Wired just ran an article talking about some of the research in anthropomorphic bots. Evidently there are significant differences between the humanoid bots and the non-humanoid bots.
Operators driving human looking bots were more likely to identify the bot as a separate entity. In some simulations this led to more aggressive activities and the operators feeling less responsible for the outcomes. Operators driving the non-humanoid bots were more likely to view the unit as an extension of themselves (like any tool), and so were more likely to feel responsible for the bots actions and the outcomes.
Certainly remote operators are going to perceive the environment differently from someone who is actually there. Not having to actually die when you are shot at really changes how soldiers could fight.
American body bags coming home is a lot worse than expensive toy being destroyed, in terms of PR for the next election.
I think it also means quite a bit for the family of the American body not in the bag.
Whether or not we should be over there fighting is a separate question, but once we do start fighting why not send drones? It saves American lives, and discourages insurgents from actively fighting (less motivated to fight a bot than an infidel).
Have a per-serving and per-bag column, problem solved.
I've definitely seen some companies doing that. In fact, I have a can of soup on my desk that does have both (and evidently I'm going to be getting a lot of sodium today).
It would be nice if it were required for the "single serving" items that we can reasonably expect people to consume in one sitting.
As a part of my current coursework I've been doing a fair number of presentations. And brevity isn't really the goal.
You're absolutely right. Clear communication is the goal. Brevity can help that, but is not the goal itself.
Shooting for brevity risks leaving out or glossing over key information. Perhaps a better way way to think if it would be shooting for conciseness (that word should be concisity, it sounds truthier).
Mr manager, if you purchase our copier you can reduce your costs by $2000 per month.
Would you like me to explain how?
You have to be careful not to boil it down too far though. I know you were just making a point, but if you open a sales presentation like that you are likely to sound like an "as seen on TV" direct seller.
Some buyers like to feel smart, and in those cases it can help to simply demonstrate what it is about your product that makes it special and let them make the link to how it will save money/time/trees/headlight fluid. You're guiding them there of course, but it can help to let them think they made the link.
...maybe. The failure of correlation to prove causation does not mean that a causal relationship doesn't exist.
I think certainly your argument holds water, kinds of people who elect to take more advanced math courses are probably more likely to continue learning math. But it also seems probably (at least plausible) that the kids that receive higher math education are then better equipped to succeed. And these points are not dichotomous, both effects can be happening at once.
At the very least, this is an opportunity to get schools teaching more math and holding students to a higher standard. The US education system has had very little of that recently.
Algebra forces you to work with abstract mental representation. Algebra I gets you thinking "if I two X's equal 24, how many will 6 X's get me". Algebra II kicks it up to a whole other level of abstract thinking, like working with multiple variables and modeling mathematical relationships. Never mind the benefits from having access to higher math, this thinking is hugely helpful in cognitive development.
No single class is going to make you win at life. Algebra definitely gives you some tools that will help.
Heavy handed security compliance concepts are not the best way to market a product to a new user base.
I expect that RIM's approach with marketing their tablet will be to market it towards organizations and IT departments rather then users. In that sense the security and compliance assets make it attractive to organizations, rather than Apple's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to customization.
One of the most basic sales or advertising models is the FAB (Features, Advantages, Benefits) model. You describe the features of the product (what it is), then you describe the advantages of the product (why it's special), and then you hit on the benefits of the product (how it will make your life better).
Apple gets that. They market their products as part of a lifestyle. Many competitors are stuck on advertising features alone, and assume that people understand why some tech is inherently better than others based on performance specs alone. The thing is that most people have no interest in educating themselves on all of the underlying tech of the products they buy. People want to pick up a gadget and let it do it's thing.
Technical people describe that as ignorant, that's not technically untrue but it is unfortunate that we use it in a derogatory way. People are simply not able to do complete research on all the products we buy. Some of us (especially/.'ers) are in a position where we do have an existing familiarity with technology so such research is easy for us, but everyone has their own knowledge areas. I expect professional hairdressers to have the knowledge to make educated choices on hair-spray selection clipper disinfectants, but I expect they will want to pick up an iPhone and just have it work. That doesn't make them ignorant fools.
People are still in the "X company is amazing!" category when it comes to buying electronics instead of researching it logically anyway. The people who research logically will find that while a tablet has uses, most of the time it basically doesn't do anything that a laptop or smartphone couldn't already.
