Actually, the Federal Highway Administration, under the US DOT, stipulates speed limits be set to the 90th decile of traffic flow, as determined by a speed study for each stretch of highway (straight separate from curve, separate from uphill and downhill).
Most state's speed limits do not conform.
As was clearly shown by the state which eliminated speed limits, and then subsequently had them reinstated, their accident rate dropped without limits, then increased when speed limits were put back in.
There IS evidence that it is actually safer to go faster. (Obviously speed has nothing to do with safety, other factors are at issue. The vast majority of accidents occur at very low speeds, not on limited access highways.)
Shortly after moving to where I live now, I received a letter claiming thousands in hospital bills. The problem, I'd never been hospitalized, nor even seen the hospital listed.
In my case, I called the idiotic attorney's office.
The stupid paralegal (IE, "intern") had obviously just done a name search and picked me as the closest geographically. Then she had the audacity to request I fax her my social security card! LOL As if I'd let such a slipshod operation have my info.
So I'm not surprised at all, there's no way the woman would know the attorney pursued the wrong website. There's no way the court would know either, they can only deal with what information is brought to them.
There's a reason I personally handle my legal matters when I can.
...I miss my original Amiga and my old Palm device. The former, which could be instantly shut off (off, not "down") by flicking the switch, and the later, which instantly went idle with a push of it's power button, and instantly was back up to it's previous state with another push.
I can't wait until modern computers catch up to the 1990s and 1980s respectively.
Since there have been useful direct suggestions already, some of which have pointed out the liability of not actually feeling "there" by virtue of separation by screen, I have an alternative that can actually help you feel together, as if you are both in the same place (although not useful for kids).
"Second Life"
Lots of people in long distance relationships use it to actually feel as if they are together sharing space. Businesses have found the same thing, instead of feeling the "distance" video conferencing confers, everyone feels as if they are in the same room.
You can present yourself how you desire and decorate how you all desire including have pics of kids on the nightstand. You can have shared experiences like going to live music events, dancing together, attending Burning Life (the virtual Burning Man alternative), participating in games or treasure hunts, watching videos, sailing, amusement parks, exploring different places, etc.
You can even explore intimacy, including in ways you might not feel comfortable in your own bedroom. (I know a couple who both logged on in their apartment together, one in one room, the other in the living room, who enjoyed certain adult activities that just made them giggle were they trying them in their own bedroom together.)
The only big catch is there is a significant learning curve, many people log on and try it, to never log on again--so you might not "get it" (it seems more women and stay at home moms do).
But I can tell you that it's amazing how good a virtual hug feels when someone gives you one and you virtually experience it happening, far more than a verbal "love you" or textual "*hugs".
I know there are many here who ridicule Second Life, but this is an area in which it excels, and I know of no other similar substitute--plus it's free!
You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.
When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.
In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.
It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.
If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.
I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.
As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.
As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.
...and profits are being squeezed even lower by ebooks.
A friend of mine prefers ebook sales over paper copies as she earns MORE from each.
Wait, that's not precisely true, her husband prefers ebook sales and she didn't contradict him. I'll ask her tomorrow how she would feel about advertisements, we already have horrible "discussions" about piracy.
Who would care about the games you mentioned? (Although you can play games in SL, the majority of the worldwide users are not "players".) I generate hundreds of dollars annually from my activities in SL, I know others who earn their entire salaries there.
I've never even seen the games you listed, and if there were similar problems with them, I bet a fraction of the people would be affected compared to Second Life.
That being said, I don't presume that similar information shouldn't be shared--in an information sharing medium!
There were a bunch of media stories about SL years ago, before Twitter came along. The media has generally been quiet about SL since. If you don't care, read a story you DO care about instead silly!
My favorite, even recently featured in the movie "Inception", is that we only use 10% of our brains.
Sorry, we use all of it, nature isn't wasteful, the premise that we only use a fraction was invented before modern medicine/science, over a century ago.
From experience geocaching, actually having two devices with two screens is useful. Back when I started geocaching, I had a Palm Pilot with maps run off a cable to my eTrex GPSr, it meant I could have different information available at the same time, à la having two monitors on a computer.
Another factor most are ignoring is a GPS receiver is nearly bomb proof. Since 2002, I've NEVER had a GPSr not function. Meanwhile my Palm Pilot might crash, I've seen phones lock up or die, and I've had other electronics fail in some fashion. I have yet to have a GPSr unable to get me back from whence I came.
