I don't know where you're getting the idea that Americans have something against unions. Unions were great, when they did what they were supposed to. There was a huge movement toward unionization back during the big industrial push in the US. It was great, THEN.
The problem these days that many (if not most) unions have gotten completely off track. It's often about money and influence now instead of improving working conditions. Even the ones that are still working for their members are generally out of touch with what the workers really want/need. They're more about getting as much as they can, rather than what's really needed.
It's not the idea of unions that's the problem, it's the unions themselves.
I like your system for saving old versions. It reminds me of the backup program I use on my Ubuntu box (the name escapes me now). It copies whatever files you specify according to your schedule, then deletes the old backups based on a similar setup to what you described (if I remember correctly, the program calls it logarithmic or something).
With a few tweaks, that'd be a great idea to take mainstream with word processing and other small jobs. With large files (ie. video, etc), I'm not sure if it's as practical.
Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play games or that these people are necessarily addicts, but the internet should not replace all social interaction.
Have you actually SEEN a group of teens socially interacting ?
I see them interact all the time, actually. I run a soccer program for kids in exactly that age group. The problem isn't technology in itself; it's a combination of society's pressure on the kids and how the kids are raised. The ones that are allowed (both by their parents and by their peers) to pursue their interests are much more balanced when it comes to managing their time and their interactions. When the kids are persecuted or alienated for being interested in something that isn't mainstream, some of them begin to withdraw to things that are more familiar and comfortable.
Of course, this isn't universal. Some of them just need a kick in the ass and a parent who pays enough attention to limit text messages/data plans/whatever.
and maybe people's inborn lack of decency
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment here, but I do disagree with how you're saying it. It's not an inborn lack of decency. It's just that 'decency' as you're using it is something that's learned and it's broken down to some extent because parents have not taught it to their children.
If we go out, cellphones are on silent, and usually ignored... we go out to spend time with our mates, not with our gadgets.
Mine is typically ignored as well, but I will point out that communication changes and evolves over time. The english language, for example, is becoming less and less formal as time passes. The same is true for adoption of this technology. It's less and less of an 'insult' to take a phone call in some social situations. It shouldn't dominate your time, but it's not necessarily a slap in the face either.
Also, keep in mind that kids today have grown up with much more powerful technology than previous generations and multitasking is something that comes to them very naturally. If they're not taught to deal with people the old fashioned way, they won't think anything of switching between real people just like an IM window or text message.
It's just as natural for a player to say, "I defeated that boss," as it is to say, "Snake defeated that boss," since Snake is and is not the player at the same time. It is likewise natural for a player to say, "I punched an enemy soldier," when in reality, she punched no one. All she did was press a button.
I don't agree with this at all. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like "Snake defeated the boss." He's a representation of you and can't do anything on his own. You're the one doing the work to finish the game. It makes no sense for me to give him credit for beating the boss.
I think any game developer that is trying to tell a story should be just as wary of breaking the fourth wall as any author/playwright/director. The point of many/most stories is to draw the audience in. The interactivity in games is a much stronger tool than anything in the other forms of entertainment. This doesn't apply to all games, of course, but developers should be careful about breaking that immersion if they're telling a story.
Electric cars are not a solution by themselves, no, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
Part of the reason the US is starting to slip when it comes to new technology is because of the attitude that "oh it won't solve our problems, so we shouldn't do it." Keep in mind that in science (and arguably anywhere else as well), it's very rarely one project that solves a dozen problems at once. Rather, it's a dozen smaller projects that are combined to solve a single problem.
That said, might this be a colossal waste of money? Quite possibly. HOWEVER, if somebody can demonstrate that this infrastructure is feasible, it could solve all of our problems when combined with true renewable energy.
There are a lot of energy projects going now that are very promising. My personal favorite is Bussard's Polywell reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell). While it's possible/likely it won't culminate in a true fusion reactor on its own, they (as well as other similar groups) have made serious progress toward a true energy solution. If and when we get that in place, I'd prefer to have the infrastructure ready for electric cars rather than having to build from the ground up while still relying on gasoline. The world-wide energy problem has to be fixed just as much if not more than the vehicle/transport problem. With well designed electric cars and appropriate infrastructure, we solve both problems at once.
I definitely agree that there is a parallel with slots/gambling/whatever. I think it's something that more people need to acknowledge. Games are great way to entertain/challenge yourself, but there is a point where they need to be turned off. Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play games or that these people are necessarily addicts, but the internet should not replace all social interaction.
We need to keep in mind that a good number of these people have turned to games as a way to escape from a feeling of helplessness or social awkwardness. They become powerful in their online world and it's difficult to leave that, especially when you don't know how to approach the 'real' world. I know this is true for at least some 'addicts' because that's exactly what my issue was/is. It took me a long time to figure it out for myself.
What would be ideal is for someone to reach out to the 'addicts' and show them that they are interesting people in their own right and encourage them to come outside. I don't know how feasible that is as a large-scale solution, but I know that having a friend drag me out to go bowling or something would be much more effective than trying to lock me in a room with other 'defective' people. I'd actually welcome the chance to get out of the house, even if it were difficult.
Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt.... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers?... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this.... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
Wireless isn't anybody's savior, but he is right that the barriers for entry into the wireless market are far easier to overcome than wired. It is possible we'll see small companies start to pop up offering wireless in competition with the big guys.
As far as your issues... They are potential problems, but any new startup with half a brain should be able to at least mitigate some of those.
ie. They can test signal strength at a home during the signup process and they can sell/rent receivers to set up outside the home and run wires inside to deal with those pesky walls....
