It makes intuitive sense that a more costly medium such as ePaper would be considered less disposable than regular paper. However, IIRC, there was some mention of ePaper being used as packaging. As environmentally nasty as I consider some of the current packaging technology, I guess it made me shudder to think of upping the ante by electrifying (for example) blister-packs.
Downloading new content to ePaper would be great. I wonder if it might be possible to tape it to a TV screen and select a channel that would send data via flashes, the same way some watches are updated? I'm afraid that involving computers in the mix would simply reduce the usefulness of ePaper for large-scale content distribution.
After all, in order to replace the newspapers, magazines, etc., the new method would need to have the same ease of use. Connecting ePaper to the Internet via a computer for the purpose of downloading new content might require more imagination than is practical for such applications.
I agree with your opinion of magazine content. It makes me sad to think of the natural resources wasted to produce so many advertisements that no one really wants to read. But at least some paper publications are recyclable; what will we do with all of the discarded ePaper?
The current strategy for the use of brand-name software (from the home user point of view) follows:
1. Buy package for ~$100 - ~$300 (that covers most Windows-ware, right? assuming that you have failed to move from a lifetime of MS-DOS/Windependence to the open-source arena)
2. Haunt the user support groups/sites in order to keep yourself up-to-date on drivers, patches, and such - they are all exclusively online at this point, so you already need Internet access.
3. Within one to three years, we'll be forced to...how was it put so recently..."upgrade or miss out."
I see three main differences between one-time expenditure and subscription-based software:
a. Increased dependence on internet connection for up-to-date software means less value for those with less bandwidth. 56k is plenty for surfing, but not so great when downloading whatsits/registering for your software upgrades.
b. Perception. Many of us choke on the "subscription" term, understandably. I don't need help managing my finances, thank you. I find it interesting how many of my utilities have offered to "help me with my budget" by "spreading out" the costs that differ according to seasonal use. All I tend to see is a desire to earn interest on my money.
c. A user base that upgrades simultaneously. You're already paying to be on the Forefront of Technology, so why not be like everyone else and upgrade to the latest ASAP? Such a scenario guarantees that the software company will spend less to support older versions.
I *really* don't think any of this will ultimately benefit the consumer. It's a winner for the company, though.
The emergence and initial success of flat panel displays have raised question about their ergonomic design and health impact, particularly in comparison to the conventional computer monitor.
Most, if not all monitors, bundled with computer systems today are cathode-ray tubes, which project a beam of electrons onto a screen to produce an image.
Flat panel displays (FPDs), which remain secondary purchases for computer users, produce an image when an electrical current passes through a liquid or gas contained between two plates. Variations include liquid crystal, gas plasma and electroluminescent FPDs.
The benefit of FPDs, according to manufacturers and some ergonomists and researchers, is the visual improvement over cathode-ray tubes and maximized desktop space.
On the matter of size, FPDs are designed to be more "flat." They are not as deep as conventional VDTs and, therefore, allow computer users more workstation space. For example, a 20-inch cathode-ray tube could be about 20-inches deep, while a comparable FPD could be only a couple of inches thick.
Like a mirror, FPD could be mounted on a wall or the back of a cubicle.
That flexibility and the reduced area to accommodate monitors pleases many ergonomists, particularly as computer workers are being asked to work around CPUs, keyboards, mice, printers, modems, telephones, external hard drives, etc.
>>Amen. I just bought my first laptop last year, and I can't say enough good things about the TFT monitor. The display certainly seems easier on my eyes. The flexibility component may have more to do with the fact that it's a laptop, though.
However, the health impact is not as convincing. James Greeson, president of Ergonomic Solutions Inc. and editor of the International Standards Organization's FPD standard, said, "It's a kiss-your-sister kind of story. There's no conclusive scientific evidence that flat panel displays are visually more dangerous or superior to cathode-ray tubes." (The flat panel display standard is ISO 13406.)
He also noted the FPD image is pixelated, meaning images -- letters, numbers, symbols, graphics, etc. -- are made up of tiny dots, which can be seen in some cases.
