Silicon Valley is just an extreme version of what's happening all over the country. While gentrification has some good points, it also tends to drive out low and moderate-income families, which does (IMO) negatively impact the area. Problem is most elected officials are obsessed with bringing money into their areas and don't really care about their current constituents. There are some exceptions though; NYC intentionally breaks up wealthy areas with low and moderate-income housing, which I personally support.
Now for a side-rant: I understand the director's contempt for the cappucino-swilling, Armani-wearing "New Economy" type. Personally, I'm waiting for the shakedown to hit. I could understand if most of these noveau riche were engineers or scientists or financial types (whatever else you may say about the latter, it does require some amount of skill), but a lot of them tend to be the marketing and PR hacks who have no real knowledge or skills, but still manage to eke out six figure incomes by slinging buzzwords around like confetti.
The web site implies that it's over, and was mildly succesful (though this might be spin). Sounds like it might have just been a sort of intraindustry seminar that Intel hoped would gain it access to the arcade market, but just ended up as a way for various companies to network with each other...But that's just my interpretation.
The only technology that really caused this problem is the light bulb; in the Olden Days people would knock off work much earlier, and even if they stayed "late" it would get too dark to work. Nowadays the problem is businesses who like to pay one employee and get the work of two. They do this by implying that it's how you advance in your career, as well as throwing in a false sense of urgency ("Just this one big project and life will be easier" or "just wait till the IPO and you'll work less"). If anything, technology has made working a little less numbing; no more trips to the fax machine, fewer phone calls, and if things get too stressed you can read slashdot for a bit...
NASA also seems to have the propensity to bleed money. How much of the money they're budgeted actually goes to useful missions, and how much goes to overhead cost or subsidizing corporate space ventures?
But who's to blame for the indifference? During the moon landing it was a group experience; NASA and the government made sure to let people know it was THEIR moon landing too. NASA doesn't publicize any of their missions, but I guess there's no way to do that because they seem to be almost exclusively corporate-allied jaunts to put up satellites that in the grand scheme of things we don't really need. Personally, I don't care that much about our space program because a lot more interesting scientific advances are being mad e down here.
...Call me when they learn to distinguish which city features cause what weather effects. Pavement, especially dark pavement, absorbs heat and reradiates it.
Yes, a lot of unknowns still exist, but ignoring the data that does exist when you make policy decisions is just foolish. Industrial processes generate heat, as well as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and various pollutants.
Vegetation cover causes cooler temperatures as energy from the sun is used in evapotranspiration.
"Urban Canyons" change wind patterns, and often can increase wind speed.
The problem with doing this sort of research is the tremendous amount of variables (it's why we can't forecast the weather more than a few days in advance); how exactly it changes seem to differ from region to region. Some industrial cities in Britain show cool islands, presumably from the water released by industrial processes. Cities in western desert areas often have lower temperatures due to increased vegetation and surface water (though the increased humidity often makes it more uncomfortable). If you have access to a good library, Robert Balling is probably the best known researcher working on it today; for fundamentals on urban climate, anything by Helmut Landsberg on the subject would probably be informative.
The problem is really, what are we going to do about this? A few storms are one thing, but a lot of cities are probably going to be running out of water in a few decades due to the fact that nobody wants to tell people things they don't want to hear; things like maybe the environmental health of a region is more important than having a really nice lawn or golf course, or that just because you've had a constant supply of water for the past 100 years, that it's going to continue. There's a very good reason that only recently have desert areas started attracting real estate development; through most of history they haven't been sustainable. And just because we have better plumbing and air conditioning that didn't exist a hundred years ago doesn't mean the environment has gotten better for us on an environmental level.
I guess I'm seriously off-topic, but I sometimes obsess with this subject the way some people obsess with the GPL license or open source...
If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
Got to agree with this; I saw the original many, many years ago, and remember not caring for it too much. Saw the director's cut a little while ago, and was blown away. That last scene with Rutger Hauer was just incredible, and Harrison Ford's voice over will definitely not be missed.
