Con Air was actually not a documentary, so please don't cite it as evidence of anything. Were TSA to really beef up security to the levels of chaining you in your seat and patrolling the aisles with shotguns, passengers would actually NOT riot and take over the plane. There are obviously other huge problems with that, but Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.
I don't think people are all that scared anymore. I think the thing keeping the TSA rules in place is laziness on the part of the public and the fact that no one in a position to change the rules wants to take that liability so that people can have slightly cheaper water on plane rides.
The only way it's changing is if people stop tolerating pointless rules, or if someone is going to be paid a lot of money over it. Ideally it would have been the first, but the second was always more likely.
I do not have a solution to your problem. I am curious about the situation though. Is there a reason your organization wants this to be easy-to-steal-and-expensive tablets? Especially when there's the security policy. And you'll have to keep them charged too. Why not just a cheap laptop. Or a pamphlet and TV?
I realize it's difficult to get people to stop smoking, but fancy technology isn't always the solution.
I agree. If you're following some artificial formula that someone says will make a good game no matter what, you're not making a good game. The game should develop how it should develop.
That said, just maintaining the status quo is somewhat generous
When talking about investing in research, I don't know. I'd hate to get cancer in 20 years and there be no cure because we cut research spending, rather than social security, defense spending, or medicare. I mean, I realize that's a tough one politically, but maybe talk about it at least?
This will get modded down because trolls have taken over the moderation system and openly subvert it.
By your hypothesis, this post will get modded sky-high, moron. If me pointing out that you're stupid does not get modded up, that suggests that there is not a significant pro-google crowd who has hijacked the board. If it does, then I get modded up. I call that a win-win, but you wouldn't understand that because you're not very smart.
She believed that pain was a good thing and poverty should not be eliminated? That's not exactly unsaintlike. Maybe a bit more pessimistic than many of us comparatively wealthy and healthy would want to admit to ourselves, but I imagine that dealing with the sick and dying every day would make one re-evaluate the human condition.
As far as not giving out painkillers in her hospitals, maybe she should have, but I think it's hard to make the case that she was providing something worse than the alternative. I don't think it's fair to say "This person was trying to do something good, but she should have been doing it better, so it's not good."
I DO know the specs on my PC. They're meaningless though without additional knowledge. GeForce 310m is the one on my laptop. The Darkness 2 says it needs GeForce GT 240 or better. Same brand, and my number is higher, so logically, mine is better, right?
You and I know, without looking up the specific benchmarks, that an economy laptop from two years ago isn't going to run the latest games, but that's an extreme example. The things are labeled incoherently. What confuses me is why the industry is doing this in the first place. Was it a short-sighted attempt to make a sale now and worry that they've confused most consumers into console gaming later? Is there some reason they're incapable of putting a number that means something about performance on their products? MS is trying to do so with the stars, but I have yet to see a PC game requirements that actually uses that rating system.
I don't understand the the tablet manufacturers all trying to copy the thinness of the fruit product.
They're not stupid: most consumers will be drawn to the sexiest thing on the retail floor based on first impressions. Most buyers don't even think about battery life, they just think "OOOH PRETTTY!"
Same reason glossy screens are dominating over matte screens on laptops. (I'm painfully reminded of this as I have to crane my neck while typing this to see the text behind the glare from the window on my laptop.) Matte screens work better as you're using it, but glossy screens look prettier in the store, so more people buy the glossy screens. They might hate it later on, but the sales are made before that happens. Consequently, every manufacturer is pumping out the prettier, more useless version.
If there were a way for tablet makers to get paid more for how much use you got out of it, yeah, tablets would reach the ideal ratio between thickness for battery use and ergonomics for holding. They'd have non-reflective, non-smudgy screens. They would not be much to look at in and of themselves, sure, but they'd work great.
I think the 4 is somewhat better charge-wise than the 3Gs (which I also had). At this point the 3Gs battery may simply be getting weaker, you could have it replaced fairly cheaply.
Seems to me too that my wife's 4 lasted longer than my 3G did. The 3G was getting charged every night though from the very start. It wasn't dead by the end of the day, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 50%.