"This is not an ergonomic defect. It's not dangerous. But it is an image quality detractor," said Greeson.
>>This effect is noticeable on my screen, but not terribly distracting, IMO.
Leading manufacturers like DTI (an IBM-Toshiba partnership), Fujitsu, NEC and others argue FPDs are vastly superior to the tubes. In their promotional literature and posted on their websites are claims of how FPDs dramatically reduce eye strain.
Recent studies have highlighted increased glare and reflection problems associated with FPDs, but the studies also reveal general user preference of FPDs over CRTs.
>>The glare issue is easily resolved. Tilt the screen away from the light. I had lots of trouble with glare in office buildings. The clunky CRTs were difficult to move. Beyond that, there are only so many positions possible with something that heavy and ponderous. Fluorescent light is also tremendously hard on my eyes, which is why I avoid office buildings these days.:)
No less important in the debate over whether to upgrade to flat panel displays is the price. They command a hefty price tag in comparison to a CRT. Market researchers estimate an FPD to be about five times the cost of a comparable CRT, though it may be only three times the price by the end of this year.
>>All of my praise aside, were I to buy another desktop computer, I would not now shell out the extra dough for a flat panel display.
FPDs are gaining popularity in the desktop publishing, medical financial and military fields, the research indicates.
>>Perhaps that statement indicates a preference for FPDs by those who work with graphically-based applications. Perhaps the sharp text is more desirable to those who code. (My work leans more toward desktop publishing, so maybe this explains my preference for the TFT monitor.)
The amount of horror you feel at the idea of cloning is directly related to the importance you place on nature's influence (as opposed to environmental).
If your genetic makeup were all that made you as you are today, then the ethical problems of cloning would make it taboo. However, you cannot dismiss the fact that no two people experience life in exactly the same way. Even identical twins (God's own foray into cloning!) are not identical people.
Personally, I am much more disturbed by the multiple births caused by the use of fertility drugs.
if you don't like N2H2's overzealous censorware, then you'll have to provide the school system with ideas for an alternative of the same stamp. With current attitudes as they are, I see no way for schools to avoid these products altogether.
Hopefully, your parents are wiser and realize that sheltering high school students from things sexual is silly. I am equally hopeful that this sort of parent has also impressed their children with the idea that adult activities carry adult consequences. So feel free to surf at home. You're not supposed to be having fun at school, anyway.;)
My rant to protectice parents: Censorware is a symptom of laziness and neglect in parenting. If you are truly concerned about what your child sees, then see it with them! Explain what they see, or better yet, teach them how to surf without reaching questionable sites. (You DID know that can be done, right? )
>>I cannot stress this enough... I gained superior job flexibility...
And I could not agree more. Whether you follow the above advice and chuck the hardware work for software development or not, it is imperative that engineers be competent coders. OF COURSE job flexibility is important, and the more you know, the better jobs you can get. But software and hardware are inextricably entwined, and no job on one side should be ignorant of the work on the other.
In my own experience (which I admit is small and certainly doesn't belong to everyone), anyone who exits a university clutching an EE degree will be expected to understand computers from stem to stern. Computers aren't magic any more than electrons are wizardry, but the general public will hold on to their superstitions, won't they?:)
I don't have any support for my opinion on this topic; what follows is mere speculation on my part. Tech culture and pop culture seem to be driven primarily by young people. There are very likely many reasons for this situation, but my guess is that they involve target markets (18-49) and a yearning to occupy said markets.
If young people like something, then it becomes absorbed into "pop culture." Everyone else sits up and pays attention, including those who profit from advertisement schemes. Someone more educated in such things may disagree with me on this (anyone? anyone?), but hasn't anybody else come to the conclusion that "counterculture" is a subset of "pop culture"?
they've fixed it for you! Now no one will be able to see your email address when you sell something via eBay. Presto! No more spam. That's what they are advertising, anyway. There is the convenient side-effect of preventing contact between the seller and potential buyers outside of eBay. (wink)
Guess that might not do much for spam from eBay, itself, though. I bet no one enjoys that "special manipulated feeling" one gets from being tacitly opted-in for spam.
