Apparently your place is a good start! I stated an observation and solicited feedback. Isn't that how the scientific community works? You don't seem to like that approach though.
My mistake, I missed a zero. Funny how many different numbers I see flying around for how old humans are, yet everyone's up in arms about a simple oversight.
Human impact on the environment goes back before humans existed? That's impressive.
Also, note that the article makes no mention of any potential benefit to the world. They're just considering this a stepping stone to the ultimate goal of reviving the wolly mammoth. Not kidding. This is purely "because we can" and "so we can make money!" $cience. The potential fallout of this kind of reckless scientific exploitation is something we should have written off many, many years ago. The tone of the quotes in the article remind me of the race for an atomic bomb.
As if we didn't have enough issues with invasive and non-native plant species wreaking havoc on our ecosystems from the stupidity of yester-year? Now we want to revive 30,000 year-old plants and make it worse??? They died for a reason- get over it, move on, do something productive for TODAY.
Am I missing some major potential social or environmental benefit to doing this?
I agree with him. A compact camera has a compact lens, and compact lenses suck. DSLRs produce awesome photos because the camera has more light to work with, better optics, and more sensors to automatically determine ideal exposure settings. Based on the description, I think whatever this person buys they're going to use for a long time and a DSLR is a great investment.
I am CURRENTLY attending classes and there are professors who specifically state - both during the first lecture and in their syllabus - that any recording, copying, video taping, etc. is strictly forbidden. I know you may think it is odd (I agree), and I should ignore those rules or this and that, but why would I want to piss off the person who submits my grade?
Plus, there is a significant enhancement in the amount of information you remember when you involve more senses - seeing and hearing is great, but when you add the process of recreating what you see it engages a lot more of your brain and gives you a better chance to remember and process information. That is particularly useful when you're in the process of learning (your brain is highly receptive to the intake of information) and you have the ability to get answers to questions or clarification before you cement information in your brain (after you leave).
Bottom line, taking notes is a valuable part of learning. Using computers to enhance note quality, as well as accessibility and retention is a brilliant idea that warrants far more attention (IMO) than it has received.
I concur with what you're saying, and I have a couple of points to add:
Manufacturer support for a given form factor is a huge decision-making factor! Nobody wants to buy into a platform and see it dropped the next month. I would argue that Netbooks were the fad, NOT tablets. I never felt like Netbooks were here to stay, but I get the impression that the current generation of tablets are.
I believe that one reason people jump on any given bandwagon the moment that Apple gets on is related to my first point. Apple doesn't commit to designing and selling one-off products for short runs. They don't "test" the waters, they jump in head first. If they hit the bottom (MacBook Air) then they cut their losses and move on (iPad), but I think people feel something along the lines of: "OK, Apple is investing in this [form factor/technology/concept], so if I buy one too - whether or not it's Apple's - it won't be obsolete next week." Look at the iPod. Not the first MP3 player by a long shot. But since the iPod, almost every MP3 player has attempted to replicate the form factor and functionality. I know people with 5+ year old iPods. They still work, they still use them, and they still LOOK relevant in today's world. They are to the '00s and '10s what Sony was to the '80s and '90s.
If the iPad, Kindle Fire, Nook Tablet, Motorola Xoom, etc. are apples [no pun intended], then things like the HP Elitebook, Acer Iconica, etc. are oranges. For that matter, Netbooks are bananas. There is NO appropriate, fair, or accurate comparison.
Is an iPad wonderful for running the numbers on your latest contract and conducting a cost/benefit analysis? No, it's horrible. Is a Kindle Fire the best place to code your latest FPS? God awful is what it is (for that). What a more wonderful place to relax and enjoy some casual computing than in an environment where it's completely impractical (if not impossible) to be distracted by work? I think people are trying to tell computer manufacturers: we get it, computers can do a lot, but I don't want every device I own to be capable of doing any computing task! I want work-life separation.
I feel like I've made my point, though I could go on. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own a tablet (by any definition, or a Netbook). I have used them, I have talked to people who live with them every day. They don't work for me and what I do.
I agree, which is the purpose for the following statement:
Or are you trying to argue that anything that benefits people (social security, healthcare...) contributes to "paying people to stay home and watch TV"?
In his own post, he refers to social programs as things which "[pay] people to stay home and watch TV." By his own definition, and my interpretation of its meaning, he is completely wrong. He made a very ambiguous (not to mention loaded) statement and I called him out on it.