GPSrs are devices designed to aid reliable SURVIVAL in potentially extreme conditions. Phones are designed for communication in mundane circumstances.
My GPSr has gone kayaking and been underwater. I've heard most phones won't survive a toilet.
Most GPSrs are designed to be usable while wearing gloves. I've seen phones that can't be used by fat fingers.
Others have talked about power savings. Sure, GPSrs are designed to run days on their batteries instead of hours. Comments have said you could turn it off when not needed, but then it won't be recording a track log which might prove invaluable later. What's more, GPSrs have a power saving mode. What happens when your over-nighter becomes lost and injured for a week?
The companies that make the devices have entirely different focuses. The more I write here, the more I become of the opinion that a dedicated GPS would be more appropriate. Think of a GPSr as insurance, you hope to not NEED it, but you are damn glad it's there for you when you do.
This all comes from not only my experience, but almost a decade of sharing the experiences of others. Mine might be more extreme for most who geocache, having participated in a rescue of someone hypothermic, following my GPSr in unfamiliar territory when dehydrated to assistance, and temperatures from below 0 to all sorts of weather, much of it in the dark, relying on GPS alone.
Sadly she makes that claim without any evidence. The purpose of saving is to accumulate greater buying power, but the monkey's were only allowed to exchange ONE token for a purchase. If a monkey learned it could purchase a grape dispenser with 100 tokens, THEN you would potentially see some savings behavior.
However that option was never afforded them, so the experiment does not offer any basis of claim on monkey savings.
I can tell you as a kid, when my friends spent their allowances on candy and disposables, I saved mine for a month and bought a CB radio I wanted. To this day I save excessively and have afforded myself what I've wanted by virtue of it. When she asked what I'd do with $1000? My first thought was toss it in the bank, I'd have her $1500 in a couple decades, or have doubled it in 35 years.
But her comparisons are a fallacy over time. A 50% chance of doubling your money averages out to 1.5 over time, as any professional poker player can tell you. When she asked which to choose, I thought, it's irrelevant, they are both equatable in the long run.
But she ignores emotion, which obviously both monkey's and we make decisions by predominantly. 100% of the time the choice was to avoid potentially feeling bad (whether for a 0% gain or some amount of loss).
Since feeling badly has greater value/is more significant than monetary gain/loss, I'd suggest we make the right choice.
So far computers aren't intelligent, nor smarter than their users (despite opinions to the contrary), they generally pick the worst time to try to do updates.
There currently isn't a way for a computer to predict when it's getting in your way (hint, right at boot-up is the worst time, as I turned on the computer to get something done). Until then, there should be a clear indication it WANTS to update, with user ability to postpone for a specified period without distraction/interference.
Computers and other tools/appliances should never do something without the users/owners knowledge, or they become untrustworthy.
Ever watch someone turn on their computer to show you something? They have a task, start the machine, load the browser, get to Youtube, find the video, click play.
On my system, it comes out of hibernation, Firefox is already running, new tab, search, play. All auto-updating is turned off.
On most systems, after the OS boots, some things auto-update, some things ask to update. The user clicks cancel on all the permissible updates, but their system is bogged down the the hidden updates. Their browser takes inordinately long to load, they bitch about it. When their browser is finally up, they, oh wait, now browser updates. Okay NOW we can try to load Youtube, only our network connection is being interfered with and it doesn't play smoothly.
The Twitter post of mine that got the most reaction was how to disable Window's update nag box--it can wait until the TV show is over, or whatever the user needs/wants to do.
A better method would be for the OS to have an updating control, like on the Windows task bar, with progress meters for various software, with controls to aborting, pausing without anything hidden/secretive/subversive/untrusted.
Sure, give the users the ability to have background updates for those who prefer it, even provide an OS control so that you don't have to tell each individual piece of software that's your preference, that would be great. Thankfully Firefox is not inhibiting user control--yet (or I'd be seeking an alternative browser).
No computer software should behave like it knows what I want (or need) more than I do. A computer is only useful when it's doing what *I* desire it to, anything more is interfering, and the presumed benefit is outweighed by not being able to realize that benefit.
