned with safety. Community members have a greater investment in safety because it is their lives at stake.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the speeds that people were going when they received a citation. If it's within 10% of the speed limit, then yeah it's probably a scam. Yet my experience is that speeders tend to go over 20% faster than the posted speed limit. In that case, it's not a scam. You break the law, you pay the price. As long as people are receiving notification of a speeding ticking before receiving their next speeding ticket, the police are perfectly within their rights to use highly efficient technology to catch those law breakers.
The article is a far more interesting read than the misleading headline and summary. A lot of it focuses on the idea that the "... discussion should not focus upon violent video games or violent visual media, it should focus on risk factors that might cause media to affect different people in different ways."
Unfortunately the social sciences are incredibly complex. There are a multitude of variables that are incredibly difficult to control, and any effort to control those variables would be shot down by ethics or create a significant bias in the experimental sample.
While things such as the physiological response of game players is interesting, I would be far more interested in learning about the long term impact on attitudes and behaviours. Alas, the studies that I have seen in the media have not really addressed those issues. As such they tend to be divisive among the general public, who tend to interpret the results on way or another based upon their personal beliefs.
I would also be interested in seeing meaningful longitudinal studies. Yet those have major issues because of the dynamics of technology and society. Even the most graphic violence of video games in the 1980s would border on the implicit violence of modern video games. Part of that relates to the inherent graphical and storage space limitations of the past (restricted storage space limited the ability to tell a story). Part of that relates to the more mature subjects of modern games as the demographic has expanded from children to adults.
Vendors and researchers have a history of making overstated claims about robots, particularly when it comes down to those that interact with people directly. In other words, people don't distrust robots so much as they distrust the people who are trying to sell them.
If it was a matter of distrusting robots themselves, we would still see people buying household robots to do impersonal tasks, like cleaning the house. These are not very different from industrial robots after all, which many people are more than happy to accept. But since we distrust the claims of robotic vendors, we wouldn't even be willing to accept that type of robot - never mind a robot that cares for a child.
To be fair to Apple, two years seems to be the window for formal support. Stuff will usually work longer than that (but, of course, there are no guarantees).
To be fair to Microsoft, meeting the needs of their diverse customer base creates complexity. Backwards compatibility has very little to do with it. (Well, it does make testing more complex. Yet that is a development issue rather than an end user experience issues.)
Given the reasons cited, Windows would have been a wiser choice. Macintosh computers may be flawless when running the latest software on the latest version of OS X, but things quickly go awry when you want to run a newer application on an older version of OS X (where a.1 difference matters) or an older application (less of an issue, unless you use really old stuff). On top of that, running Unix applications on top of OS X is a mess. That's mostly the developer's fault, since they seem to be targeting Linux these days, but it doesn't improve the end user experience.
I doubt that the could ban satellite imagery, since that happens completely outside of Texas' jurisdiction, and would have a difficult time enforcing the law when the drone is launched out of state, unless the airspace belongs to the state. But it would discourage such companies from operating in the state of Texas, which reflects lost economic opportunities.
There may be something to be said for preventing corporate espionage, but there is also something to be said for independent monitoring of state and federal laws. That's true even if the "independent" monitor is a competitor, since the only effective way to operate in a regime of relaxed regulation enforcement is the break regulations yourself. An example cited is the enforcement of environmental regulations. Relaxed enforcement in this area would impede the growth of green industries, and leave future generations to pay for the environmental repercussions.
There would also be reduced innovation in other areas. Drones could be useful for a number of purposes on large properties. The ones I can think of is monitoring crops, search and rescue, as well as security (but there are surely others). Accidental spill-over may result in charges being pressed, thus discouraging the development and use of such technologies within the state.
Non-business:
This would effectively make some hobby or learning projects illegal. Let's face it, creating an unmanned vehicle that can take photographs is pretty exciting to some people. Cut out that option, and you may be discouraging people from pursuing science and technology related careers since they would not develop or maintain the interest.
OS/2 was used by major corporations back in the day. Even though most of those installations have been replaced with Windows, a few of them remain because: the cost of replacing custom or specialized software can be quite high, and the cost of replacing equipment that is currently in service can be quite high. Serenity Systems (the people who maintain eCS) was created to service these installations.
A nice benefit is that OS/2 remains (moderately) updated for other users.
The primary uses for 3-D are content creation and gaming. The amount of content creation done on the web is limited, primarily due to performance bottlenecks. Simply put, you don't do engineering or video production or create games on the web. The other big application is gaming. That being said, consumers seem to be happy with downloading and installing games on their computers or mobile devices.