The display consistently uses up a third of my battery on my galaxy S2 skyrocket. So a big part of what's driving my battery drain is not the latest and greatest hardware, but the fact that I wanted a bigger screen. I told myself it was because I hate typing on cramped virtual keyboards and not just because of some compensation issues, but take that for what you will.
And from the consumer perspective, you know what games you can run. PC gaming, if you don't have the absolute most powerful hardware you can buy, I'm not sure what you're supposed to do. My GPU isn't listed in most benchmark sets, let alone any game's system requirements. "canyourunit.com" is helpful, and you go to the full list of benchmarks to see where yours falls, but that's a lot of work to be able to tell if you'll be able to run a game that you can't return if it doesn't.
In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.
Don't know what type of rose-colored nostalgia glasses you have on, but that wasn't a recent development. Cell phones, that's a new thing, but before that there was still crying kids, noisy cracker-jacks and people talking. Every generation thinks they invented sin, and every generation thinks the next one invented bad manners.
As tech fans, we should realize that every single thing ever invented has it's upsides and downsides. Everything. Except possibly for vaccines, those are the closest we've come to inventing something with no downsides. Everything else I can think of had at least a few negative consequences, VHS and then digital included.
It was supposed to be A. By "Not so much as a pager" I meant I did not even have a pager, let alone a smartphone. I don't consider myself an expert in writing, so I apologize if that was poor writing.
I can concur that MD's typically have only a vague understanding of mechanistic biochemistry, and that the Ph.D's designing future treatments have only a vague understanding of human physiology. Exactly how is this a satisfactory state of affairs?
We don't need most MDs or PhDs to have the broad knowledge bases to bridge the gap. There are MD/PhDs, and collaborations to do that. Most MDs are and should be focused on giving the approved treatments, and most PhDs are and should be focused on basic research. Similar to how we have the political process making the laws, and the police enforcing the laws. Most police officers don't need to be well versed in the intricacies of the federal budget. Most politicians don't need to have busted a meth lab themselves. We do need intermediaries, but not as many.
If you were ill with some condition that presented in an unusual way, (say, a borderline metabolic deficiency), would you prefer your M.D. to actually be able to figure out on their own what's wrong with you, or just blindly follow diagnostic recipes they memorized from the New England Journal of Medicine?
By definition, most people will not develop unusual conditions. Thus most doctors don't need be able to solve unusual cases themselves. If I have some odd metabolic deficiency, I expect my common doctor to pass me on to a specialist who would have more specific knowledge in, say, molecular biology.
You are aware that intro molecular biology is now taught in the second year of any standard biology major, or sometimes combined with biochemistry in your third year?
And how much do they remember? I remember fairly little from my molecular biology courses as an undergrad, and I expected to use them.
You can see a list of the topics covered on the MCAT below which covers (surprise!) molecular/cell biology and biochemistry. Unless the philosophy majors are cheating, they must have at least self-studied the material to score so highly, but more likely than not they took a course or two. I'm really puzzled what you are trying to prove here.
I was suggesting that undergrad courses taken don't really make a good doctor.
It should be pointed out, though, that Einstein was a scientist. Not a medical doctor. I want an MD to tell me what is wrong with me based on the symptoms, be correct, and tell me what I need to do. I do not need the MD to come up with an imaginative solution or diagnosis, it should be based purely off of statistics, studies of what worked, and more statistics. While we like to think of ourselves as unique snowflakes, that's our brains, not our bodies. My liver is pretty similar to every other liver out there of the same age.
I don't need much imagination from my doctor, I need him or her to know facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Con Air was actually not a documentary, so please don't cite it as evidence of anything. Were TSA to really beef up security to the levels of chaining you in your seat and patrolling the aisles with shotguns, passengers would actually NOT riot and take over the plane. There are obviously other huge problems with that, but Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.
I don't think people are all that scared anymore. I think the thing keeping the TSA rules in place is laziness on the part of the public and the fact that no one in a position to change the rules wants to take that liability so that people can have slightly cheaper water on plane rides.
The only way it's changing is if people stop tolerating pointless rules, or if someone is going to be paid a lot of money over it. Ideally it would have been the first, but the second was always more likely.
