This is a great way to paint a Bull's Eye on your back while every other geek on the planet gets some type of firearm ready.
But we know that some people crave attention, no matter how negative. Seriously, does anyone doubt that the number of idiots on the plant willing to suffer these consequences doesn't number in at least the 100s at any given time?
Incidentally, just posing the original question is a great way to cast every other geek on the planet in a bad light (because with the never ending campaign to re-appropriate "hacker" as a positive word, it will increasingly be conflated with "geek"). There are plenty of things ranging from unwise to unfunny to unspeakable that could be done. If the question starts with "could", the answer is likely "yes (theoretically)". Why waste time batting around terrible ideas that make you sound like a delinquent?
. . . but I can still buy full-featured mobile games for 1/10th - 1/60th the price of what Tretton is selling. Tretton has more in common with the nickle-and-dimers than he may want to acknowledge. The difference is, he wants gamers to pay through the nose up front, rather than stringing them along (and giving them the option to wise up before spending too much).
Problem is, portable gaming has shifted. It's not something you sit in front of for hours and play, it's something you play for a few minutes on your coffee break. Nintendo at least tries to make games that you *can* play for just a few minutes. They're not perfect at it (as evidenced by their own sales problems), but they're at least aware of the problem. Sony seems to be betting the house on people wanting full-sized games on a handheld, and that's just not really true anymore (to an extent, I doubt it ever really was). In the time it takes to *load* some Vita games, I can have finished a round of Angry Birds or Edge or whatever.
I think that the problem for hardware manufacturers is not that portable gaming has shifted, but that the optimal portable gaming experience has not significantly shifted. It works well as a casual, lightweight experience. Smartphones have rediscovered the sweet-spot that Sony (and, to a lesser extent Nintendo) drifted away from in their efforts to exploit technological leaps to drive hardware sales and satisfy demands for "innovation".
Curent portables have made huge advances in technology, but the form factor doesn't support these capabilities. When I am using a mobile device, I am not looking for a deeply immersive gaming experience. Even if I did want that, a 4 inch screen isn't going to cut it, regardless of the resolution. Just because hardware makers can port much of the graphic and input technologies into a mobile device, doesn't mean that they should.
For portable gaming, it is clear that people are satisfied with relatively simplistic gameplay and graphics. A "retro" arcade type game is much better suited to the capabilities of a mobile device and the amount of attention being mobile allows.
The meaning of the term hacker hasn't changed and isn't the problem. Hackers have always been perceived as intruders, as trouble. They've always seen themselves as students and masters of techology, driven by curiosity more than anything else.
Just look up "hack" in the dictionary (e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hack). Calling yourself a "hacker" is pretty much asking to be viewed in a pejorative light.
Which is probably not a coincidence. "Tinkerer" sounds lame. "Hacker" is edgy.
"Hacker" is a loaded term. It might not be fair, but that is the fact of the matter. As such "Hacker Highschool" is doomed to attract everything from raised eyebrows to terminology-holy-wars. (Speaking of holy-wars, try having a rational discussion over the meaning of "jihad"). Maybe that is the point -- to attract attention. Whatever the case, concept of "hacking" is ill-served by the term.
People should be curious, and free to pursue that curiosity in a responsible matter. That isn't something to learn, it is something to avoid un-learning. Once you have had it stamped out of your soul, I really wonder if you can pick it up again.
1: It's not happening. 2: It's happening, but it's no big deal. 3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do. 4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive. 5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences
I think that the way that TAL stepped in this mess, largely a mess of their own making, exposes the phoniness of their outrage. Meanwhile, their grandstanding has buried the lead of their "retraction", in which they confirmed the reality mirrored in Daisey's "lies".
That is, unless you think that Ira Glass's status as the "vanguard of a journalistic revolution" is more important than labor conditions for hundreds of thousands, which Ira clearly does.
The People's Republic of China...... governed by the Communist Party of China...... where ~40% of the GDP is still generated by state-owned enterprises...... doesn't meet any definition of a socialist state?
Names, names. Ever heard of their neighbor, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Do you have evidence of previous TAL stories being lies?
I'm not suggesting that TAL has ever broadcast "lies", including in the Mike Daisey episode(s). That's my point. TAL is not "journalism". It is entertainment. In the realm of entertaiment, fiction != lie. In the realm of corporate PR and damage control, on the other hand. . .
Mike Daisey was found to have fabricated all of the issues he raises against Apple.
Nope. Fabricated his first-person accounts. If I say, "I was present on Mars to witness the Curiousity landing, and boy was I wishing I packed a warmer coat", and somebody finds that I was not on Mars at the time, that does not mean that Curiosity didn't land there or that Mars is not cold.
When it's journalism, I'll trust the guy who retracts his stories and apologizes when he's been hoodwinked by a liar.
What about a guy who over-hypes a dramatization, then throws the dramatist under the bus so he can further hype his phony outrage? Journalist, indeed.
I ask you, having listened to his "apology", did it not occur to you for even a second that you had heard tons of dramatized stories on TAL with nary a word from Ira qualifying the story as such? It frankly never occured to me that I was supposed to regard TAL as anything other than entertainment by means of off-beat stories of unknown (and irrelevant) providence. It was only when they ran afoul of an even bigger pop-culture entity that they found God WRT their solemn duty as journalists.