When I was a kid buying back to school supplies I always wondered why I could buy an entire pack of pens for $1 that had a rebate for $1.
I'd get pens for the cost of a stamp.
How did the pen companies make money offering that?
Years later I learned.
People take rebate forms, but never send in the info.
I'm not surprised people don't want to make a phone call, use a menu system, wait to talk to the kind reps who easily contest charges.
The credit card companies make it easier than mailing a rebate form, but that's more effort than using the remote to turn on TV, I mean heck, people won't even walk a few feet across the room to turn on a TV anymore!
It's the same reason people will pay extra for those internet/TV/phone bundled packages, rather than pay less for the services separately.
They have "better things to do" than fill out rebate forms or sit on hold calling companies.
- Agree to very limited contact with the outside, and limited and/or prohibited personal use of cell phone, texting, e-mail, Facebook, etc., during the residence period.
- Reside exclusively in the Museum during the residence period. Occasionally, the candidate will leave the Museum to see science where it happens or appear at events on the Museum's behalf.
- You must be available to live in the Museum for 30 days with no outside personal or work responsibilities.
They should have called it "Prisoner at the Museum".
Hmm, who would look for a conversation on ChatRoulette? But I can attest it's not all penises and bald guys, there are also vaginas and bare girls (both recorded and live).
It helps if you go on as a couple, or if you are female, as this guy found out: explanation video
Snowflakes haven't cornered the market on uniqueness.
You may not feel special, but think how snowflakes feel, they aren't unique, researchers have found dupes, yet people such as the article's author keep throwing it in their non-unique faces.
No, this is not why we have insurance. In fact insurance shouldn't pay for something recoverable. Either way, your integrity shouldn't permit you to file a claim for something recoverable. That would be stealing from the insurance company, and me, and everyone else who carries insurance.
This is like when I had radial keratotomy done on my eyes (before lasik) and the nurse suggested they could attempt to file an insurance claim suggesting I needed it for my livelihood. Why should others spend thousands for my choice and whim?
And people wonder why insurance rates are excessive.
Sure enough, looking at the link provided, it's totally unreadable. The information on the page is out of context with the rest of the information on the page, the text providing context is off screen below. Instead of being able to quickly read or skim any of it, I gave up and closed the tab, returned here to report.
You might only have a hammer in your toolbox, and believe everything you see is a nail, but it's not. Newspapers needed the crutch of multiple columns because their format was hopelessly wide. Web pages have the opposite problem, they are infinitely tall. (One of the wonderful attributes of the Readability tool is to increase a web pages width to fill the screen.)
Worse, more web access is being done on mobile devices, thankfully that site was one column in Opera mini, I suppose we'll have to spoof to make it readable on other browsers?
It's not a mistake to think that print properties do not apply to the web, it's a mistake to misapply properties designed to overcome one liability, to media that has the opposite liability!
PS: Below you claim, "Multi-column can actually prevent scrolling entirely, by using the horizontal space instead of forcing you to scroll vertically." Seemingly to overlook the obvious extra white space required between multiple columns that isn't normally wasted--multiple columns add length.
Although Twitter is obviously a communication service rather than a social network, this is elegantly handled by messages/photos/videos only being seen by mutual friends.
No setup, no configuration, no separate accounts, no spammage, no nothing, it just works.
It seems those who modded this insightful didn't read the article?
I don't see anyone asking if the "creativity test" is even valid.
How's the test structured? What's the researcher's definition of creativity? What are they measuring?
All those things were clearly explained in the article, actually to a wonderful level of depth.
Creativity is a very subjective concept as it is.
Au contraire, the results of creativity is subjective, but the objective process is defined in the article, right down to the parts of the brain involved (as seen in an fMRI).
The article also clearly shows how unlike other standardized tests, the creativity test had an incredible predictive ability. To quote, "Nobody would argue that Torrance’s tasks, which have become the gold standard in creativity assessment, measure creativity perfectly. What’s shocking is how incredibly well Torrance’s creativity index predicted those kids’ creative accomplishments as adults."
Okay, so the question is piracy the straw that breaks the camels back?
It's an easy scapegoat, especially for those who have failures.
However there was a great article I don't have the time to search for at the moment, which demonstrated the folks who pirate are not the market who buys, and conversely, as has already been pointed out, greater exposure is a wonderful thing. So little is lost to pirates, because they are less likely to have purchased the product to begin with. Meanwhile there is a gain, if they share the product with someone who generates revenue.