I do not have a solution to your problem. I am curious about the situation though. Is there a reason your organization wants this to be easy-to-steal-and-expensive tablets? Especially when there's the security policy. And you'll have to keep them charged too. Why not just a cheap laptop. Or a pamphlet and TV?
I realize it's difficult to get people to stop smoking, but fancy technology isn't always the solution.
I agree. If you're following some artificial formula that someone says will make a good game no matter what, you're not making a good game. The game should develop how it should develop.
I'd rather have an OLED tablet display personally, but then again I've preferred pretty colors over fine details since fingerpainting in pre-school.
I have to ask... why do you have an ipad AND an ipad 2?
That said, just maintaining the status quo is somewhat generous
When talking about investing in research, I don't know. I'd hate to get cancer in 20 years and there be no cure because we cut research spending, rather than social security, defense spending, or medicare. I mean, I realize that's a tough one politically, but maybe talk about it at least?
By asking if they're still for it when it's the other guy leading the charge.
This will get modded down because trolls have taken over the moderation system and openly subvert it.
By your hypothesis, this post will get modded sky-high, moron. If me pointing out that you're stupid does not get modded up, that suggests that there is not a significant pro-google crowd who has hijacked the board. If it does, then I get modded up. I call that a win-win, but you wouldn't understand that because you're not very smart.
PS. Google rules, and you're dumb.
She believed that pain was a good thing and poverty should not be eliminated? That's not exactly unsaintlike. Maybe a bit more pessimistic than many of us comparatively wealthy and healthy would want to admit to ourselves, but I imagine that dealing with the sick and dying every day would make one re-evaluate the human condition.
As far as not giving out painkillers in her hospitals, maybe she should have, but I think it's hard to make the case that she was providing something worse than the alternative. I don't think it's fair to say "This person was trying to do something good, but she should have been doing it better, so it's not good."
I used alta vista in high school. A teacher told me I should use yahoo instead "because real people are indexing that, so it's better."
I enjoy the Khan Academy, but the "There are five lights" educational videos are also pretty good.
Conspicuously not mentioned in that resume: Brutal Legend.
So much potential... why did they make it suddenly into a RTS...
I DO know the specs on my PC. They're meaningless though without additional knowledge. GeForce 310m is the one on my laptop. The Darkness 2 says it needs GeForce GT 240 or better. Same brand, and my number is higher, so logically, mine is better, right?
You and I know, without looking up the specific benchmarks, that an economy laptop from two years ago isn't going to run the latest games, but that's an extreme example. The things are labeled incoherently. What confuses me is why the industry is doing this in the first place. Was it a short-sighted attempt to make a sale now and worry that they've confused most consumers into console gaming later? Is there some reason they're incapable of putting a number that means something about performance on their products? MS is trying to do so with the stars, but I have yet to see a PC game requirements that actually uses that rating system.
I don't understand the the tablet manufacturers all trying to copy the thinness of the fruit product.
They're not stupid: most consumers will be drawn to the sexiest thing on the retail floor based on first impressions. Most buyers don't even think about battery life, they just think "OOOH PRETTTY!"
Same reason glossy screens are dominating over matte screens on laptops. (I'm painfully reminded of this as I have to crane my neck while typing this to see the text behind the glare from the window on my laptop.) Matte screens work better as you're using it, but glossy screens look prettier in the store, so more people buy the glossy screens. They might hate it later on, but the sales are made before that happens. Consequently, every manufacturer is pumping out the prettier, more useless version.
If there were a way for tablet makers to get paid more for how much use you got out of it, yeah, tablets would reach the ideal ratio between thickness for battery use and ergonomics for holding. They'd have non-reflective, non-smudgy screens. They would not be much to look at in and of themselves, sure, but they'd work great.
I think the 4 is somewhat better charge-wise than the 3Gs (which I also had). At this point the 3Gs battery may simply be getting weaker, you could have it replaced fairly cheaply.
Seems to me too that my wife's 4 lasted longer than my 3G did. The 3G was getting charged every night though from the very start. It wasn't dead by the end of the day, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 50%.
