I have seen teaching objectives include phrases like "learn to add numbers with and without technology." Does that mean with a pencil and in their heads?
To too many people, technology is simply something they do not understand. They are afraid of it, afraid that it will make them obsolete, and desperate to show how bad it is.
With me, I have never been able to use a pencil, and I did not touch "technology" until middle school.
So I flew when you could pug anything on a plane. Televisions, air conditioning units, anything that could be put in a box and moved through to the plane. And there were no practice limits to how many boxes you could have.
I don't think we want to go back there due to the disparity of costs. Airplanes costs are largely weight, at least for luggage. The limiting factor for people is the number of seats, and some people are required to buy two seats. But I have been planes where they have had to adjust the luggage to make the weight to take off, and where we have strictly been limited to two bags because of other requirement for the flight.
In the end ticket prices would go up as you would be paying for someone else to take a big screen TV with them. It is easy enough to choose an airline based on how many free bags you want and other stuff. You can pay more or less for your ticket. The way I fly is always two free bags and two free carry on.
I see these as two different issues. The first, the decision to integrate new tech in a business process and training, has to be a calculated risk. If we simply ignore new technology, like the US car companies did with QC and analysis in the 1970s, we are risking long term profitability. If we just jump into every fad without a plan on ROI or training, then we are going to lose productivity with no long term justification.
That said, most of the time the problem is that of the US car companies. The management is not skilled enough to see benefits of new techniques, the employees don't want to learn, the budget office does not want to pay for training, and the executives are too incompetent to make the case to the share holders. For instance, there were many companies that got screwed with ERP systems, but there are many who did it right and came out the other end in a much better position.
Then there are technologies, like the telephone, that are double edged swords. On one hand, putting a telephone on every desk means that employees can simply get calls from their lovers, family, children, friends, and waste a lot of time. On the other hand it means that we don't have people wandering the halls to give people simple instructions, and that customers have fast access to staff.
This is the same thing. The expectation has be set that employees are there to work. Employers also have to understand that an employee not working every second is not necessarily a bad thing. if a new technology double productivity, and the employee only gets a 25% raise, then it seems that there is some wiggle room for the employee to have a big more flexibility in how to use the time.
I am amazed at the number of people of limited funds and low requirement who still pay MS money for office. These open apps are plenty good for most people,. I just wish Google would update their office suite so it did not suck so much.
That said, last time I tried Libreoffice is was a disaster. On the Mac it simply would not run fast enough to practice. Even OpenOffice now has some issues, bu I still an acceptable option. Given that Apple essentially gives away it's office suit, I have began to use it more. My worry is that the closed standard means the if Apple discontinues the suite...
Furthermore, with Bright it depends on what they are calling user ratings. At the movies I pay for individual movies. With Netflix there is no real cost to checking out a movie. Like Bright, the Adam Sandler garbage was heavily promoted. Both were on the front page top for weeks. Both pushed down what I actually wanted to watch. I did watch part of the Adam Sandler garbage movie. Did Netflix count that as a positive review? I have not watched Bright, but I am sure many people just clicked over because it was prominently promoted.
I suspect face recognition was a kludge to get the X out the door. I don't know if people are actually acclimating to it as they did fingerprints. I have heard that there is issue with light, and I know in the morning I can unlock my phone without looking at it. I think it would be annoying to have to bring it around to my face.
If the X is discontinued, that likely means that Apple has a on screen fingerprint recognition system, which is what they originally wanted for the X, IIRC. Maybe they keep the face recognition, maybe they don't. But I think it will be a new name to differentiate from any bad press the face recognition has gotten.
Apple takes risks to innovate. Apple customers sometimes choose to participate in those risks. It is not a catastrophe that sometimes some products are not as popular as Apple might hope, or do not meet customer needs. What that typically means is that Apple users are not hampered with bloated software that needs to support ancient technology. One problem that exists right now is that apple has so many different IOS products, given that a new one is made every year, that is significantly different, that we end up with buggy software. One thing that Apple is bad at, unlike MS, is supported a large number of devices at once.
I would prefer smaller boxes to padded envelopes, which as said are not recyclable.
My big concern is that they are trying to put more stuff into the box, resulting in items not being broken, but being scattered about as the container breaks.
My second concern is using padded bags when simple strong plastic bags would do.