An example of this is free services that try to switch to charging. They usually lose most of their client base, since it's a different market that's attracted to free services than those who prefer paying.
A LOT is paid for exposure, PR and marketing, imo, piracy should be covered in those budgets and perceived as a boon rather than doom. The key is to get it into the right hands, the reviewer how has a strong committed following, the pirate who has the greatest dissemination.
Ultimately, what would be most wonderful is to have metrics covering various piracy outlets, to determine which offer the greatest conversion rate. Perhaps those coupon codes redeemable at purchase which already track which outlet was the referral would be useful here?
Finally, once entities start to take advantage of the (currently free) piracy channels of PR and marketing, and have useful metrics to measure their campaigns, I could see pirates going professional and charging for their services.
I also saw that "oops" of pushing the pawn too far, obviously there's an undo function there somewhere or he had not yet released the move.
Yes, and there was no visual feedback when he moved the pawn two squares forward, not until he took back and made his corrected move. IE, it didn't seem to require an "undo" but your later suggestion instead.
It seems he might be taking a snapshot of the board, then figuring out the move from comparing the previous shot with a now empty square, to the new shot with a newly occupied square.
Ironically, perhaps easier with lower resolution ("old webcam") data. The use of an LCD was brilliant, as it eliminates lighting issues trying the same thing with a regular board.
I also noticed his clock consistently ran two seconds beyond his making of his move.
"Here is a novel thought. If you don't like the service, just stop playing and forking over your money. Wow what a concept."
This stupid response is barfed all over the WoW forums repeatedly every time someone has any sort of complaint. Ever think that maybe some people enjoy the game, despite objecting to some of Blizzard's decisions?
If a customer service rep from AT&T is rude to you, do you cancel your service and just live without a phone? Oh, you don't like Comcast? Well cancel your cable and live without internet or TV, what a concept!
Actually, yes. There are several companies I will never do business with, and whom have competitors I endorse whenever I get the opportunity.
I know your post got modded up and labeled "insightful", but it's quite the opposite imo...
To borrow your example, I HAVE cancelled cable and use the library and Hulu to partially fill the gap, there was no useful competitor available to me. Obviously such extreme measures aren't warranted from one rude service rep., in fact I wouldn't even complain to a manager over silliness like that, but I DO specifically request a manager when reps go above and beyond the call of duty, and have repeatedly earned people "employee of the month" status.
Putting your money where your mouth is, IS valuable.
So I'd suggest it's not a stupid response to suggest people do that. Especially since often that recourse is offered to individuals whose complaints are misdirected, complaining in a public forum of the company often does little to promote change, it's more for commiseration. Usually that suggestion is provided to those who are complaining for the sake of complaining, rather than their contributing to the discussion, or seeking to improve the situation, more simply to ease their pain.
The company losing revenue due to customers deserting certainly does promote change. The company seeing competitors' usage increasing does. The company receiving bad PR on Twitter, while their competition receives good PR does (although admittedly, all press is good press, which is why I don't even mention the names of companies I refuse to work with).
That being said, the decision shouldn't be trite, and you have to weigh your ethics, the increased cost of not doing business with that company, or altering that service. Everybody, including companies, make mistakes, one or two is bearable, but I recently moved all my insurance policies to a new agency, because the old one dropped the ball for the third time in twelve years.
Sometimes the grass IS greener, and instead of complaining about things, moving on can help you discover wonderful alternatives. In my case, not only better service, but cost savings as well.
Which breaks the cardinal rule of the Internet, never give out your surname, which leads to your home address, phone, etc.
It used to be that was the first thing taught people when they first "went online", then online shopping got people used to giving out real credentials (albeit protected by stringent privacy policies).
Now?
I once easily connected someones identity from an online profile quote, to a defunct game's forums (matching quote), which led to another forum with real name email shown, which led to their home address/phone, and another quick search of their employment with likely places nearby, their workplace, opposite gender photo, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Federal Highway Administration, under the US DOT, stipulates speed limits be set to the 90th decile of traffic flow, as determined by a speed study for each stretch of highway (straight separate from curve, separate from uphill and downhill).
Most state's speed limits do not conform.