I don't know how solid it was. Deckard was basically an expert on replicant psychology; notice how he knows Rachael's implanted memories. If he's spending all his time trying to track them down, it kind of makes sense that he'd start to get involved mentally with them...
What I'd REALLY like to see is Genesis Climber Mospeada (aka Robotech: The New Generation) in DVD form. Always preferred it to the other 2 series, but the chance of that happening is pretty rare. Might just have to learn Japanese.
First of all, I think the greater ease with which children pick up this kind of thing has almost nothing to do with emotional attitudes (curiousity, lack of fear, etc) but rather intellectual makeup. Children learn things more quickly and more in-depth than adults, it's hardwired into the brain.
Secondly, and a couple of people brought it up already, a lot of these "skills" are along the lines of a mechanic rather than an engineer. I don't think most of these kids are learning many underlying skills.
That's why I said "colloquially" (it's marked "coll." in the definition). My point was the idea that gender could refer to people, even in a colloquial manner, and dates back to 1913. Gender is a social science term now, basically. And contrary to popular belief, it does not automatically connotate "PC"; people who use it tend to have no problem using the word "sex", but do so in a biological sense.
So every dictionary that lists "sex" as one of gender's definitions is wrong?
Language changes. Gender has always been used colloquially as a synonym for sex (check the 1913 Webster's Dictionary); now it is used (mostly academically) to refer to the social assignation of sexual roles. Language change. Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering Neanderthals died out around the time Cro-Magnons moved into the area, it was a pretty valid complaint...
Silicon Valley is just an extreme version of what's happening all over the country. While gentrification has some good points, it also tends to drive out low and moderate-income families, which does (IMO) negatively impact the area. Problem is most elected officials are obsessed with bringing money into their areas and don't really care about their current constituents. There are some exceptions though; NYC intentionally breaks up wealthy areas with low and moderate-income housing, which I personally support.
Now for a side-rant:
I understand the director's contempt for the cappucino-swilling, Armani-wearing "New Economy" type. Personally, I'm waiting for the shakedown to hit. I could understand if most of these noveau riche were engineers or scientists or financial types (whatever else you may say about the latter, it does require some amount of skill), but a lot of them tend to be the marketing and PR hacks who have no real knowledge or skills, but still manage to eke out six figure incomes by slinging buzzwords around like confetti.
The web site implies that it's over, and was mildly succesful (though this might be spin). Sounds like it might have just been a sort of intraindustry seminar that Intel hoped would gain it access to the arcade market, but just ended up as a way for various companies to network with each other...But that's just my interpretation.
The only technology that really caused this problem is the light bulb; in the Olden Days people would knock off work much earlier, and even if they stayed "late" it would get too dark to work. Nowadays the problem is businesses who like to pay one employee and get the work of two. They do this by implying that it's how you advance in your career, as well as throwing in a false sense of urgency ("Just this one big project and life will be easier" or "just wait till the IPO and you'll work less"). If anything, technology has made working a little less numbing; no more trips to the fax machine, fewer phone calls, and if things get too stressed you can read slashdot for a bit...
NASA also seems to have the propensity to bleed money. How much of the money they're budgeted actually goes to useful missions, and how much goes to overhead cost or subsidizing corporate space ventures?
But who's to blame for the indifference? During the moon landing it was a group experience; NASA and the government made sure to let people know it was THEIR moon landing too. NASA doesn't publicize any of their missions, but I guess there's no way to do that because they seem to be almost exclusively corporate-allied jaunts to put up satellites that in the grand scheme of things we don't really need. Personally, I don't care that much about our space program because a lot more interesting scientific advances are being mad e down here.
Does it really matter what country gets to Mars first, as long as it happens?
It wasn't THAT bad. Well maybe it was.