One of my roommates in college must have seen this video. He spent all of his spare time watching tennis. In fact, I don't remember seeing much TV aside from tennis that year...wonder if my game improved?:) Seriously, though, he won many intramural games this way (he said).
The concept reminds me of a method I was taught while learning to play the piano. Pretend you're playing a piece of music perfectly. While you are "hearing" the music in your head, you are also "feeling" the keys under your fingers. The next time you actually play the music on the piano, your technique would be improved as if you had practiced. It seems to work to a certain extent. I find that pretending to play the piano is much more difficult than doing it in reality.
Maybe the effect of "mirror cells" isn't limited to visual input?
I'm more willing to allow for the benefit of the doubt. What doubt is that?
I don't *know* that the limitations they place on surfing will prevent an accumulation of knowledge by the users. Personally, I've learned quite a bit from sites which contain unobjectionable material. YES, it would be better to have unhindered access. Isn't some access better than none? Consider the effect of restricted Internet access in places such as China. No one can completely filter out foreign ideas.
Of course most people won't be able to afford it. But what if those who can swing it can make a difference? Does every individual need their own, fully-functional standalone machine in order to learn something?
I realize this argument is unpalatable for our cynical society. Perhaps this money (is there any money involved, or is this just a political agreement to discount hardware by corporations?) could be better spent on necessities. Not knowing the alternatives, however, I certainly wouldn't argue against this offer.
I think the difference between discounting Power Rangers and computers is obvious. Computers are NOT just toys. Yes, I realize that many people view this form of technology as a hobby. However, you won't be paid for your expertise in playing with toys. Brazil as a country would benefit from having a knowledgeable base of computer users. The people themselves could reliably raise their standard of living if their skills were desirable. Of course, this point does raise a real problem with such a plan for economy-boosting: emigration to more profitable shores.
If this program really takes off in Brazil, it means that the first digital experience many Brazilians have will be based on Linux. "Linux as a first OS" would differ from the typical background of a US techie raised on MS-ware (although not everyone used DOS/Windows first, I know). Will these Linux machines carry with them the aura of the open source movement, or will it be just another OS to them? (I recall, for example, that although DOS was not free, it had many die-hard advocates who seemed to be partial because "DOS was what they knew.")
"Miller said that Microsoft and its customers have not found many other open-source elements worthy of emulation. He said Microsoft believed its existing software development and testing paradigms served the company well. Miller added that Microsoft is moving to a subscription model, rather than to the open-source business model of free software, supported by paid-for consulting services."
So the CNET article was only an opportunity to (pardon the slang) "dis" open-source while plugging.NET. Those guys are so smart - we can't possibly be worthy.;)
By the time I left school, these programs had GUI interfaces. Certainly they were easier to use than their text-based forbears. Well, IMO, anyway. YMMV.:-)
Ideally, Jeff's correct. The idea of the computer, and at this point, the computer itself, *do* get in the way of performing computer-aided tasks. Realistically, an OS has been proven necessary for the "look and feel" reason stated above, as well as for the standardization it provides. (treading perilously close to a pro-MS stance here )
Personally, I would like to think that the OS will go away someday, or at the very least become transparent to the average user. If the power user wants to endlessly tweak widgets, go ahead! But if an ordinary mortal wants to write a paper or plot a graph, they really shouldn't be expected to waste time fidgeting with an extra interface. Having to learn one's way around an OS (and the programs that try to conform to the OS) sets the bar a little high for people who attempt to perform already complicated operations in a digital format. [Anyone remember those little command-line jobs that used to be the staple of an engineering/technical education? (PSpice, MATLAB, etc.)]