WTF does "performance" have to do with Facebook??!! Facebook's a freaking website.
But it is a shitty website that is trying to do a ton of things behind the scenes (even if they aren't things that the user wants or sees). A dedicated app could (conceivably) handle that more elegantly.
That's a good question. Does it make you wonder if there is a better answer than dismissing him as a liar?
Here's another question -- who's judgement do you trust more: Steve Wozniak, or Ira what's-his-face from that precious hipster radio show, sorry, uber legitimate news hour that never, never, ever broadcasts anything that isn't the literal truth? Not saying there is a correct answer. . .
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
And maybe that is why he is able to perceive that pretending to multitask is inferior to concentrating on the most important task at hand, and organizing one's effort around the reality of the human brain.
E.g. During class, focus on absorbing the material being presented. Later, with recording of class if necessary, make effective notes with the leisure of being able to pause in order to record notes on whatever media is best suited to writing things down to confirm comprehension (no more "WTF was I writing here?") and for future reference.
You can bet that every single thing that the iPhone has ever been derided for lacking - no 3G, can't copy and paste, no notification system, blah blah - was on a list during development and got crossed out because it wasn't as important at that moment as some other feature.
More like they couldn't yet figure out how to do it well, or cost effectively.
There's a difference between features and experiences.
Sure. Features can be objectively defined and compared. "Experience" is utterly subjective. Seriously, what does "overall experience" mean, unless you break it down to the combination of features that you are really describing?
If a user's "experience" is enhanced by a lack of features, it is because their requirements are more narrow, or they are intimidated by options, or both.
NTTAWWT. I have an iPod Touch. I didn't even think I wanted such a device over a netbook, but a friend was upgrading and I ended up with it. I like the "experience". But I can actually tell you why. It has very few features and options, but those that are present are basically what I need for my very limited requirements when using such a device (casual web browsing, alarm clock, shallow gaming).
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great way to paint a Bull's Eye on your back while every other geek on the planet gets some type of firearm ready.
But we know that some people crave attention, no matter how negative. Seriously, does anyone doubt that the number of idiots on the plant willing to suffer these consequences doesn't number in at least the 100s at any given time?
Incidentally, just posing the original question is a great way to cast every other geek on the planet in a bad light (because with the never ending campaign to re-appropriate "hacker" as a positive word, it will increasingly be conflated with "geek"). There are plenty of things ranging from unwise to unfunny to unspeakable that could be done. If the question starts with "could", the answer is likely "yes (theoretically)". Why waste time batting around terrible ideas that make you sound like a delinquent?
. . . but I can still buy full-featured mobile games for 1/10th - 1/60th the price of what Tretton is selling. Tretton has more in common with the nickle-and-dimers than he may want to acknowledge. The difference is, he wants gamers to pay through the nose up front, rather than stringing them along (and giving them the option to wise up before spending too much).
Problem is, portable gaming has shifted. It's not something you sit in front of for hours and play, it's something you play for a few minutes on your coffee break. Nintendo at least tries to make games that you *can* play for just a few minutes. They're not perfect at it (as evidenced by their own sales problems), but they're at least aware of the problem. Sony seems to be betting the house on people wanting full-sized games on a handheld, and that's just not really true anymore (to an extent, I doubt it ever really was). In the time it takes to *load* some Vita games, I can have finished a round of Angry Birds or Edge or whatever.
I think that the problem for hardware manufacturers is not that portable gaming has shifted, but that the optimal portable gaming experience has not significantly shifted. It works well as a casual, lightweight experience. Smartphones have rediscovered the sweet-spot that Sony (and, to a lesser extent Nintendo) drifted away from in their efforts to exploit technological leaps to drive hardware sales and satisfy demands for "innovation".
Curent portables have made huge advances in technology, but the form factor doesn't support these capabilities. When I am using a mobile device, I am not looking for a deeply immersive gaming experience. Even if I did want that, a 4 inch screen isn't going to cut it, regardless of the resolution. Just because hardware makers can port much of the graphic and input technologies into a mobile device, doesn't mean that they should.
For portable gaming, it is clear that people are satisfied with relatively simplistic gameplay and graphics. A "retro" arcade type game is much better suited to the capabilities of a mobile device and the amount of attention being mobile allows.
The meaning of the term hacker hasn't changed and isn't the problem. Hackers have always been perceived as intruders, as trouble. They've always seen themselves as students and masters of techology, driven by curiosity more than anything else.
Just look up "hack" in the dictionary (e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hack). Calling yourself a "hacker" is pretty much asking to be viewed in a pejorative light.
Which is probably not a coincidence. "Tinkerer" sounds lame. "Hacker" is edgy.
"Hacker" is a loaded term. It might not be fair, but that is the fact of the matter. As such "Hacker Highschool" is doomed to attract everything from raised eyebrows to terminology-holy-wars. (Speaking of holy-wars, try having a rational discussion over the meaning of "jihad"). Maybe that is the point -- to attract attention. Whatever the case, concept of "hacking" is ill-served by the term.