I'm not attempting to impregnate my own opinion here (or maybe I am, but not on purpose), but you can't defend his statement by saying things like education are covered under his definition of "social programs."
Also, that chart is about the nicest way anyone could possibly portray the "defense" budget. As mentioned in a later comment, the defense budget is actually sourced much differently than the alleged "social programs."
In other words, the "defense" budget in the United States is greater than the next 20 countries (ranked by their defense budget) combined. And just FYI, only 11.5% of that budget goes into that R&D you praised. But hey, I guess that's doing pretty well since we only seem to think 4% of our federal budget belongs in education! (now my opinions are showing)
Or are you trying to argue that anything that benefits people (social security, healthcare...) contributes to "paying people to stay home and watch TV"?
It's shocking to me how many people are so bent out of shape about this.
This is a capitolistic society. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
But don't forget, schools have two major responsibilities: make sure kids attend school (by law), and make sure kids excel at school (see previous); whether it's a computer or a person, someone or something is keeping track of where your child is at school and how often they aren't there (because they have to).
Is fingerprinting the best option? I don't know, that's what I expected people in a "tech" community to discuss (especially when non-tech related political discussions outrage so many who visit here), not about how doing the same thing school's have always done (keep track of student attendance) is turning the world into a communist wasteland.
So, can someone post something objective and relevant so I can get back to what I was doing?
Kind of looks like a toxic green cloud settling over New Jersey... Maybe all that methane off-gassing from the dumps is accumulating in the atmosphere above the bigger cities. Could also be a by-product of spray tanning chemicals.
I used to have to ask someone where the nearest this or that could be found. I used to have to ask how to get from A to B. Local landmarks used to be paramount in navigation and route finding. Now we can haplessly ignore the locals and find our own way straight to the restaurant we chose based on Yelp reviews. Word of mouth is not very useful anymore, at least not in the traditional sense. What I'm getting at, is that smaller cities/towns lose control of their identity. It's the internet that decides which restaurants and hotels are the best, and how to get around town. I'm not trying to commend on whether or not this is better or worse, but it's hard to find one piece of technology which has contributed so much to this trend.
GPS has removed the need to "memorize" local street patterns or common routes. Why bother to remember how to get to your favorite vacation spot when GPS will "always" be there to guide you? (Again, this is stripping local landmarks of their significance)
In another sense, GPS (GNSS for those of you modern enough to embrace foreign constellations) has really complicated the idea of "location." The instability of consumer-grade GPSr observations and the steep price curve for more accurate instruments has created a rather cluttered mess. Everyone seems to think that their coordinates are better than the other guy. I'm in the land surveying/geomatics field, and even at that level GPS is rarely brought up in legal disputes because it's just not an acceptable replacement for good old fashioned direct measurements (or acceptable substitutions, like EDMs).
In my opinion, GPS/GNSS has not solved *any* issues in the civilian world. It has (over)simplified and depersonalized navigation (non GNSS alternatives exist and have worked wonderfully for centuries), created clutter and confusion, and in conjunction with the internet helped to strip local societies of their identity.
Why should I take this kind of data collection personally? After all, they know what I do on the internet but they don't actually don't know anything about me. I'm just a number, a component of their statistical calculation. I'm a source of data used to seed their advertising rotation algorithm for shit I never buy (mostly because I don't even acknowledge the advertisements).
Why is it that when we WANT someone to notice our tiny, pathetic existence we decry the cold, computerized nature of big business and complain about how we are "just a number" to them... but when we call it a "privacy issue" it's all about "how much they know about me!"
So what if Google knows you looked up hydroponics kits? Do you think they have some useful purpose for that information which is ultimately going to negatively affect you in some way?
Information about your computer or device: We may also collect information about the computer, mobile or other devices you use to access and listen to the Service. For example, our servers receive and record information about your computer and browser, including potentially your IP address, browser type, and other software or hardware information. If you access the Service from a mobile or other device, we may collect a unique device identifier assigned to that device or other transactional information for that device.
With such headings as "Automatic Data Collection", "How we use the information we collect:", and "How the information we collect is shared:" it's kind of hard for me to see how there was any ambiguity?
On the other hand, I know most people never bothered to read the privacy statement but that is by no means Pandora's fault. They provided the information - if users failed to actually read it, that's on them.
Why indeed?What reasonable motivation could he have to poll a well-established base of computer experts for advise?