Of course the other issue is that the Internet remains an content delivery medium. A big part of the reason for limited interactivity is that content production is hard. Text is easy to do. Photographs, recorded audio, and recorded video is only slightly challenging. Yet anything beyond that takes too much effort for most end users to care about. That's true when it comes down to editing audio and video, and it's even more true when it comes down to 3-D modelling.
It depends upon what he needs the computer for. If it is a server, then there is no need for a GUI. Even with respect to application software, there are a multitude of options out there. Writing can be done in text editors, then processed with TeX or troff (for formatted output to a printer, when necessary). There are a multitude of email clients and several web browsers. I've never really tried it, but you can even do graphical design with languages like PostScript and POV. Media? Again, you have access to many audio players. It's much more gimmicky in nature, but you can even play videos on text consoles.
Keep in mind that NetBSD users are quite different from Windows/Macintosh/Linux users (at least on average).
"Hard" may also be a reference to the implementation, rather than the language. Interpreted languages tend to bypass the compile and link part of the development process. This means that interpreted languages are easier to develop with and compiled languages are hard to develop with (at least in some respects). I'd also comment on the arcane nature of C, but I haven't used lua so I don't know if it is any better.
The talk of rolling and folding is just to get people excited.
A far more realistic use would be to make more durable devices: something that you can put into your purse or pocket and not have to worry about as much. (Example: the screen won't crack if the case is twisted a bit.) I'm guessing that it will also allow for much thinner devices, since they don't have to worry about making rigid cases.
Re:Linux shouldn't be hard, geek elitism has to go
on
Learn Linux the Hard Way
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Then use the "easy button" and ignore the other stuff.
Different interfaces are developed for people who think and operate in different ways. Graphical interfaces are great for some people, while command driven interfaces are great for other people. Making the assumption that "geeks" will find graphical interfaces as easy to use as command driven interfaces is just as elitist as the assumption that "the masses" are ignorant because they cannot handle command driven interfaces. There is not a single "right way" to do things.
If I had to venture a guess: most of us. Very few individuals have the money to find those legal loopholes or lobby governments for tax incentives. Even if we did, the return on investment would be in the red.
Slashdot isn't the best place to ask because most of us have bought into digital distribution. We are unlikely to be the video store's target audience so we aren't the best people to ask.
Your friend also has some challenges because copyright laws limit his options. A lot of things that could be done would be illegal or require a lot of paperwork because it would be considered a public showing (e.g. previews, a showing room for private events).
Yet they may be able to transition their business if they are into film. This could be tied to tangible products or people oriented. They could try to sell the hardware to show movies, provide a forum to discuss them, or even provide a hub for people who want to produce independent films.
There are a lot of other ways to adapt. The key though is to talk to the people who matter: the customers who would actually use the service.
The poppy represents those who died in war. Most people would consider burning a poppy as worse than considered burning a flag since you disrespecting those who gave their lives for our freedom.
... the island of lost accessories. Everything in this product was an accessory designed for core Apple products. A lot of those accessories aren't even notable, so why would Apple invest much in their success?
You don't launch a multimillion dollar ad campaign over iPod socks or iPod/iPhone trinket apps after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone points out the issues with globalization doesn't mean that they are fighting against globalization.
The way things stand today, globalization is for the multinational corporations who desire international trade to push down the costs of production while increasing the cost of goods. Very little regard is given to the individual who is ultimately affected by these laws.
Now if globalization was negotiated in terms of those people, raising the standards of living for the disadvantaged, then you'd find that a lot of the anti-globalization types would actually back globalization.
The brain drain is hurting the nation that the educated immigrant left behind (e.g. that immigrant is not filling positions nor creating opportunities in their homeland).
The immigrant is taking opportunities from educated Americans and likely reducing the potential wages of that educated American.
Convergence may have gotten rid of the need for multiple devices, but devices are much more personal these days. Rather than one phone per household, it is one phone per person. Instead of one computer per household, it is one computer or tablet per person.
A lot of the old gadgets will still exist anyway. An individual may have a tablet to watch TV alone, but they will also have a TV to watch as a family. An individual may have a tablet for web browsing, but there will still be a computer for the kids to type up their school papers. While most families will be perfectly happy with their camera phone, any family with a photo nut will also have a digital camera. (The prior statement applies for most hobbies.)
As for that disappearing microwave, I don't see how he managed that. It was a lot easier to cook eggs with your CPU in 2005 after all.
Everything that you mentioned is a thing. They aren't family, nor friends, nor pets, nor anything else that ought to be the true source of your emotions. Invest your emotions in the people who matter. Just use the tools that work.