There was a Plato in High School, though I don't know if I ever used it. We had actual computers, Apple and DEC, that we could actually code on and that is what most of us did. I probably was assigned work on Plato, but it recall it being boring.
I think what we can learn from the past is that simply that motivated students are going to learn anywhere, and less motivated students are not going to be more engaged just because throw new technology at them. I am a practical person so I learn when I solve practical problems. Have a computer instead of a worksheet did nothing.
I saw this several years ago when I working with a adaptive learning software. The motivated students, the ones who would learn everything no matter what, really learned a lot. Of course they would have learned it no matter what, so the advantage was that one could have a class ratio of 50 to 1 instead of of 30 to 1.
OTOH, the student who were most reluctant, the one who require personal attention,quickly figured that if the got everything wrong, the software would revert to the lowest level questions, and they would get their full completion credit for not really learning anything.
I see this 'magic bullet' fa;acy in many other places. For instance, Tesla want to makes public transit obsolete by selling autonomous cars and building tunnels. Of course the highways system and cheap cars were supposed to make public transit obsolete, but we see how that works. There is simply a geometry and physics issues, and stacking can only do so much.
Computing devices, if we really use them to redefine the way we educate, can really help the reluctant student. But if we are just trying to generate a profit by making it cheaper to educate the motivated student, we are not really doing anything at all. We are already very good at educated the motivated student. That is why most of the work that Gates and people like him has done has been a failure.
We need to learn from Plato that we can't just do the same thing, but simply put it one a screen or make it a game. We need to reach the student that will game the game.
For other US organizations that actually use their budget wisely, $22 million would be significant. It is even less significant as it appears to be money over a three year period, 2008-2011.
Contrast this with the half trillion dollar F-35 program, which has resulted in 100 planes that can only, potentially, be used for training as they will be too expensive to upgrade, and not a single plane that is suitable for any practical warfare application.
The question of alien life is legitimate. Reasonable research is valid. The money spent, in the wasteland that is the military budget, is also reasonable.
I tended to have one or two toys when I was growing up, or at least only one or two toys that I regularly played with. A six million dollar man airplane. An erector set. A friend and I would spend a lot of time playing in a VW van.
I probably had more toys, but I don't know if even know I play with many different toys.
Setting a price is a compromise between profit and time to realize that profit. If my costs for widget is $1 and I charge $100, I can sell enough at that price to fund my entire business and generate a good profit, then that is what I do. I do not care who buys the product, just that I make my money.
If another firms want to buy all the product at retail and take the risk in reselling it, then that is not necessarily a problem. It will create demand, so the next product I release is likely to sell well. The issue might be if I am trying to establish the product and I get negative press, or if there is some sort of grey market where I am leverage the arbitrage. This occurs in high end bags in which they are imported to the US from Europe, then Europeans will fly to NY, but the bags, and resell them in Europe.
The parents and collectors who pay $1000 for a $15 toys are doing so specifically because they can. Their child is the one with the toy, while other children are of lesser value because they do not have the toy. We see this with parents taking their kids to Disney World instead of local park simply because it costs more.
This is true in all markets. All tickets for entertainment activities are subject to resellers because people want to show they have expendable income, even if they do not.
Here are two things we forget. First, no one, not child, no adult, is entitled to any product. No one is entitled to a big house, no one is entitled to see Beyonce, no one is entitled to a Barbie doll. As we say on/., it is not going to make your breasts larger or your dick bigger just because you can buy your kid whatever random toy is deemed the 'it toy.' Second, people have free will to spend their money as they wish. If they want to spend $5 for a cup of starbucks llama regurgitation, or $500 to see some band streamed through a computer autotuner, that is their choice. Some people are going to focus on showing they have more than anyone else. We can't legislate greed.
If a game is tedious, what fool would p,ay it, much less pay for it. That is why we need Pac-Man, a simple animated dot roaming the screen. It was not tedious.
I might get one of these eventually, but it is not going to a profit center for Apple. Google is much more in danger for not getting it's smart speaker out, because like Amazon the speaker helps monetize customers. Apple makes money directly, Google by collecting data on users, Amazon by making it easy for users to buy a lot of stuff.
A smart speaker might encourage users to subscribe to the Apple music service. it is not going to sell Apps, it is not going to sell storage, it is not going to sell phone.