Using this technology to fly an airplane is neat, but doesn't really make it any easier. How about applying this sort of thing to a task where smaller movements would be an improvement? Anybody out there like manual labor?;) I could learn to enjoy raking the yard in this fashion. Or at least not be exhausted by the effort. People who have a limited ability to move might also appreciate such an application. (I've heard that such things exist, but I believe surgery and bionics were involved.)
>>And all of these gadgets would be so cheap you could throw them away with a clear conscience.
Oh you could, could you? What were these gadgets made from again? Did you say *plastic*? Why not advocate RECYCLING?
Also, which is more plentiful, sand or oil? Granted, plastic "would reduce the fragility and bulk of screens," making larger screens feasible. Believe me, I have wanted a wall screen for a long time. Heck, why *shouldn't* my house mimick a living entity 24/7?
But despite the fact that "making any grade of silicon is a difficult, time-consuming, and pricey endeavor" and "the cost of [producing it] is steep", why is there no mention of the relative difficulty and cost of obtaining more oil to produce plastics? Perhaps plastic is the future for this type of application. However, the attitude that clear consciences can be created by discarding non-biodegradable materials is repulsive.
Re:I dont belive in this sort of thing
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
I suppose my difficulty with this bit of marketing brilliance is the idea of children as significant consumers of advertised products. During my stint as a minor, shopping was *the* most boring thing a person could do, and I didn't have an income anyway, so why the interest in kids' browsing habits as a demographic?
The fact that kids spend money is not really at question. I only question the value of tracking the spending habits of a group which is dependent on other people for financial resources. Unfortunately, it seems that I'm wandering into an area covered by personal judgment, so I'll shut up now.:-)
Re:I dont belive in this sort of thing
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
>>get into schools and use filtering software to track kids spending habits
Are kids allowed to make online purchases at school now?
Since I doubt very seriously that this is the case, I must wonder at what exactly "big business" hopes to learn by tracking schoolchildren.
Am I the only one who would never *think* of giving a child access to a credit card? Or permission to buy anything while unsupervised by a responsible adult?
Tracking generic spending habits doesn't overly alarm me, but the motives for this particular transaction *do*.
I've been involved in the development of computer software at every level. Without exception, satisfaction with the "success" of the effort depends on communication between these levels. This relationship should be blindingly obvious, but lack of straightforward communication continues to cripple software development. Perhaps good business strategy does not mesh well with good coding strategy, but a good measure of honesty would increase the level of satisfaction with the process, if not its profitability.
The ability to understand a complicated concept such as evolution lies in the capability of the comprehender to define the variables involved. If something has an impact and you know it, then you can better explain what happens as a result. It seems to me that the reason for the development of similar visual equipment on divergent species is largely dependent on the fact that we all live under the same sun. I would expect that eyes would not evolve if a species had not developed survival techniques dependent in some way on this electromagetic radiation.
>>On some planets, you won't need much intelligence to survive, but on earth you do. The most intelligent species are eradicating the no-so-intelligent species.
Intelligence is not a requirement for survival on Earth. In fact, one can argue that intelligence is a liability on the survival/reproduction scene. Intellectual capacity evolved as a response to a particular set of conditions experienced by a limited number of species. Clearly, natural selection has improved the odds for many creatures by increasing their capacity to think. However, there is more than one path to world domination. (Insert your favorite "plague of" example here.)
Going on the idea that continued existence is a universal (!) goal, I wonder if the formation of the cell-like structure by certain chemicals upon exposure to certain stimuli (e.g. ultraviolet light) can be described as as a survival tactic?
>>Furthermore, why wouldn't they learn from the relatively great decision of Sony...
Technical folk think, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Marketing gurus, on the other hand, always seem to want to be the *first* to think of something. "First console system to successfully implement a subscription service" sounds fashionably profitable to me. Too bad the technical folk so rarely occupy the decision-making positions.
That was just to get your attention. When a business changes its marketing strategy, it wants to be heard. Don't underestimate the effect on sales of getting one's name in the news.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes intuitive sense that a more costly medium such as ePaper would be considered less disposable than regular paper. However, IIRC, there was some mention of ePaper being used as packaging. As environmentally nasty as I consider some of the current packaging technology, I guess it made me shudder to think of upping the ante by electrifying (for example) blister-packs.