If you ignore the visual similarities between the devices, such has shape and stylus input, you would find that the Palm and Newton were different devices. The design criteria were different, from an end-user and engineering perspective. This resulted in Palm cutting more corners. That benefited them because they ended up with the more successful product. (Not that it helped Palm in the long run, but that's a different story.)
Graffiti was one of the results of the corner cutting. A lot of us were fine with graffiti, but it is easy to see why it wouldn't have a mass market appeal. But it did get the job done effectively in a palm sized device. That's a lot more than could be said for other devices of the era.
This is probably a poor way to phrase it, but a government's responsibility is also to do what is in the best interest of the people. The people tend to have a poor understanding of the limitations placed upon them by physics (e.g. momentum) and by biology (e.g. reaction times). They also have a very poor understanding of engineering, which dictates the limits imposed upon drivers in order for the roads to be safe, and urban planning, which imposes limits based upon the surrounding infrastructure.
Now if the people decide that they want the roads to be safe, they must trust the restrictions placed upon the users of that road. If the people decide that they don't care about road safety, then it is a different matter altogether.
We must also consider who "the people" are. Is it just the subset of drivers who have no concern for the safety of themselves and others? Is it the set of all drivers? Is it the set of people who live in the community, and may have to use the roads for other reasons (e.g. pedestrians crossing, cyclists sharing). Is it the set of people who live in or pass through the community? Different sets of people will have different concerns regarding road safety. Reckless drivers are, of course, less concerned with safety. Community members have a greater investment in safety because it is their lives at stake.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the speeds that people were going when they received a citation. If it's within 10% of the speed limit, then yeah it's probably a scam. Yet my experience is that speeders tend to go over 20% faster than the posted speed limit. In that case, it's not a scam. You break the law, you pay the price. As long as people are receiving notification of a speeding ticking before receiving their next speeding ticket, the police are perfectly within their rights to use highly efficient technology to catch those law breakers.
The article is a far more interesting read than the misleading headline and summary. A lot of it focuses on the idea that the "... discussion should not focus upon violent video games or violent visual media, it should focus on risk factors that might cause media to affect different people in different ways."
Unfortunately the social sciences are incredibly complex. There are a multitude of variables that are incredibly difficult to control, and any effort to control those variables would be shot down by ethics or create a significant bias in the experimental sample.
While things such as the physiological response of game players is interesting, I would be far more interested in learning about the long term impact on attitudes and behaviours. Alas, the studies that I have seen in the media have not really addressed those issues. As such they tend to be divisive among the general public, who tend to interpret the results on way or another based upon their personal beliefs.
I would also be interested in seeing meaningful longitudinal studies. Yet those have major issues because of the dynamics of technology and society. Even the most graphic violence of video games in the 1980s would border on the implicit violence of modern video games. Part of that relates to the inherent graphical and storage space limitations of the past (restricted storage space limited the ability to tell a story). Part of that relates to the more mature subjects of modern games as the demographic has expanded from children to adults.
Vendors and researchers have a history of making overstated claims about robots, particularly when it comes down to those that interact with people directly. In other words, people don't distrust robots so much as they distrust the people who are trying to sell them.
If it was a matter of distrusting robots themselves, we would still see people buying household robots to do impersonal tasks, like cleaning the house. These are not very different from industrial robots after all, which many people are more than happy to accept. But since we distrust the claims of robotic vendors, we wouldn't even be willing to accept that type of robot - never mind a robot that cares for a child.
To be fair to Apple, two years seems to be the window for formal support. Stuff will usually work longer than that (but, of course, there are no guarantees).
To be fair to Microsoft, meeting the needs of their diverse customer base creates complexity. Backwards compatibility has very little to do with it. (Well, it does make testing more complex. Yet that is a development issue rather than an end user experience issues.)
Given the reasons cited, Windows would have been a wiser choice. Macintosh computers may be flawless when running the latest software on the latest version of OS X, but things quickly go awry when you want to run a newer application on an older version of OS X (where a .1 difference matters) or an older application (less of an issue, unless you use really old stuff). On top of that, running Unix applications on top of OS X is a mess. That's mostly the developer's fault, since they seem to be targeting Linux these days, but it doesn't improve the end user experience.
Business related:
I doubt that the could ban satellite imagery, since that happens completely outside of Texas' jurisdiction, and would have a difficult time enforcing the law when the drone is launched out of state, unless the airspace belongs to the state. But it would discourage such companies from operating in the state of Texas, which reflects lost economic opportunities.
There may be something to be said for preventing corporate espionage, but there is also something to be said for independent monitoring of state and federal laws. That's true even if the "independent" monitor is a competitor, since the only effective way to operate in a regime of relaxed regulation enforcement is the break regulations yourself. An example cited is the enforcement of environmental regulations. Relaxed enforcement in this area would impede the growth of green industries, and leave future generations to pay for the environmental repercussions.