The delay does mean most of us who adopted this technology adopted Amazon over Google. Google has play catchup as most people are not going to buy a Google product to supplement Alexa.
People will buy the Apple product if it is a good speaker. One hole in the apple line up, BTW, now that they no longer do routers, is a cheap way to network speakers.
Obviously any autocomplete funcitonality, or the like, is going to require keystrokes sent to the server. A post will not suffice. Google, for example, would need to save what the user typed and what the user chose, to optimize future results.
On the other hand, much of the web is run on advertising dollars, and we are in an arms race between intrusive tracking and privacy. It is therefore anyones guess how this will be used moving forward.
I do think this is a case of judicial oversight and sets a bad precedent. OTOH, I would hate see the feds waste our tax dollars paying a third party to crack the phone, or waste further time on side investigations.
I suspect the military has all the information we need and perhaps is hiding it, the same way they hid his conviction. I don't think the phone is going to lead to anything more, at least not anything the feds will think is actionable.
I don't think it is an iPhone app at all, or at least not older iPhones.
Apple is getting into the situation of supporting too much hardware, which was never it's forte. Apple is good at supporting a small number of models, think mac air, iMac, MacBook, mac pro. Sometimes it has successfully supported multiple platforms, such as when they transition from PowerPC to Intel, but that is short lived.
The iOS works really well on iPad pro. I know the iPhone 8 people have few problems. It does not work so well on iPhone 6.
I think that release notes are seen as marketing. This makes sense for some free Apps. Most Apps are downloaded and never used, so the update provides an opportunity to communicate with users. Rover does this, as well as lyft and Google with it's 'fresh new look'.
What I find amusing is when MS thanks you for using their office suite, like most people have a choice.
Honestly, I think the best keyboard is what you are used to. In theory i love my mechanical keyboard, but I primarily use the keyboard on my mac laptop, so that is what I am used to. I type much more quickly and accurately on it compared to my $200 mechanical model. I like the fell of the mechanical keyboard, but don't use it enough to get used to.
Some keyboards are genuinely bad. The mew Apple wireless keyboard it horrible. I have never found a tablet keyboard that is tolerable. The HP laptop keyboards are crimes against humanity.
Many hundreds of years ago a process we know call physics was developed. This process replaced natural philosophy, a failed regimen that resulted in counter productive ideas such as infection being the result of bad blood, the flat earth, and the elements of fire, water, and earth.
As is said here, physics requires not only an idea that matches the data, but an idea the results in tangible novel predictions that can be tested. Physics is open to new ideas, such as the idea that energy is quantized, but requires those ideas to be formalized and used to create new verifiable knowledge, like the tunneling electron.
In short, physics focuses on practical results while natural philosophy focuses on fanciful conjectures. Physics is does not necessarily lead to a more absolute 'truth' but does provide a reasonably objective method to determine if a particular truth is personal or universal.
In this case, there may be an intelligence behind the physics. My question would be, how does this change the laws and assumptions and results we already have? One this I would suggest is that intelligence can change it's mind, so we would see evidence in the universe of differing laws. In fact we might see this, for instance the lack of antimatter. The second question is does assuming an intelligence help us develop a formal result to explain the discrepancy.
So the pilot has to fly steady, thus becoming a target for return fire, until the control surfaces burn off. The target has to be kind and stay steady so the laser can stay generally in one place.
For space battles, the laser weapon is a decent plot device. If you ignore the energy requirements and mass of equipment, the laser solves issues with mass for projectiles and momentum. But in real life we can't ignore energy requirements, the large mass of the unit, and the limited energy density delivered.
Certainly they can get unlimited electric with solar panels. If you never want to go outside, and can afford a plane to Santa Fe, it would not be a bad life. For household use they can basically make water if they want to pay enough. My concern would be manufacturing, which is a stated goal, and requires vast amount of cheap water. I can imagine that if they were just mining bitcoin this would be a good setup.
The most reliable precursor is a white male who beats their wife and kids, triggered by some sort of martial problem. The mother in law attended the church in question. We already know this.
A weak pathetic white guy who liked to beat his wife and crack his infants skull went in a shot a lot of people. It happens often enough? What else do we need to know.