Not perfect, but certainly better than burying wires
Firefox is a free download that people choose to install, whereas Internet Explorer is the default browser that millions of people might not even realize they can change. For many average users, Internet Explorer IS the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Americans have something against unions. Unions were great, when they did what they were supposed to. There was a huge movement toward unionization back during the big industrial push in the US. It was great, THEN.
The problem these days that many (if not most) unions have gotten completely off track. It's often about money and influence now instead of improving working conditions. Even the ones that are still working for their members are generally out of touch with what the workers really want/need. They're more about getting as much as they can, rather than what's really needed.
It's not the idea of unions that's the problem, it's the unions themselves.
I like your system for saving old versions. It reminds me of the backup program I use on my Ubuntu box (the name escapes me now). It copies whatever files you specify according to your schedule, then deletes the old backups based on a similar setup to what you described (if I remember correctly, the program calls it logarithmic or something).
With a few tweaks, that'd be a great idea to take mainstream with word processing and other small jobs. With large files (ie. video, etc), I'm not sure if it's as practical.
Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play games or that these people are necessarily addicts, but the internet should not replace all social interaction.
Have you actually SEEN a group of teens socially interacting ?
I see them interact all the time, actually. I run a soccer program for kids in exactly that age group. The problem isn't technology in itself; it's a combination of society's pressure on the kids and how the kids are raised. The ones that are allowed (both by their parents and by their peers) to pursue their interests are much more balanced when it comes to managing their time and their interactions. When the kids are persecuted or alienated for being interested in something that isn't mainstream, some of them begin to withdraw to things that are more familiar and comfortable.
Of course, this isn't universal. Some of them just need a kick in the ass and a parent who pays enough attention to limit text messages/data plans/whatever.
and maybe people's inborn lack of decency
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment here, but I do disagree with how you're saying it. It's not an inborn lack of decency. It's just that 'decency' as you're using it is something that's learned and it's broken down to some extent because parents have not taught it to their children.
If we go out, cellphones are on silent, and usually ignored ... we go out to spend time with our mates, not with our gadgets.
Mine is typically ignored as well, but I will point out that communication changes and evolves over time. The english language, for example, is becoming less and less formal as time passes. The same is true for adoption of this technology. It's less and less of an 'insult' to take a phone call in some social situations. It shouldn't dominate your time, but it's not necessarily a slap in the face either.
Also, keep in mind that kids today have grown up with much more powerful technology than previous generations and multitasking is something that comes to them very naturally. If they're not taught to deal with people the old fashioned way, they won't think anything of switching between real people just like an IM window or text message.
It's just as natural for a player to say, "I defeated that boss," as it is to say, "Snake defeated that boss," since Snake is and is not the player at the same time. It is likewise natural for a player to say, "I punched an enemy soldier," when in reality, she punched no one. All she did was press a button.
I don't agree with this at all. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like "Snake defeated the boss." He's a representation of you and can't do anything on his own. You're the one doing the work to finish the game. It makes no sense for me to give him credit for beating the boss.
I think any game developer that is trying to tell a story should be just as wary of breaking the fourth wall as any author/playwright/director. The point of many/most stories is to draw the audience in. The interactivity in games is a much stronger tool than anything in the other forms of entertainment. This doesn't apply to all games, of course, but developers should be careful about breaking that immersion if they're telling a story.
Electric cars are not a solution by themselves, no, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
Part of the reason the US is starting to slip when it comes to new technology is because of the attitude that "oh it won't solve our problems, so we shouldn't do it." Keep in mind that in science (and arguably anywhere else as well), it's very rarely one project that solves a dozen problems at once. Rather, it's a dozen smaller projects that are combined to solve a single problem.
That said, might this be a colossal waste of money? Quite possibly. HOWEVER, if somebody can demonstrate that this infrastructure is feasible, it could solve all of our problems when combined with true renewable energy.
There are a lot of energy projects going now that are very promising. My personal favorite is Bussard's Polywell reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell). While it's possible/likely it won't culminate in a true fusion reactor on its own, they (as well as other similar groups) have made serious progress toward a true energy solution. If and when we get that in place, I'd prefer to have the infrastructure ready for electric cars rather than having to build from the ground up while still relying on gasoline. The world-wide energy problem has to be fixed just as much if not more than the vehicle/transport problem. With well designed electric cars and appropriate infrastructure, we solve both problems at once.
I definitely agree that there is a parallel with slots/gambling/whatever. I think it's something that more people need to acknowledge. Games are great way to entertain/challenge yourself, but there is a point where they need to be turned off. Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't play games or that these people are necessarily addicts, but the internet should not replace all social interaction.
We need to keep in mind that a good number of these people have turned to games as a way to escape from a feeling of helplessness or social awkwardness. They become powerful in their online world and it's difficult to leave that, especially when you don't know how to approach the 'real' world. I know this is true for at least some 'addicts' because that's exactly what my issue was/is. It took me a long time to figure it out for myself.
What would be ideal is for someone to reach out to the 'addicts' and show them that they are interesting people in their own right and encourage them to come outside. I don't know how feasible that is as a large-scale solution, but I know that having a friend drag me out to go bowling or something would be much more effective than trying to lock me in a room with other 'defective' people. I'd actually welcome the chance to get out of the house, even if it were difficult.
and the article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-vista-capable-scheme-was-panned-at-microsoft.html
Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
As far as your issues... They are potential problems, but any new startup with half a brain should be able to at least mitigate some of those.
ie. They can test signal strength at a home during the signup process and they can sell/rent receivers to set up outside the home and run wires inside to deal with those pesky walls....
Not perfect, but certainly better than burying wires
Firefox is a free download that people choose to install, whereas Internet Explorer is the default browser that millions of people might not even realize they can change. For many average users, Internet Explorer IS the internet.