There would also be reduced innovation in other areas. Drones could be useful for a number of purposes on large properties. The ones I can think of is monitoring crops, search and rescue, as well as security (but there are surely others). Accidental spill-over may result in charges being pressed, thus discouraging the development and use of such technologies within the state.
Non-business:
This would effectively make some hobby or learning projects illegal. Let's face it, creating an unmanned vehicle that can take photographs is pretty exciting to some people. Cut out that option, and you may be discouraging people from pursuing science and technology related careers since they would not develop or maintain the interest.
OS/2 was used by major corporations back in the day. Even though most of those installations have been replaced with Windows, a few of them remain because: the cost of replacing custom or specialized software can be quite high, and the cost of replacing equipment that is currently in service can be quite high. Serenity Systems (the people who maintain eCS) was created to service these installations.
A nice benefit is that OS/2 remains (moderately) updated for other users.
Another option is to keep your meats separate.
I've noticed too many people packing meats in the same bag as their vegetables.
Having a separate bag that is only used for meats is also a good idea.
Use cloth bags. Toss them into the laundry machine with the rest of your laundry. Problem solved.
The primary uses for 3-D are content creation and gaming. The amount of content creation done on the web is limited, primarily due to performance bottlenecks. Simply put, you don't do engineering or video production or create games on the web. The other big application is gaming. That being said, consumers seem to be happy with downloading and installing games on their computers or mobile devices.
Of course the other issue is that the Internet remains an content delivery medium. A big part of the reason for limited interactivity is that content production is hard. Text is easy to do. Photographs, recorded audio, and recorded video is only slightly challenging. Yet anything beyond that takes too much effort for most end users to care about. That's true when it comes down to editing audio and video, and it's even more true when it comes down to 3-D modelling.
And, of course, very few development tools actually depend upon a GUI.
It depends upon what he needs the computer for. If it is a server, then there is no need for a GUI. Even with respect to application software, there are a multitude of options out there. Writing can be done in text editors, then processed with TeX or troff (for formatted output to a printer, when necessary). There are a multitude of email clients and several web browsers. I've never really tried it, but you can even do graphical design with languages like PostScript and POV. Media? Again, you have access to many audio players. It's much more gimmicky in nature, but you can even play videos on text consoles.
Keep in mind that NetBSD users are quite different from Windows/Macintosh/Linux users (at least on average).
"Hard" may also be a reference to the implementation, rather than the language. Interpreted languages tend to bypass the compile and link part of the development process. This means that interpreted languages are easier to develop with and compiled languages are hard to develop with (at least in some respects). I'd also comment on the arcane nature of C, but I haven't used lua so I don't know if it is any better.
The talk of rolling and folding is just to get people excited.
A far more realistic use would be to make more durable devices: something that you can put into your purse or pocket and not have to worry about as much. (Example: the screen won't crack if the case is twisted a bit.) I'm guessing that it will also allow for much thinner devices, since they don't have to worry about making rigid cases.
Then use the "easy button" and ignore the other stuff.
Different interfaces are developed for people who think and operate in different ways. Graphical interfaces are great for some people, while command driven interfaces are great for other people. Making the assumption that "geeks" will find graphical interfaces as easy to use as command driven interfaces is just as elitist as the assumption that "the masses" are ignorant because they cannot handle command driven interfaces. There is not a single "right way" to do things.
If I had to venture a guess: most of us. Very few individuals have the money to find those legal loopholes or lobby governments for tax incentives. Even if we did, the return on investment would be in the red.
Slashdot isn't the best place to ask because most of us have bought into digital distribution. We are unlikely to be the video store's target audience so we aren't the best people to ask.
Your friend also has some challenges because copyright laws limit his options. A lot of things that could be done would be illegal or require a lot of paperwork because it would be considered a public showing (e.g. previews, a showing room for private events).
Yet they may be able to transition their business if they are into film. This could be tied to tangible products or people oriented. They could try to sell the hardware to show movies, provide a forum to discuss them, or even provide a hub for people who want to produce independent films.
There are a lot of other ways to adapt. The key though is to talk to the people who matter: the customers who would actually use the service.
The poppy represents those who died in war. Most people would consider burning a poppy as worse than considered burning a flag since you disrespecting those who gave their lives for our freedom.
... the island of lost accessories. Everything in this product was an accessory designed for core Apple products. A lot of those accessories aren't even notable, so why would Apple invest much in their success?
You don't launch a multimillion dollar ad campaign over iPod socks or iPod/iPhone trinket apps after all.