We know the USAF gave him a minimum sentence for cracking his babies skull, did not give him a dishonorable discharge, and chose to protect this baby beater by not entering his information into the criminal database. If there is anything to investigate, it is whey the USAF protect wife and kid heaters. The USAF, in fact, could have put him in jail for fiver years, given him a dishonorable discharge, and made his crime public record. The reason that dozens of people are dead is because they chose not to.
The iPhone thing is just another effort to continue to erode our rights to privacy. It is not going to bring the dead back. It is not going to prevent the air force from releasing another trained killer, maybe this time a baby killer, back into society to murder even more people.
Slashdot Mirror
To too many people, technology is simply something they do not understand. They are afraid of it, afraid that it will make them obsolete, and desperate to show how bad it is.
With me, I have never been able to use a pencil, and I did not touch "technology" until middle school.
I don't think we want to go back there due to the disparity of costs. Airplanes costs are largely weight, at least for luggage. The limiting factor for people is the number of seats, and some people are required to buy two seats. But I have been planes where they have had to adjust the luggage to make the weight to take off, and where we have strictly been limited to two bags because of other requirement for the flight.
In the end ticket prices would go up as you would be paying for someone else to take a big screen TV with them. It is easy enough to choose an airline based on how many free bags you want and other stuff. You can pay more or less for your ticket. The way I fly is always two free bags and two free carry on.
That said, most of the time the problem is that of the US car companies. The management is not skilled enough to see benefits of new techniques, the employees don't want to learn, the budget office does not want to pay for training, and the executives are too incompetent to make the case to the share holders. For instance, there were many companies that got screwed with ERP systems, but there are many who did it right and came out the other end in a much better position.
Then there are technologies, like the telephone, that are double edged swords. On one hand, putting a telephone on every desk means that employees can simply get calls from their lovers, family, children, friends, and waste a lot of time. On the other hand it means that we don't have people wandering the halls to give people simple instructions, and that customers have fast access to staff.
This is the same thing. The expectation has be set that employees are there to work. Employers also have to understand that an employee not working every second is not necessarily a bad thing. if a new technology double productivity, and the employee only gets a 25% raise, then it seems that there is some wiggle room for the employee to have a big more flexibility in how to use the time.
I am amazed at the number of people of limited funds and low requirement who still pay MS money for office. These open apps are plenty good for most people,. I just wish Google would update their office suite so it did not suck so much. That said, last time I tried Libreoffice is was a disaster. On the Mac it simply would not run fast enough to practice. Even OpenOffice now has some issues, bu I still an acceptable option. Given that Apple essentially gives away it's office suit, I have began to use it more. My worry is that the closed standard means the if Apple discontinues the suite...
Furthermore, with Bright it depends on what they are calling user ratings. At the movies I pay for individual movies. With Netflix there is no real cost to checking out a movie. Like Bright, the Adam Sandler garbage was heavily promoted. Both were on the front page top for weeks. Both pushed down what I actually wanted to watch. I did watch part of the Adam Sandler garbage movie. Did Netflix count that as a positive review? I have not watched Bright, but I am sure many people just clicked over because it was prominently promoted.
If the X is discontinued, that likely means that Apple has a on screen fingerprint recognition system, which is what they originally wanted for the X, IIRC. Maybe they keep the face recognition, maybe they don't. But I think it will be a new name to differentiate from any bad press the face recognition has gotten.
Apple takes risks to innovate. Apple customers sometimes choose to participate in those risks. It is not a catastrophe that sometimes some products are not as popular as Apple might hope, or do not meet customer needs. What that typically means is that Apple users are not hampered with bloated software that needs to support ancient technology. One problem that exists right now is that apple has so many different IOS products, given that a new one is made every year, that is significantly different, that we end up with buggy software. One thing that Apple is bad at, unlike MS, is supported a large number of devices at once.
My big concern is that they are trying to put more stuff into the box, resulting in items not being broken, but being scattered about as the container breaks.
My second concern is using padded bags when simple strong plastic bags would do.
I think what we can learn from the past is that simply that motivated students are going to learn anywhere, and less motivated students are not going to be more engaged just because throw new technology at them. I am a practical person so I learn when I solve practical problems. Have a computer instead of a worksheet did nothing.