As was clearly shown by the state which eliminated speed limits, and then subsequently had them reinstated, their accident rate dropped without limits, then increased when speed limits were put back in.
There IS evidence that it is actually safer to go faster. (Obviously speed has nothing to do with safety, other factors are at issue. The vast majority of accidents occur at very low speeds, not on limited access highways.)
Shortly after moving to where I live now, I received a letter claiming thousands in hospital bills. The problem, I'd never been hospitalized, nor even seen the hospital listed.
In my case, I called the idiotic attorney's office.
The stupid paralegal (IE, "intern") had obviously just done a name search and picked me as the closest geographically. Then she had the audacity to request I fax her my social security card! LOL As if I'd let such a slipshod operation have my info.
So I'm not surprised at all, there's no way the woman would know the attorney pursued the wrong website. There's no way the court would know either, they can only deal with what information is brought to them.
There's a reason I personally handle my legal matters when I can.
...I miss my original Amiga and my old Palm device. The former, which could be instantly shut off (off, not "down") by flicking the switch, and the later, which instantly went idle with a push of it's power button, and instantly was back up to it's previous state with another push.
I can't wait until modern computers catch up to the 1990s and 1980s respectively.
Since there have been useful direct suggestions already, some of which have pointed out the liability of not actually feeling "there" by virtue of separation by screen, I have an alternative that can actually help you feel together, as if you are both in the same place (although not useful for kids).
"Second Life"
Lots of people in long distance relationships use it to actually feel as if they are together sharing space. Businesses have found the same thing, instead of feeling the "distance" video conferencing confers, everyone feels as if they are in the same room.
You can present yourself how you desire and decorate how you all desire including have pics of kids on the nightstand. You can have shared experiences like going to live music events, dancing together, attending Burning Life (the virtual Burning Man alternative), participating in games or treasure hunts, watching videos, sailing, amusement parks, exploring different places, etc.
You can even explore intimacy, including in ways you might not feel comfortable in your own bedroom. (I know a couple who both logged on in their apartment together, one in one room, the other in the living room, who enjoyed certain adult activities that just made them giggle were they trying them in their own bedroom together.)
The only big catch is there is a significant learning curve, many people log on and try it, to never log on again--so you might not "get it" (it seems more women and stay at home moms do).
But I can tell you that it's amazing how good a virtual hug feels when someone gives you one and you virtually experience it happening, far more than a verbal "love you" or textual "*hugs".
I know there are many here who ridicule Second Life, but this is an area in which it excels, and I know of no other similar substitute--plus it's free!
You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.
When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.
In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.
It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.
If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.
I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.
As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.
As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.
The part that gets me is this assumption:
...and profits are being squeezed even lower by ebooks.
A friend of mine prefers ebook sales over paper copies as she earns MORE from each.
Wait, that's not precisely true, her husband prefers ebook sales and she didn't contradict him. I'll ask her tomorrow how she would feel about advertisements, we already have horrible "discussions" about piracy.
Who would care about the games you mentioned? (Although you can play games in SL, the majority of the worldwide users are not "players".) I generate hundreds of dollars annually from my activities in SL, I know others who earn their entire salaries there.
I've never even seen the games you listed, and if there were similar problems with them, I bet a fraction of the people would be affected compared to Second Life.
That being said, I don't presume that similar information shouldn't be shared--in an information sharing medium!
There were a bunch of media stories about SL years ago, before Twitter came along. The media has generally been quiet about SL since. If you don't care, read a story you DO care about instead silly!
My favorite, even recently featured in the movie "Inception", is that we only use 10% of our brains.
Sorry, we use all of it, nature isn't wasteful, the premise that we only use a fraction was invented before modern medicine/science, over a century ago.
The 10 percent statistic has been attributed to the pioneering psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910). I haven't been able to confirm that he gave a specific percentage, but he did say "we are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources (The Energies of Men, 1908)."
From experience geocaching, actually having two devices with two screens is useful. Back when I started geocaching, I had a Palm Pilot with maps run off a cable to my eTrex GPSr, it meant I could have different information available at the same time, à la having two monitors on a computer.
Another factor most are ignoring is a GPS receiver is nearly bomb proof. Since 2002, I've NEVER had a GPSr not function. Meanwhile my Palm Pilot might crash, I've seen phones lock up or die, and I've had other electronics fail in some fashion. I have yet to have a GPSr unable to get me back from whence I came.