Maybe they should just hire one of these "computer experts" who knows the answer instead of someone who can't even seem to use Google?
Seriously, they're paying him to get the job done. If he doesn't know how to find this information for himself and make an informed decision, he should not have accepted the job in the first place.
Let someone who has the requisite knowledge have the job (or contract) and get the job done using well established procedure and expertise.
Even if he does know, he should come to the table with options and ideas and ask (say, on a forum) for some expert opinions about specific products (or at least brand names/vendors!) This shows that you have at least done some homework.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for posting the only sensible reply with actual substance. I appreciate your honest, meaningful response!
Apparently your place is a good start! I stated an observation and solicited feedback. Isn't that how the scientific community works? You don't seem to like that approach though.
My mistake, I missed a zero. Funny how many different numbers I see flying around for how old humans are, yet everyone's up in arms about a simple oversight.
Human impact on the environment goes back before humans existed? That's impressive.
Also, note that the article makes no mention of any potential benefit to the world. They're just considering this a stepping stone to the ultimate goal of reviving the wolly mammoth. Not kidding. This is purely "because we can" and "so we can make money!" $cience. The potential fallout of this kind of reckless scientific exploitation is something we should have written off many, many years ago. The tone of the quotes in the article remind me of the race for an atomic bomb.
As if we didn't have enough issues with invasive and non-native plant species wreaking havoc on our ecosystems from the stupidity of yester-year? Now we want to revive 30,000 year-old plants and make it worse??? They died for a reason- get over it, move on, do something productive for TODAY.
Am I missing some major potential social or environmental benefit to doing this?
You mean some people still run Firefox?
Indeed, I've done it myself... and if you throw in a cheap-o bridge rectifier, you get twice the brightness!
I agree with him. A compact camera has a compact lens, and compact lenses suck. DSLRs produce awesome photos because the camera has more light to work with, better optics, and more sensors to automatically determine ideal exposure settings. Based on the description, I think whatever this person buys they're going to use for a long time and a DSLR is a great investment.
I am CURRENTLY attending classes and there are professors who specifically state - both during the first lecture and in their syllabus - that any recording, copying, video taping, etc. is strictly forbidden. I know you may think it is odd (I agree), and I should ignore those rules or this and that, but why would I want to piss off the person who submits my grade?
Plus, there is a significant enhancement in the amount of information you remember when you involve more senses - seeing and hearing is great, but when you add the process of recreating what you see it engages a lot more of your brain and gives you a better chance to remember and process information. That is particularly useful when you're in the process of learning (your brain is highly receptive to the intake of information) and you have the ability to get answers to questions or clarification before you cement information in your brain (after you leave).
Bottom line, taking notes is a valuable part of learning. Using computers to enhance note quality, as well as accessibility and retention is a brilliant idea that warrants far more attention (IMO) than it has received.
I concur with what you're saying, and I have a couple of points to add:
I feel like I've made my point, though I could go on. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own a tablet (by any definition, or a Netbook). I have used them, I have talked to people who live with them every day. They don't work for me and what I do.
I agree, which is the purpose for the following statement:
Or are you trying to argue that anything that benefits people (social security, healthcare...) contributes to "paying people to stay home and watch TV"?
In his own post, he refers to social programs as things which "[pay] people to stay home and watch TV." By his own definition, and my interpretation of its meaning, he is completely wrong. He made a very ambiguous (not to mention loaded) statement and I called him out on it.
I'm not attempting to impregnate my own opinion here (or maybe I am, but not on purpose), but you can't defend his statement by saying things like education are covered under his definition of "social programs."
Also, that chart is about the nicest way anyone could possibly portray the "defense" budget. As mentioned in a later comment, the defense budget is actually sourced much differently than the alleged "social programs."
In other words, the "defense" budget in the United States is greater than the next 20 countries (ranked by their defense budget) combined. And just FYI, only 11.5% of that budget goes into that R&D you praised. But hey, I guess that's doing pretty well since we only seem to think 4% of our federal budget belongs in education! (now my opinions are showing)
Old news! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE
Maybe where you live, but I wear a Timex Ironman Triathlon and I receive complements all the time.
Or, here's about 50 more: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=ipod&rh=n%3A377110011%2Ck%3Aipod&page=1
Seriously, I'm a huge Android fan but... I'd take an iPod Nano wristwatch over these any day: cheaper, better battery life, and easy to use
the military budget it pales in comparison to the amount that is spent on social programs
I'm assuming you're talking about welfare. If so, have you checked your facts recently?