The problem is that I don't see that changing anytime soon. Other tablet manufacturers are selling products and tools. Apple is selling the "iPad" as a lifestyle, where people can sit in a cafe and listen to music, read a book, and write emails to their equally trendy friends. You see that in their marketing campaigns. Other manufacturers talk about screen resolution and processing power, Apple talks about sweet media players to manage our massive libraries of cool music.
I've best heard it expressed that Apple is a systems company. They design and sell systems. Other companies might be able to produce better gadgets, but most consumers are interested in the whole user experience. Most consumers aren't interested in researching competing devices and making a logical decision based on hardware capabilities. We want to buy the "in" gadget and have it make our lives better.
If I catch a burglar in my house, I will shoot to kill. I'd much rather pay a crime scene cleanup crew to get some dirtbag's blood off of my floor than to have him sue me later for only wounding him. Our courts are fscked, and sadly frontier justice seems to be the only justice left most of the time.
Why are you assuming the burglar's family won't sue you?
They probably would. But (and this sounds harsh) they will have a harder time if the assailant isn't around to provide testimony. If the person survives they will be free to make up any story they like to present themselves in a good light (i.e. was trying to flee when shot).
If someone broke into my house and I had access to a gun, I'd probably shoot them in the leg. However, if they were visibly armed with a firearm, I'd keep shooting until they drop. And in my backwards state, I'd probably go to jail for that, and I'd be fine with it. Better to be in jail then dead.
Most self defense instructors would recommend the exact opposite. If you decide you need to use deadly force (guns are pretty universally considered by the courts as representing deadly force) shooting to maim or disable is more likely to result in you going to jail.
You should only need to shoot when you need to kill. Shooting to injure looks a lot like excessive force, and at the very least it leaves you with a wounded dirtbag who will probably try to sue you.
Comes in handy when trolls like Hairyfeet screwup & troll me,
But probably not too helpful in talking to people.
APK, who are you? I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm not certain who you are and why people would seek to defame you. You should know that your anonymous postings and disjointed writing style make you seem less "persecuted intellectual" and more "schizophrenic homeless dude under a bridge".
Your malicious disregard for basic communication makes me want to side with Hairyfeet on principle alone.
Also, you should know that I am a little embarrassed that I took the time to 6 posts in the thread you linked. The fact that you seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every post you've ever made here leads me to believe you take the goal of winning at internet way to seriously.
It's impossible, because you people think any implementation of commons, having to give a crap about anyone else but people you care about, and having to pay for legitimate government oversight of industry is infringing on your freedom.
Erroneous. We recognize the need for government regulation in certain aspects of our lives. We just want to see a whole lot less of it. Don't mis-characterize that into desiring lawlessness, we want Police and paved roads just as much as you do.
While I think I agree with you, I feel morally and intellectually compelled to distance myself from the mildly arrogant soap-box tone of your post.
Randomly CAPITALIZING words in your sentences makes US look more like RADICAL nutJOBS than it makes liberals. You can thank Sarah Palin and the Tea party for that.
To the GP: Freedom is a code word for "get a damn job you dirt hippy". Nobody wants monopolies. A truly free market would remove the subsidies and special privileges that would allow those mega-corps to form. But go ahead and enjoy your socialized healthcare and welfare spending. I hope out children draw equal enjoyment from paying off that debt.
when my wireless router was detected on network they sent a snail-mail letter to my parents informing them that I am 'hacking'.
Awesome.
My school decided there was a problem with people drinking in their dorm rooms. Instead of addressing it with the students, they sent letters to parents informing them that the school was not responsible for any alcohol related damage or injuries caused by the student and that their preferred method of mending the damage was to file a claim with the parents homeowner's insurer.
Getting the parents freaked out is usually a great way to get (most) college students to stop doing whatever it is they are doing.
I literally had my mouse pointer hovered above one of those before I realized what I would be clicking.
While not really being NSFW in the classic sense, I really really don't want my employer to see my weblogs including things like "Free Shipping on Yellowcake Uranium!"
Though I am tempted to pull out my laptop to check out what the users who looked at those items went on to purchase...
I've read it will cut motive power at about 10%. The other electrical systems will run, but the car will stop moving. AFAIK they do it for exactly the reason that you said, fully discharging the battery is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow you are a douche.
Wired just ran an article talking about some of the research in anthropomorphic bots. Evidently there are significant differences between the humanoid bots and the non-humanoid bots.