The display consistently uses up a third of my battery on my galaxy S2 skyrocket. So a big part of what's driving my battery drain is not the latest and greatest hardware, but the fact that I wanted a bigger screen. I told myself it was because I hate typing on cramped virtual keyboards and not just because of some compensation issues, but take that for what you will.
And from the consumer perspective, you know what games you can run. PC gaming, if you don't have the absolute most powerful hardware you can buy, I'm not sure what you're supposed to do. My GPU isn't listed in most benchmark sets, let alone any game's system requirements. "canyourunit.com" is helpful, and you go to the full list of benchmarks to see where yours falls, but that's a lot of work to be able to tell if you'll be able to run a game that you can't return if it doesn't.
In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.
Don't know what type of rose-colored nostalgia glasses you have on, but that wasn't a recent development. Cell phones, that's a new thing, but before that there was still crying kids, noisy cracker-jacks and people talking. Every generation thinks they invented sin, and every generation thinks the next one invented bad manners.
As tech fans, we should realize that every single thing ever invented has it's upsides and downsides. Everything. Except possibly for vaccines, those are the closest we've come to inventing something with no downsides. Everything else I can think of had at least a few negative consequences, VHS and then digital included.
When I heard about the motion controls on the wii, I thought "This is going to make for some pretty cool games!"
It turned out to be mostly a stupid gimmick, or at best an answer to a question no one asked.
When I heard about the kinect, I thought "Great, another stupid, pointless product no one will use."
Maybe I should buy stock in whatever company makes these.
It was supposed to be A. By "Not so much as a pager" I meant I did not even have a pager, let alone a smartphone. I don't consider myself an expert in writing, so I apologize if that was poor writing.
AT&T has only rolled out LTE in a few select cities. One of which is Kansas City. Now they're getting fiber too?
I lived there in high school, during which time I had not so much as a pager, and considered myself lucky to have AOL on dialup.
I'd like to take this opportunity to tell all the kids in KC that I hate them.
I can concur that MD's typically have only a vague understanding of mechanistic biochemistry, and that the Ph.D's designing future treatments have only a vague understanding of human physiology. Exactly how is this a satisfactory state of affairs?
We don't need most MDs or PhDs to have the broad knowledge bases to bridge the gap. There are MD/PhDs, and collaborations to do that. Most MDs are and should be focused on giving the approved treatments, and most PhDs are and should be focused on basic research. Similar to how we have the political process making the laws, and the police enforcing the laws. Most police officers don't need to be well versed in the intricacies of the federal budget. Most politicians don't need to have busted a meth lab themselves. We do need intermediaries, but not as many.
If you were ill with some condition that presented in an unusual way, (say, a borderline metabolic deficiency), would you prefer your M.D. to actually be able to figure out on their own what's wrong with you, or just blindly follow diagnostic recipes they memorized from the New England Journal of Medicine?
By definition, most people will not develop unusual conditions. Thus most doctors don't need be able to solve unusual cases themselves. If I have some odd metabolic deficiency, I expect my common doctor to pass me on to a specialist who would have more specific knowledge in, say, molecular biology.
You are aware that intro molecular biology is now taught in the second year of any standard biology major, or sometimes combined with biochemistry in your third year?
And how much do they remember? I remember fairly little from my molecular biology courses as an undergrad, and I expected to use them.
You can see a list of the topics covered on the MCAT below which covers (surprise!) molecular/cell biology and biochemistry. Unless the philosophy majors are cheating, they must have at least self-studied the material to score so highly, but more likely than not they took a course or two. I'm really puzzled what you are trying to prove here.
I was suggesting that undergrad courses taken don't really make a good doctor.
It should be pointed out, though, that Einstein was a scientist. Not a medical doctor. I want an MD to tell me what is wrong with me based on the symptoms, be correct, and tell me what I need to do. I do not need the MD to come up with an imaginative solution or diagnosis, it should be based purely off of statistics, studies of what worked, and more statistics. While we like to think of ourselves as unique snowflakes, that's our brains, not our bodies. My liver is pretty similar to every other liver out there of the same age.
I don't need much imagination from my doctor, I need him or her to know facts.