Downloading new content to ePaper would be great. I wonder if it might be possible to tape it to a TV screen and select a channel that would send data via flashes, the same way some watches are updated? I'm afraid that involving computers in the mix would simply reduce the usefulness of ePaper for large-scale content distribution.
After all, in order to replace the newspapers, magazines, etc., the new method would need to have the same ease of use. Connecting ePaper to the Internet via a computer for the purpose of downloading new content might require more imagination than is practical for such applications.
I agree with your opinion of magazine content. It makes me sad to think of the natural resources wasted to produce so many advertisements that no one really wants to read. But at least some paper publications are recyclable; what will we do with all of the discarded ePaper?
The current strategy for the use of brand-name software (from the home user point of view) follows:
1. Buy package for ~$100 - ~$300 (that covers most Windows-ware, right? assuming that you have failed to move from a lifetime of MS-DOS/Windependence to the open-source arena)
2. Haunt the user support groups/sites in order to keep yourself up-to-date on drivers, patches, and such - they are all exclusively online at this point, so you already need Internet access.
3. Within one to three years, we'll be forced to...how was it put so recently..."upgrade or miss out."
I see three main differences between one-time expenditure and subscription-based software:
a. Increased dependence on internet connection for up-to-date software means less value for those with less bandwidth. 56k is plenty for surfing, but not so great when downloading whatsits/registering for your software upgrades.
b. Perception. Many of us choke on the "subscription" term, understandably. I don't need help managing my finances, thank you. I find it interesting how many of my utilities have offered to "help me with my budget" by "spreading out" the costs that differ according to seasonal use. All I tend to see is a desire to earn interest on my money.
c. A user base that upgrades simultaneously. You're already paying to be on the Forefront of Technology, so why not be like everyone else and upgrade to the latest ASAP? Such a scenario guarantees that the software company will spend less to support older versions.
I *really* don't think any of this will ultimately benefit the consumer. It's a winner for the company, though.
From: http://www.feds.com/nll_lib/ctd/ctd0706.htm
cyberFEDS - CTDNews - Vol. 7, Issue 6 - June 1998
>>Comments interspersed are mine.
Ergo jury on flat panel displays still out
The emergence and initial success of flat panel displays have raised question about their ergonomic design and health impact, particularly in comparison to the conventional computer monitor.
Most, if not all monitors, bundled with computer systems today are cathode-ray tubes, which project a beam of electrons onto a screen to produce an image.
Flat panel displays (FPDs), which remain secondary purchases for computer users, produce an image when an electrical current passes through a liquid or gas contained between two plates. Variations include liquid crystal, gas plasma and electroluminescent FPDs.
The benefit of FPDs, according to manufacturers and some ergonomists and researchers, is the visual improvement over cathode-ray tubes and maximized desktop space.
On the matter of size, FPDs are designed to be more "flat." They are not as deep as conventional VDTs and, therefore, allow computer users more workstation space. For example, a 20-inch cathode-ray tube could be about 20-inches deep, while a comparable FPD could be only a couple of inches thick.
Like a mirror, FPD could be mounted on a wall or the back of a cubicle.
That flexibility and the reduced area to accommodate monitors pleases many ergonomists, particularly as computer workers are being asked to work around CPUs, keyboards, mice, printers, modems, telephones, external hard drives, etc.
>>Amen. I just bought my first laptop last year, and I can't say enough good things about the TFT monitor. The display certainly seems easier on my eyes. The flexibility component may have more to do with the fact that it's a laptop, though.
However, the health impact is not as convincing. James Greeson, president of Ergonomic Solutions Inc. and editor of the International Standards Organization's FPD standard, said, "It's a kiss-your-sister kind of story. There's no conclusive scientific evidence that flat panel displays are visually more dangerous or superior to cathode-ray tubes." (The flat panel display standard is ISO 13406.)