Or are you trying to argue that anything that benefits people (social security, healthcare...) contributes to "paying people to stay home and watch TV"?
Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_budget_2011USbf_13bs1n#usgs302
What happened on 9/11/2011?
It's shocking to me how many people are so bent out of shape about this.
This is a capitolistic society. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
But don't forget, schools have two major responsibilities: make sure kids attend school (by law), and make sure kids excel at school (see previous); whether it's a computer or a person, someone or something is keeping track of where your child is at school and how often they aren't there (because they have to).
Is fingerprinting the best option? I don't know, that's what I expected people in a "tech" community to discuss (especially when non-tech related political discussions outrage so many who visit here), not about how doing the same thing school's have always done (keep track of student attendance) is turning the world into a communist wasteland.
So, can someone post something objective and relevant so I can get back to what I was doing?
That may not be a bad start, actually...
exactly as clean and renewable as gasoline
Which is... not at all?
Kind of looks like a toxic green cloud settling over New Jersey... Maybe all that methane off-gassing from the dumps is accumulating in the atmosphere above the bigger cities. Could also be a by-product of spray tanning chemicals.
I used to have to ask someone where the nearest this or that could be found. I used to have to ask how to get from A to B. Local landmarks used to be paramount in navigation and route finding. Now we can haplessly ignore the locals and find our own way straight to the restaurant we chose based on Yelp reviews. Word of mouth is not very useful anymore, at least not in the traditional sense. What I'm getting at, is that smaller cities/towns lose control of their identity. It's the internet that decides which restaurants and hotels are the best, and how to get around town. I'm not trying to commend on whether or not this is better or worse, but it's hard to find one piece of technology which has contributed so much to this trend.
GPS has removed the need to "memorize" local street patterns or common routes. Why bother to remember how to get to your favorite vacation spot when GPS will "always" be there to guide you? (Again, this is stripping local landmarks of their significance)
In another sense, GPS (GNSS for those of you modern enough to embrace foreign constellations) has really complicated the idea of "location." The instability of consumer-grade GPSr observations and the steep price curve for more accurate instruments has created a rather cluttered mess. Everyone seems to think that their coordinates are better than the other guy. I'm in the land surveying/geomatics field, and even at that level GPS is rarely brought up in legal disputes because it's just not an acceptable replacement for good old fashioned direct measurements (or acceptable substitutions, like EDMs).
In my opinion, GPS/GNSS has not solved *any* issues in the civilian world. It has (over)simplified and depersonalized navigation (non GNSS alternatives exist and have worked wonderfully for centuries), created clutter and confusion, and in conjunction with the internet helped to strip local societies of their identity.
Why should I take this kind of data collection personally? After all, they know what I do on the internet but they don't actually don't know anything about me. I'm just a number, a component of their statistical calculation. I'm a source of data used to seed their advertising rotation algorithm for shit I never buy (mostly because I don't even acknowledge the advertisements).
Why is it that when we WANT someone to notice our tiny, pathetic existence we decry the cold, computerized nature of big business and complain about how we are "just a number" to them... but when we call it a "privacy issue" it's all about "how much they know about me!"
So what if Google knows you looked up hydroponics kits? Do you think they have some useful purpose for that information which is ultimately going to negatively affect you in some way?
Really? this wasn't clear and upfront enough?
One need only look at the privacy policy to figure this out: http://www.pandora.com/privacy/
With such headings as "Automatic Data Collection", "How we use the information we collect:", and "How the information we collect is shared:" it's kind of hard for me to see how there was any ambiguity?
On the other hand, I know most people never bothered to read the privacy statement but that is by no means Pandora's fault. They provided the information - if users failed to actually read it, that's on them.
Why indeed?What reasonable motivation could he have to poll a well-established base of computer experts for advise?
Maybe they should just hire one of these "computer experts" who knows the answer instead of someone who can't even seem to use Google?
Seriously, they're paying him to get the job done. If he doesn't know how to find this information for himself and make an informed decision, he should not have accepted the job in the first place.
Let someone who has the requisite knowledge have the job (or contract) and get the job done using well established procedure and expertise.
Even if he does know, he should come to the table with options and ideas and ask (say, on a forum) for some expert opinions about specific products (or at least brand names/vendors!) This shows that you have at least done some homework.