GPSrs are devices designed to aid reliable SURVIVAL in potentially extreme conditions. Phones are designed for communication in mundane circumstances.
My GPSr has gone kayaking and been underwater. I've heard most phones won't survive a toilet.
Most GPSrs are designed to be usable while wearing gloves. I've seen phones that can't be used by fat fingers.
Others have talked about power savings. Sure, GPSrs are designed to run days on their batteries instead of hours. Comments have said you could turn it off when not needed, but then it won't be recording a track log which might prove invaluable later. What's more, GPSrs have a power saving mode. What happens when your over-nighter becomes lost and injured for a week?
The companies that make the devices have entirely different focuses. The more I write here, the more I become of the opinion that a dedicated GPS would be more appropriate. Think of a GPSr as insurance, you hope to not NEED it, but you are damn glad it's there for you when you do.
This all comes from not only my experience, but almost a decade of sharing the experiences of others. Mine might be more extreme for most who geocache, having participated in a rescue of someone hypothermic, following my GPSr in unfamiliar territory when dehydrated to assistance, and temperatures from below 0 to all sorts of weather, much of it in the dark, relying on GPS alone.
- Monkeys are terrible savers, as are humans.
Sadly she makes that claim without any evidence. The purpose of saving is to accumulate greater buying power, but the monkey's were only allowed to exchange ONE token for a purchase. If a monkey learned it could purchase a grape dispenser with 100 tokens, THEN you would potentially see some savings behavior.
However that option was never afforded them, so the experiment does not offer any basis of claim on monkey savings.
I can tell you as a kid, when my friends spent their allowances on candy and disposables, I saved mine for a month and bought a CB radio I wanted. To this day I save excessively and have afforded myself what I've wanted by virtue of it. When she asked what I'd do with $1000? My first thought was toss it in the bank, I'd have her $1500 in a couple decades, or have doubled it in 35 years.
But her comparisons are a fallacy over time. A 50% chance of doubling your money averages out to 1.5 over time, as any professional poker player can tell you. When she asked which to choose, I thought, it's irrelevant, they are both equatable in the long run.
But she ignores emotion, which obviously both monkey's and we make decisions by predominantly. 100% of the time the choice was to avoid potentially feeling bad (whether for a 0% gain or some amount of loss).
Since feeling badly has greater value/is more significant than monetary gain/loss, I'd suggest we make the right choice.
So far computers aren't intelligent, nor smarter than their users (despite opinions to the contrary), they generally pick the worst time to try to do updates.
There currently isn't a way for a computer to predict when it's getting in your way (hint, right at boot-up is the worst time, as I turned on the computer to get something done). Until then, there should be a clear indication it WANTS to update, with user ability to postpone for a specified period without distraction/interference.
Computers and other tools/appliances should never do something without the users/owners knowledge, or they become untrustworthy.
Ever watch someone turn on their computer to show you something? They have a task, start the machine, load the browser, get to Youtube, find the video, click play.
On my system, it comes out of hibernation, Firefox is already running, new tab, search, play. All auto-updating is turned off.
On most systems, after the OS boots, some things auto-update, some things ask to update. The user clicks cancel on all the permissible updates, but their system is bogged down the the hidden updates. Their browser takes inordinately long to load, they bitch about it. When their browser is finally up, they, oh wait, now browser updates. Okay NOW we can try to load Youtube, only our network connection is being interfered with and it doesn't play smoothly.
The Twitter post of mine that got the most reaction was how to disable Window's update nag box--it can wait until the TV show is over, or whatever the user needs/wants to do.
A better method would be for the OS to have an updating control, like on the Windows task bar, with progress meters for various software, with controls to aborting, pausing without anything hidden/secretive/subversive/untrusted.
Sure, give the users the ability to have background updates for those who prefer it, even provide an OS control so that you don't have to tell each individual piece of software that's your preference, that would be great. Thankfully Firefox is not inhibiting user control--yet (or I'd be seeking an alternative browser).
No computer software should behave like it knows what I want (or need) more than I do. A computer is only useful when it's doing what *I* desire it to, anything more is interfering, and the presumed benefit is outweighed by not being able to realize that benefit.
When I was a kid buying back to school supplies I always wondered why I could buy an entire pack of pens for $1 that had a rebate for $1.