He also noted the FPD image is pixelated, meaning images -- letters, numbers, symbols, graphics, etc. -- are made up of tiny dots, which can be seen in some cases.
"This is not an ergonomic defect. It's not dangerous. But it is an image quality detractor," said Greeson.
>>This effect is noticeable on my screen, but not terribly distracting, IMO.
Leading manufacturers like DTI (an IBM-Toshiba partnership), Fujitsu, NEC and others argue FPDs are vastly superior to the tubes. In their promotional literature and posted on their websites are claims of how FPDs dramatically reduce eye strain.
Recent studies have highlighted increased glare and reflection problems associated with FPDs, but the studies also reveal general user preference of FPDs over CRTs.
>>The glare issue is easily resolved. Tilt the screen away from the light. I had lots of trouble with glare in office buildings. The clunky CRTs were difficult to move. Beyond that, there are only so many positions possible with something that heavy and ponderous. Fluorescent light is also tremendously hard on my eyes, which is why I avoid office buildings these days.
No less important in the debate over whether to upgrade to flat panel displays is the price. They command a hefty price tag in comparison to a CRT. Market researchers estimate an FPD to be about five times the cost of a comparable CRT, though it may be only three times the price by the end of this year.
>>All of my praise aside, were I to buy another desktop computer, I would not now shell out the extra dough for a flat panel display.
FPDs are gaining popularity in the desktop publishing, medical financial and military fields, the research indicates.
>>Perhaps that statement indicates a preference for FPDs by those who work with graphically-based applications. Perhaps the sharp text is more desirable to those who code. (My work leans more toward desktop publishing, so maybe this explains my preference for the TFT monitor.)
My 2 cents:
The amount of horror you feel at the idea of cloning is directly related to the importance you place on nature's influence (as opposed to environmental).
If your genetic makeup were all that made you as you are today, then the ethical problems of cloning would make it taboo. However, you cannot dismiss the fact that no two people experience life in exactly the same way. Even identical twins (God's own foray into cloning!) are not identical people.
Personally, I am much more disturbed by the multiple births caused by the use of fertility drugs.
if you don't like N2H2's overzealous censorware, then you'll have to provide the school system with ideas for an alternative of the same stamp. With current attitudes as they are, I see no way for schools to avoid these products altogether.
;)
Hopefully, your parents are wiser and realize that sheltering high school students from things sexual is silly. I am equally hopeful that this sort of parent has also impressed their children with the idea that adult activities carry adult consequences. So feel free to surf at home. You're not supposed to be having fun at school, anyway.
My rant to protectice parents: Censorware is a symptom of laziness and neglect in parenting. If you are truly concerned about what your child sees, then see it with them! Explain what they see, or better yet, teach them how to surf without reaching questionable sites. (You DID know that can be done, right? )
>>I cannot stress this enough... I gained superior job flexibility...
:)
And I could not agree more. Whether you follow the above advice and chuck the hardware work for software development or not, it is imperative that engineers be competent coders. OF COURSE job flexibility is important, and the more you know, the better jobs you can get. But software and hardware are inextricably entwined, and no job on one side should be ignorant of the work on the other.
In my own experience (which I admit is small and certainly doesn't belong to everyone), anyone who exits a university clutching an EE degree will be expected to understand computers from stem to stern. Computers aren't magic any more than electrons are wizardry, but the general public will hold on to their superstitions, won't they?
VPI BSEE '96
I don't have any support for my opinion on this topic; what follows is mere speculation on my part. Tech culture and pop culture seem to be driven primarily by young people. There are very likely many reasons for this situation, but my guess is that they involve target markets (18-49) and a yearning to occupy said markets.
If young people like something, then it becomes absorbed into "pop culture." Everyone else sits up and pays attention, including those who profit from advertisement schemes. Someone more educated in such things may disagree with me on this (anyone? anyone?), but hasn't anybody else come to the conclusion that "counterculture" is a subset of "pop culture"?