Operators driving human looking bots were more likely to identify the bot as a separate entity. In some simulations this led to more aggressive activities and the operators feeling less responsible for the outcomes. Operators driving the non-humanoid bots were more likely to view the unit as an extension of themselves (like any tool), and so were more likely to feel responsible for the bots actions and the outcomes.
Certainly remote operators are going to perceive the environment differently from someone who is actually there. Not having to actually die when you are shot at really changes how soldiers could fight.
American body bags coming home is a lot worse than expensive toy being destroyed, in terms of PR for the next election.
I think it also means quite a bit for the family of the American body not in the bag.
Whether or not we should be over there fighting is a separate question, but once we do start fighting why not send drones? It saves American lives, and discourages insurgents from actively fighting (less motivated to fight a bot than an infidel).
Have a per-serving and per-bag column, problem solved.
I've definitely seen some companies doing that. In fact, I have a can of soup on my desk that does have both (and evidently I'm going to be getting a lot of sodium today).
It would be nice if it were required for the "single serving" items that we can reasonably expect people to consume in one sitting.
As a part of my current coursework I've been doing a fair number of presentations. And brevity isn't really the goal.
You're absolutely right. Clear communication is the goal. Brevity can help that, but is not the goal itself.
Shooting for brevity risks leaving out or glossing over key information. Perhaps a better way way to think if it would be shooting for conciseness (that word should be concisity, it sounds truthier).
Mr manager, if you purchase our copier you can reduce your costs by $2000 per month. Would you like me to explain how?
You have to be careful not to boil it down too far though. I know you were just making a point, but if you open a sales presentation like that you are likely to sound like an "as seen on TV" direct seller.
Some buyers like to feel smart, and in those cases it can help to simply demonstrate what it is about your product that makes it special and let them make the link to how it will save money/time/trees/headlight fluid. You're guiding them there of course, but it can help to let them think they made the link.
Life is short. Use Abbrevs.
...maybe. The failure of correlation to prove causation does not mean that a causal relationship doesn't exist.
I think certainly your argument holds water, kinds of people who elect to take more advanced math courses are probably more likely to continue learning math. But it also seems probably (at least plausible) that the kids that receive higher math education are then better equipped to succeed. And these points are not dichotomous, both effects can be happening at once.
At the very least, this is an opportunity to get schools teaching more math and holding students to a higher standard. The US education system has had very little of that recently.
Algebra forces you to work with abstract mental representation. Algebra I gets you thinking "if I two X's equal 24, how many will 6 X's get me". Algebra II kicks it up to a whole other level of abstract thinking, like working with multiple variables and modeling mathematical relationships. Never mind the benefits from having access to higher math, this thinking is hugely helpful in cognitive development.
No single class is going to make you win at life. Algebra definitely gives you some tools that will help.
The title implies that the chinese made human-like milk which produces cows.
In fact the thumbnail image for the summary on the main page is a picture of these cows. They are sassy and fabulous.
Heavy handed security compliance concepts are not the best way to market a product to a new user base.
I expect that RIM's approach with marketing their tablet will be to market it towards organizations and IT departments rather then users. In that sense the security and compliance assets make it attractive to organizations, rather than Apple's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to customization.
One of the most basic sales or advertising models is the FAB (Features, Advantages, Benefits) model. You describe the features of the product (what it is), then you describe the advantages of the product (why it's special), and then you hit on the benefits of the product (how it will make your life better).
Apple gets that. They market their products as part of a lifestyle. Many competitors are stuck on advertising features alone, and assume that people understand why some tech is inherently better than others based on performance specs alone. The thing is that most people have no interest in educating themselves on all of the underlying tech of the products they buy. People want to pick up a gadget and let it do it's thing.
Technical people describe that as ignorant, that's not technically untrue but it is unfortunate that we use it in a derogatory way. People are simply not able to do complete research on all the products we buy. Some of us (especially /.'ers) are in a position where we do have an existing familiarity with technology so such research is easy for us, but everyone has their own knowledge areas. I expect professional hairdressers to have the knowledge to make educated choices on hair-spray selection clipper disinfectants, but I expect they will want to pick up an iPhone and just have it work. That doesn't make them ignorant fools.
People are still in the "X company is amazing!" category when it comes to buying electronics instead of researching it logically anyway. The people who research logically will find that while a tablet has uses, most of the time it basically doesn't do anything that a laptop or smartphone couldn't already.