I'd get pens for the cost of a stamp.
How did the pen companies make money offering that?
Years later I learned.
People take rebate forms, but never send in the info.
I'm not surprised people don't want to make a phone call, use a menu system, wait to talk to the kind reps who easily contest charges.
The credit card companies make it easier than mailing a rebate form, but that's more effort than using the remote to turn on TV, I mean heck, people won't even walk a few feet across the room to turn on a TV anymore!
It's the same reason people will pay extra for those internet/TV/phone bundled packages, rather than pay less for the services separately.
They have "better things to do" than fill out rebate forms or sit on hold calling companies.
When are we going to get over this cyber prefix bs?
Yes, let's get with the modern era and lingo, they will henceforth be known by the friendlier tech term: iSpy.
From the rules:
- Agree to very limited contact with the outside, and limited and/or prohibited personal use of cell phone, texting, e-mail, Facebook, etc., during the residence period.
- Reside exclusively in the Museum during the residence period. Occasionally, the candidate will leave the Museum to see science where it happens or appear at events on the Museum's behalf.
- You must be available to live in the Museum for 30 days with no outside personal or work responsibilities.
They should have called it "Prisoner at the Museum".
Hmm, who would look for a conversation on ChatRoulette? But I can attest it's not all penises and bald guys, there are also vaginas and bare girls (both recorded and live).
It helps if you go on as a couple, or if you are female, as this guy found out: explanation video
From the article's first line:
Snowflakes haven't cornered the market on uniqueness.
You may not feel special, but think how snowflakes feel, they aren't unique, researchers have found dupes, yet people such as the article's author keep throwing it in their non-unique faces.
No, this is not why we have insurance. In fact insurance shouldn't pay for something recoverable. Either way, your integrity shouldn't permit you to file a claim for something recoverable. That would be stealing from the insurance company, and me, and everyone else who carries insurance.
This is like when I had radial keratotomy done on my eyes (before lasik) and the nurse suggested they could attempt to file an insurance claim suggesting I needed it for my livelihood. Why should others spend thousands for my choice and whim?
And people wonder why insurance rates are excessive.
Integrity, not an archaic term...quite yet.
Huh? That would be a scrolling nightmare.
Sure enough, looking at the link provided, it's totally unreadable. The information on the page is out of context with the rest of the information on the page, the text providing context is off screen below. Instead of being able to quickly read or skim any of it, I gave up and closed the tab, returned here to report.
You might only have a hammer in your toolbox, and believe everything you see is a nail, but it's not. Newspapers needed the crutch of multiple columns because their format was hopelessly wide. Web pages have the opposite problem, they are infinitely tall. (One of the wonderful attributes of the Readability tool is to increase a web pages width to fill the screen.)
Worse, more web access is being done on mobile devices, thankfully that site was one column in Opera mini, I suppose we'll have to spoof to make it readable on other browsers?
It's not a mistake to think that print properties do not apply to the web, it's a mistake to misapply properties designed to overcome one liability, to media that has the opposite liability!
PS: Below you claim, "Multi-column can actually prevent scrolling entirely, by using the horizontal space instead of forcing you to scroll vertically." Seemingly to overlook the obvious extra white space required between multiple columns that isn't normally wasted--multiple columns add length.
Although Twitter is obviously a communication service rather than a social network, this is elegantly handled by messages/photos/videos only being seen by mutual friends.
No setup, no configuration, no separate accounts, no spammage, no nothing, it just works.
It seems those who modded this insightful didn't read the article?
I don't see anyone asking if the "creativity test" is even valid.
How's the test structured? What's the researcher's definition of creativity? What are they measuring?
All those things were clearly explained in the article, actually to a wonderful level of depth.
Creativity is a very subjective concept as it is.
Au contraire, the results of creativity is subjective, but the objective process is defined in the article, right down to the parts of the brain involved (as seen in an fMRI).
The article also clearly shows how unlike other standardized tests, the creativity test had an incredible predictive ability. To quote, "Nobody would argue that Torrance’s tasks, which have become the gold standard in creativity assessment, measure creativity perfectly. What’s shocking is how incredibly well Torrance’s creativity index predicted those kids’ creative accomplishments as adults."
Okay, so the question is piracy the straw that breaks the camels back?