PC Junior! 128k memory, a floppy drive, a CGA display, and a cartridge port! (I still think they should include the latter on PCs today)
I'm glad we can't vote for the head of the FTC. Means Disney can't donate to his election campaign.
Pavement, especially dark pavement, absorbs heat and reradiates it.
Yes, a lot of unknowns still exist, but ignoring the data that does exist when you make policy decisions is just foolish. Industrial processes generate heat, as well as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and various pollutants.
Vegetation cover causes cooler temperatures as energy from the sun is used in evapotranspiration.
"Urban Canyons" change wind patterns, and often can increase wind speed.
The problem with doing this sort of research is the tremendous amount of variables (it's why we can't forecast the weather more than a few days in advance); how exactly it changes seem to differ from region to region. Some industrial cities in Britain show cool islands, presumably from the water released by industrial processes. Cities in western desert areas often have lower temperatures due to increased vegetation and surface water (though the increased humidity often makes it more uncomfortable). If you have access to a good library, Robert Balling is probably the best known researcher working on it today; for fundamentals on urban climate, anything by Helmut Landsberg on the subject would probably be informative.
The problem is really, what are we going to do about this? A few storms are one thing, but a lot of cities are probably going to be running out of water in a few decades due to the fact that nobody wants to tell people things they don't want to hear; things like maybe the environmental health of a region is more important than having a really nice lawn or golf course, or that just because you've had a constant supply of water for the past 100 years, that it's going to continue. There's a very good reason that only recently have desert areas started attracting real estate development; through most of history they haven't been sustainable. And just because we have better plumbing and air conditioning that didn't exist a hundred years ago doesn't mean the environment has gotten better for us on an environmental level.
I guess I'm seriously off-topic, but I sometimes obsess with this subject the way some people obsess with the GPL license or open source...
From what I hear Harrison Ford himself hated it, and intentionally did a poor job in hopes that they'd decide not to use it...
Maybe I'm just not enough of a hardware junkie, but are a few percentage points difference that big a deal?
If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
Got to agree with this; I saw the original many, many years ago, and remember not caring for it too much. Saw the director's cut a little while ago, and was blown away. That last scene with Rutger Hauer was just incredible, and Harrison Ford's voice over will definitely not be missed.
I don't know how solid it was. Deckard was basically an expert on replicant psychology; notice how he knows Rachael's implanted memories. If he's spending all his time trying to track them down, it kind of makes sense that he'd start to get involved mentally with them...
I know low energy electromagnetic fields haven't been proven harmful, isn't this sort of taking a chance? Or am I just paranoid?
No commercials would be worth 9.95 a month.
What I'd REALLY like to see is Genesis Climber Mospeada (aka Robotech: The New Generation) in DVD form. Always preferred it to the other 2 series, but the chance of that happening is pretty rare. Might just have to learn Japanese.
First of all, I think the greater ease with which children pick up this kind of thing has almost nothing to do with emotional attitudes (curiousity, lack of fear, etc) but rather intellectual makeup. Children learn things more quickly and more in-depth than adults, it's hardwired into the brain.
Secondly, and a couple of people brought it up already, a lot of these "skills" are along the lines of a mechanic rather than an engineer. I don't think most of these kids are learning many underlying skills.
Maybe this is like a secret level on slashdot, and we're all going to win a prize. Hey, anything's possible.
Wait a few more months and their VC will probably dry up. End of problem.
There we go! Brings tears to my eyes..
That's why I said "colloquially" (it's marked "coll." in the definition). My point was the idea that gender could refer to people, even in a colloquial manner, and dates back to 1913. Gender is a social science term now, basically. And contrary to popular belief, it does not automatically connotate "PC"; people who use it tend to have no problem using the word "sex", but do so in a biological sense.
So every dictionary that lists "sex" as one of gender's definitions is wrong?
Language changes. Gender has always been used colloquially as a synonym for sex (check the 1913 Webster's Dictionary); now it is used (mostly academically) to refer to the social assignation of sexual roles. Language change. Deal with it.