Aren't "geeks" just another clique?
they've fixed it for you! Now no one will be able to see your email address when you sell something via eBay. Presto! No more spam. That's what they are advertising, anyway. There is the convenient side-effect of preventing contact between the seller and potential buyers outside of eBay. (wink)
Guess that might not do much for spam from eBay, itself, though. I bet no one enjoys that "special manipulated feeling" one gets from being tacitly opted-in for spam.
One of my roommates in college must have seen this video. He spent all of his spare time watching tennis. In fact, I don't remember seeing much TV aside from tennis that year...wonder if my game improved? :) Seriously, though, he won many intramural games this way (he said).
The concept reminds me of a method I was taught while learning to play the piano. Pretend you're playing a piece of music perfectly. While you are "hearing" the music in your head, you are also "feeling" the keys under your fingers. The next time you actually play the music on the piano, your technique would be improved as if you had practiced. It seems to work to a certain extent. I find that pretending to play the piano is much more difficult than doing it in reality.
Maybe the effect of "mirror cells" isn't limited to visual input?
I'm more willing to allow for the benefit of the doubt. What doubt is that?
I don't *know* that the limitations they place on surfing will prevent an accumulation of knowledge by the users. Personally, I've learned quite a bit from sites which contain unobjectionable material. YES, it would be better to have unhindered access. Isn't some access better than none? Consider the effect of restricted Internet access in places such as China. No one can completely filter out foreign ideas.
Of course most people won't be able to afford it. But what if those who can swing it can make a difference? Does every individual need their own, fully-functional standalone machine in order to learn something?
I realize this argument is unpalatable for our cynical society. Perhaps this money (is there any money involved, or is this just a political agreement to discount hardware by corporations?) could be better spent on necessities. Not knowing the alternatives, however, I certainly wouldn't argue against this offer.
I think the difference between discounting Power Rangers and computers is obvious. Computers are NOT just toys. Yes, I realize that many people view this form of technology as a hobby. However, you won't be paid for your expertise in playing with toys. Brazil as a country would benefit from having a knowledgeable base of computer users. The people themselves could reliably raise their standard of living if their skills were desirable. Of course, this point does raise a real problem with such a plan for economy-boosting: emigration to more profitable shores.
If this program really takes off in Brazil, it means that the first digital experience many Brazilians have will be based on Linux. "Linux as a first OS" would differ from the typical background of a US techie raised on MS-ware (although not everyone used DOS/Windows first, I know). Will these Linux machines carry with them the aura of the open source movement, or will it be just another OS to them? (I recall, for example, that although DOS was not free, it had many die-hard advocates who seemed to be partial because "DOS was what they knew.")
Here's a quote from the CNET article:
.NET. Those guys are so smart - we can't possibly be worthy. ;)
"Miller said that Microsoft and its customers have not found many other open-source elements worthy of emulation. He said Microsoft believed its existing software development and testing paradigms served the company well. Miller added that Microsoft is moving to a subscription model, rather than to the open-source business model of free software, supported by paid-for consulting services."
So the CNET article was only an opportunity to (pardon the slang) "dis" open-source while plugging
KEYWORD: command-line
:-)
By the time I left school, these programs had GUI interfaces. Certainly they were easier to use than their text-based forbears. Well, IMO, anyway. YMMV.
Ideally, Jeff's correct. The idea of the computer, and at this point, the computer itself, *do* get in the way of performing computer-aided tasks. Realistically, an OS has been proven necessary for the "look and feel" reason stated above, as well as for the standardization it provides. (treading perilously close to a pro-MS stance here )
Personally, I would like to think that the OS will go away someday, or at the very least become transparent to the average user. If the power user wants to endlessly tweak widgets, go ahead! But if an ordinary mortal wants to write a paper or plot a graph, they really shouldn't be expected to waste time fidgeting with an extra interface. Having to learn one's way around an OS (and the programs that try to conform to the OS) sets the bar a little high for people who attempt to perform already complicated operations in a digital format. [Anyone remember those little command-line jobs that used to be the staple of an engineering/technical education? (PSpice, MATLAB, etc.)]