The problem is that I don't see that changing anytime soon. Other tablet manufacturers are selling products and tools. Apple is selling the "iPad" as a lifestyle, where people can sit in a cafe and listen to music, read a book, and write emails to their equally trendy friends. You see that in their marketing campaigns. Other manufacturers talk about screen resolution and processing power, Apple talks about sweet media players to manage our massive libraries of cool music.
I've best heard it expressed that Apple is a systems company. They design and sell systems. Other companies might be able to produce better gadgets, but most consumers are interested in the whole user experience. Most consumers aren't interested in researching competing devices and making a logical decision based on hardware capabilities. We want to buy the "in" gadget and have it make our lives better.
If I catch a burglar in my house, I will shoot to kill. I'd much rather pay a crime scene cleanup crew to get some dirtbag's blood off of my floor than to have him sue me later for only wounding him. Our courts are fscked, and sadly frontier justice seems to be the only justice left most of the time.
Why are you assuming the burglar's family won't sue you?
They probably would. But (and this sounds harsh) they will have a harder time if the assailant isn't around to provide testimony. If the person survives they will be free to make up any story they like to present themselves in a good light (i.e. was trying to flee when shot).
If someone broke into my house and I had access to a gun, I'd probably shoot them in the leg. However, if they were visibly armed with a firearm, I'd keep shooting until they drop. And in my backwards state, I'd probably go to jail for that, and I'd be fine with it. Better to be in jail then dead.
Most self defense instructors would recommend the exact opposite. If you decide you need to use deadly force (guns are pretty universally considered by the courts as representing deadly force) shooting to maim or disable is more likely to result in you going to jail.
You should only need to shoot when you need to kill. Shooting to injure looks a lot like excessive force, and at the very least it leaves you with a wounded dirtbag who will probably try to sue you.
That really depends on the state. Some states would consider the simple presence of an intruder an imminent threat.
Comes in handy when trolls like Hairyfeet screwup & troll me,
But probably not too helpful in talking to people.
APK, who are you? I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm not certain who you are and why people would seek to defame you. You should know that your anonymous postings and disjointed writing style make you seem less "persecuted intellectual" and more "schizophrenic homeless dude under a bridge".
Not to be too pedantic, but I would like to introduce you to the tautological world of academia.
Your malicious disregard for basic communication makes me want to side with Hairyfeet on principle alone.
Also, you should know that I am a little embarrassed that I took the time to 6 posts in the thread you linked. The fact that you seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every post you've ever made here leads me to believe you take the goal of winning at internet way to seriously.
It's impossible, because you people think any implementation of commons, having to give a crap about anyone else but people you care about, and having to pay for legitimate government oversight of industry is infringing on your freedom.
Erroneous. We recognize the need for government regulation in certain aspects of our lives. We just want to see a whole lot less of it. Don't mis-characterize that into desiring lawlessness, we want Police and paved roads just as much as you do.
While I think I agree with you, I feel morally and intellectually compelled to distance myself from the mildly arrogant soap-box tone of your post.
Randomly CAPITALIZING words in your sentences makes US look more like RADICAL nutJOBS than it makes liberals. You can thank Sarah Palin and the Tea party for that.
To the GP: Freedom is a code word for "get a damn job you dirt hippy". Nobody wants monopolies. A truly free market would remove the subsidies and special privileges that would allow those mega-corps to form. But go ahead and enjoy your socialized healthcare and welfare spending. I hope out children draw equal enjoyment from paying off that debt.
when my wireless router was detected on network they sent a snail-mail letter to my parents informing them that I am 'hacking'.
Awesome.
My school decided there was a problem with people drinking in their dorm rooms. Instead of addressing it with the students, they sent letters to parents informing them that the school was not responsible for any alcohol related damage or injuries caused by the student and that their preferred method of mending the damage was to file a claim with the parents homeowner's insurer.
Getting the parents freaked out is usually a great way to get (most) college students to stop doing whatever it is they are doing.
I literally had my mouse pointer hovered above one of those before I realized what I would be clicking.
While not really being NSFW in the classic sense, I really really don't want my employer to see my weblogs including things like "Free Shipping on Yellowcake Uranium!"
Though I am tempted to pull out my laptop to check out what the users who looked at those items went on to purchase...
This is totally off-topic, but bamboo socks are awesome. As a clothing material it's porous, sweat-wicking, and anti-microbial (reduces odor).
I've read it will cut motive power at about 10%. The other electrical systems will run, but the car will stop moving. AFAIK they do it for exactly the reason that you said, fully discharging the battery is bad.