People should be curious, and free to pursue that curiosity in a responsible matter. That isn't something to learn, it is something to avoid un-learning. Once you have had it stamped out of your soul, I really wonder if you can pick it up again.
The 5 stages of denial:
1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences
Vat grown bacon is just around the corner. Pigs are expendable.
So some day we will be sick of that analogy about "Malibu Chicken", chickens and vats.
In my case I found a lot of project management types who were light on tech skills.
Were you hiring for a project management position? Were they light on project management skills?
"Incredibly good news" should be some combination of rising employment and rising incomes.
I think that the way that TAL stepped in this mess, largely a mess of their own making, exposes the phoniness of their outrage. Meanwhile, their grandstanding has buried the lead of their "retraction", in which they confirmed the reality mirrored in Daisey's "lies".
That is, unless you think that Ira Glass's status as the "vanguard of a journalistic revolution" is more important than labor conditions for hundreds of thousands, which Ira clearly does.
Really?
The People's Republic of China... ... governed by the Communist Party of China... ... where ~40% of the GDP is still generated by state-owned enterprises... ... doesn't meet any definition of a socialist state?
Names, names. Ever heard of their neighbor, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
But originally he was doing his best to present it as a documentary. This American Life certainly felt misled.
No, TAL was promoting it as documentary. When some smart-alecky Market Watch reporter started nosing around in China, they threw Daisey under the bus.
Nope. Fabricated his first-person accounts.
Take for example the workers with deformities from working with some chemical.
That didn't happen at ANY Apple factory
Apple doesn't have factories. How dow you like them apples?
Do you have evidence of previous TAL stories being lies?
I'm not suggesting that TAL has ever broadcast "lies", including in the Mike Daisey episode(s). That's my point. TAL is not "journalism". It is entertainment. In the realm of entertaiment, fiction != lie. In the realm of corporate PR and damage control, on the other hand. . .
Mike Daisey was found to have fabricated all of the issues he raises against Apple.
Nope. Fabricated his first-person accounts. If I say, "I was present on Mars to witness the Curiousity landing, and boy was I wishing I packed a warmer coat", and somebody finds that I was not on Mars at the time, that does not mean that Curiosity didn't land there or that Mars is not cold.
When it's journalism, I'll trust the guy who retracts his stories and apologizes when he's been hoodwinked by a liar.
What about a guy who over-hypes a dramatization, then throws the dramatist under the bus so he can further hype his phony outrage? Journalist, indeed.
I ask you, having listened to his "apology", did it not occur to you for even a second that you had heard tons of dramatized stories on TAL with nary a word from Ira qualifying the story as such? It frankly never occured to me that I was supposed to regard TAL as anything other than entertainment by means of off-beat stories of unknown (and irrelevant) providence. It was only when they ran afoul of an even bigger pop-culture entity that they found God WRT their solemn duty as journalists.
Since when? Only about 10% of youtube works with HTML5. Everything else is Flash.
The rest are encoding it wrong.
WTF does "performance" have to do with Facebook??!!
Facebook's a freaking website.
But it is a shitty website that is trying to do a ton of things behind the scenes (even if they aren't things that the user wants or sees). A dedicated app could (conceivably) handle that more elegantly.
That's a good question. Does it make you wonder if there is a better answer than dismissing him as a liar?
Here's another question -- who's judgement do you trust more: Steve Wozniak, or Ira what's-his-face from that precious hipster radio show, sorry, uber legitimate news hour that never, never, ever broadcasts anything that isn't the literal truth? Not saying there is a correct answer. . .
Learning how to learn vs. learning what to regurgitate.
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
And maybe that is why he is able to perceive that pretending to multitask is inferior to concentrating on the most important task at hand, and organizing one's effort around the reality of the human brain.
E.g. During class, focus on absorbing the material being presented. Later, with recording of class if necessary, make effective notes with the leisure of being able to pause in order to record notes on whatever media is best suited to writing things down to confirm comprehension (no more "WTF was I writing here?") and for future reference.
You can bet that every single thing that the iPhone has ever been derided for lacking - no 3G, can't copy and paste, no notification system, blah blah - was on a list during development and got crossed out because it wasn't as important at that moment as some other feature.
More like they couldn't yet figure out how to do it well, or cost effectively.
There's a difference between features and experiences.
Sure. Features can be objectively defined and compared. "Experience" is utterly subjective. Seriously, what does "overall experience" mean, unless you break it down to the combination of features that you are really describing?
If a user's "experience" is enhanced by a lack of features, it is because their requirements are more narrow, or they are intimidated by options, or both.
NTTAWWT. I have an iPod Touch. I didn't even think I wanted such a device over a netbook, but a friend was upgrading and I ended up with it. I like the "experience". But I can actually tell you why. It has very few features and options, but those that are present are basically what I need for my very limited requirements when using such a device (casual web browsing, alarm clock, shallow gaming).
If consumers didn't already have the apple connector in their homes on so many devices, would they consider the ipad the default device?
We'll find out when wireless technologies make docking obsolete.