Using this technology to fly an airplane is neat, but doesn't really make it any easier. How about applying this sort of thing to a task where smaller movements would be an improvement? Anybody out there like manual labor? ;) I could learn to enjoy raking the yard in this fashion. Or at least not be exhausted by the effort. People who have a limited ability to move might also appreciate such an application. (I've heard that such things exist, but I believe surgery and bionics were involved.)
>>And all of these gadgets would be so cheap you could throw them away with a clear conscience.
Oh you could, could you? What were these gadgets made from again? Did you say *plastic*? Why not advocate RECYCLING?
Also, which is more plentiful, sand or oil? Granted, plastic "would reduce the fragility and bulk of screens," making larger screens feasible. Believe me, I have wanted a wall screen for a long time. Heck, why *shouldn't* my house mimick a living entity 24/7?
But despite the fact that "making any grade of silicon is a difficult, time-consuming, and pricey endeavor" and "the cost of [producing it] is steep", why is there no mention of the relative difficulty and cost of obtaining more oil to produce plastics? Perhaps plastic is the future for this type of application. However, the attitude that clear consciences can be created by discarding non-biodegradable materials is repulsive.
I suppose my difficulty with this bit of marketing brilliance is the idea of children as significant consumers of advertised products. During my stint as a minor, shopping was *the* most boring thing a person could do, and I didn't have an income anyway, so why the interest in kids' browsing habits as a demographic?
:-)
The fact that kids spend money is not really at question. I only question the value of tracking the spending habits of a group which is dependent on other people for financial resources. Unfortunately, it seems that I'm wandering into an area covered by personal judgment, so I'll shut up now.
>>get into schools and use filtering software to track kids spending habits
Are kids allowed to make online purchases at school now?
Since I doubt very seriously that this is the case, I must wonder at what exactly "big business" hopes to learn by tracking schoolchildren.
Am I the only one who would never *think* of giving a child access to a credit card? Or permission to buy anything while unsupervised by a responsible adult?
Tracking generic spending habits doesn't overly alarm me, but the motives for this particular transaction *do*.
I've been involved in the development of computer software at every level. Without exception, satisfaction with the "success" of the effort depends on communication between these levels. This relationship should be blindingly obvious, but lack of straightforward communication continues to cripple software development. Perhaps good business strategy does not mesh well with good coding strategy, but a good measure of honesty would increase the level of satisfaction with the process, if not its profitability.
The ability to understand a complicated concept such as evolution lies in the capability of the comprehender to define the variables involved. If something has an impact and you know it, then you can better explain what happens as a result. It seems to me that the reason for the development of similar visual equipment on divergent species is largely dependent on the fact that we all live under the same sun. I would expect that eyes would not evolve if a species had not developed survival techniques dependent in some way on this electromagetic radiation.
>>On some planets, you won't need much intelligence to survive, but on earth you do. The most intelligent species are eradicating the no-so-intelligent species.
Intelligence is not a requirement for survival on Earth. In fact, one can argue that intelligence is a liability on the survival/reproduction scene. Intellectual capacity evolved as a response to a particular set of conditions experienced by a limited number of species. Clearly, natural selection has improved the odds for many creatures by increasing their capacity to think. However, there is more than one path to world domination. (Insert your favorite "plague of" example here.)
Going on the idea that continued existence is a universal (!) goal, I wonder if the formation of the cell-like structure by certain chemicals upon exposure to certain stimuli (e.g. ultraviolet light) can be described as as a survival tactic?
>>Furthermore, why wouldn't they learn from the relatively great decision of Sony...
Technical folk think, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Marketing gurus, on the other hand, always seem to want to be the *first* to think of something. "First console system to successfully implement a subscription service" sounds fashionably profitable to me. Too bad the technical folk so rarely occupy the decision-making positions.
That was just to get your attention. When a business changes its marketing strategy, it wants to be heard. Don't underestimate the effect on sales of getting one's name in the news.