It's an easy scapegoat, especially for those who have failures.
However there was a great article I don't have the time to search for at the moment, which demonstrated the folks who pirate are not the market who buys, and conversely, as has already been pointed out, greater exposure is a wonderful thing. So little is lost to pirates, because they are less likely to have purchased the product to begin with. Meanwhile there is a gain, if they share the product with someone who generates revenue.
An example of this is free services that try to switch to charging. They usually lose most of their client base, since it's a different market that's attracted to free services than those who prefer paying.
A LOT is paid for exposure, PR and marketing, imo, piracy should be covered in those budgets and perceived as a boon rather than doom. The key is to get it into the right hands, the reviewer how has a strong committed following, the pirate who has the greatest dissemination.
Ultimately, what would be most wonderful is to have metrics covering various piracy outlets, to determine which offer the greatest conversion rate. Perhaps those coupon codes redeemable at purchase which already track which outlet was the referral would be useful here?
Finally, once entities start to take advantage of the (currently free) piracy channels of PR and marketing, and have useful metrics to measure their campaigns, I could see pirates going professional and charging for their services.
Pirating the pirates if you will.
I also saw that "oops" of pushing the pawn too far, obviously there's an undo function there somewhere or he had not yet released the move.
Yes, and there was no visual feedback when he moved the pawn two squares forward, not until he took back and made his corrected move. IE, it didn't seem to require an "undo" but your later suggestion instead.
It seems he might be taking a snapshot of the board, then figuring out the move from comparing the previous shot with a now empty square, to the new shot with a newly occupied square.
Ironically, perhaps easier with lower resolution ("old webcam") data. The use of an LCD was brilliant, as it eliminates lighting issues trying the same thing with a regular board.
I also noticed his clock consistently ran two seconds beyond his making of his move.
This stupid response is barfed all over the WoW forums repeatedly every time someone has any sort of complaint. Ever think that maybe some people enjoy the game, despite objecting to some of Blizzard's decisions?
If a customer service rep from AT&T is rude to you, do you cancel your service and just live without a phone? Oh, you don't like Comcast? Well cancel your cable and live without internet or TV, what a concept!
Actually, yes. There are several companies I will never do business with, and whom have competitors I endorse whenever I get the opportunity.
I know your post got modded up and labeled "insightful", but it's quite the opposite imo...
To borrow your example, I HAVE cancelled cable and use the library and Hulu to partially fill the gap, there was no useful competitor available to me. Obviously such extreme measures aren't warranted from one rude service rep., in fact I wouldn't even complain to a manager over silliness like that, but I DO specifically request a manager when reps go above and beyond the call of duty, and have repeatedly earned people "employee of the month" status.
Putting your money where your mouth is, IS valuable.
So I'd suggest it's not a stupid response to suggest people do that. Especially since often that recourse is offered to individuals whose complaints are misdirected, complaining in a public forum of the company often does little to promote change, it's more for commiseration. Usually that suggestion is provided to those who are complaining for the sake of complaining, rather than their contributing to the discussion, or seeking to improve the situation, more simply to ease their pain.
The company losing revenue due to customers deserting certainly does promote change. The company seeing competitors' usage increasing does. The company receiving bad PR on Twitter, while their competition receives good PR does (although admittedly, all press is good press, which is why I don't even mention the names of companies I refuse to work with).
That being said, the decision shouldn't be trite, and you have to weigh your ethics, the increased cost of not doing business with that company, or altering that service. Everybody, including companies, make mistakes, one or two is bearable, but I recently moved all my insurance policies to a new agency, because the old one dropped the ball for the third time in twelve years.
Sometimes the grass IS greener, and instead of complaining about things, moving on can help you discover wonderful alternatives. In my case, not only better service, but cost savings as well.
Which breaks the cardinal rule of the Internet, never give out your surname, which leads to your home address, phone, etc.
It used to be that was the first thing taught people when they first "went online", then online shopping got people used to giving out real credentials (albeit protected by stringent privacy policies).
Now?
I once easily connected someones identity from an online profile quote, to a defunct game's forums (matching quote), which led to another forum with real name email shown, which led to their home address/phone, and another quick search of their employment with likely places nearby, their workplace, opposite gender photo, etc.
Here's the letter from Sony.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
So much for that. (emphasis mine)