I saw this several years ago when I working with a adaptive learning software. The motivated students, the ones who would learn everything no matter what, really learned a lot. Of course they would have learned it no matter what, so the advantage was that one could have a class ratio of 50 to 1 instead of of 30 to 1.
OTOH, the student who were most reluctant, the one who require personal attention,quickly figured that if the got everything wrong, the software would revert to the lowest level questions, and they would get their full completion credit for not really learning anything.
I see this 'magic bullet' fa;acy in many other places. For instance, Tesla want to makes public transit obsolete by selling autonomous cars and building tunnels. Of course the highways system and cheap cars were supposed to make public transit obsolete, but we see how that works. There is simply a geometry and physics issues, and stacking can only do so much.
Computing devices, if we really use them to redefine the way we educate, can really help the reluctant student. But if we are just trying to generate a profit by making it cheaper to educate the motivated student, we are not really doing anything at all. We are already very good at educated the motivated student. That is why most of the work that Gates and people like him has done has been a failure.
We need to learn from Plato that we can't just do the same thing, but simply put it one a screen or make it a game. We need to reach the student that will game the game.
The fact is that there is no good show. They are all stereotypes. Every tech worker is a stereotype on any show I have seen.
Contrast this with the half trillion dollar F-35 program, which has resulted in 100 planes that can only, potentially, be used for training as they will be too expensive to upgrade, and not a single plane that is suitable for any practical warfare application.
The question of alien life is legitimate. Reasonable research is valid. The money spent, in the wasteland that is the military budget, is also reasonable.
I probably had more toys, but I don't know if even know I play with many different toys.
If another firms want to buy all the product at retail and take the risk in reselling it, then that is not necessarily a problem. It will create demand, so the next product I release is likely to sell well. The issue might be if I am trying to establish the product and I get negative press, or if there is some sort of grey market where I am leverage the arbitrage. This occurs in high end bags in which they are imported to the US from Europe, then Europeans will fly to NY, but the bags, and resell them in Europe.
The parents and collectors who pay $1000 for a $15 toys are doing so specifically because they can. Their child is the one with the toy, while other children are of lesser value because they do not have the toy. We see this with parents taking their kids to Disney World instead of local park simply because it costs more.
This is true in all markets. All tickets for entertainment activities are subject to resellers because people want to show they have expendable income, even if they do not.
Here are two things we forget. First, no one, not child, no adult, is entitled to any product. No one is entitled to a big house, no one is entitled to see Beyonce, no one is entitled to a Barbie doll. As we say on /., it is not going to make your breasts larger or your dick bigger just because you can buy your kid whatever random toy is deemed the 'it toy.' Second, people have free will to spend their money as they wish. If they want to spend $5 for a cup of starbucks llama regurgitation, or $500 to see some band streamed through a computer autotuner, that is their choice. Some people are going to focus on showing they have more than anyone else. We can't legislate greed.
This has been an issue HP printers and scanners as well. HP installs a whole suite of functionality and disrupts the OS.
If a game is tedious, what fool would p,ay it, much less pay for it. That is why we need Pac-Man, a simple animated dot roaming the screen. It was not tedious.
A smart speaker might encourage users to subscribe to the Apple music service. it is not going to sell Apps, it is not going to sell storage, it is not going to sell phone.
The delay does mean most of us who adopted this technology adopted Amazon over Google. Google has play catchup as most people are not going to buy a Google product to supplement Alexa.
People will buy the Apple product if it is a good speaker. One hole in the apple line up, BTW, now that they no longer do routers, is a cheap way to network speakers.
On the other hand, much of the web is run on advertising dollars, and we are in an arms race between intrusive tracking and privacy. It is therefore anyones guess how this will be used moving forward.
I suspect the military has all the information we need and perhaps is hiding it, the same way they hid his conviction. I don't think the phone is going to lead to anything more, at least not anything the feds will think is actionable.
Apple is getting into the situation of supporting too much hardware, which was never it's forte. Apple is good at supporting a small number of models, think mac air, iMac, MacBook, mac pro. Sometimes it has successfully supported multiple platforms, such as when they transition from PowerPC to Intel, but that is short lived.
The iOS works really well on iPad pro. I know the iPhone 8 people have few problems. It does not work so well on iPhone 6.
What I find amusing is when MS thanks you for using their office suite, like most people have a choice.
Some keyboards are genuinely bad. The mew Apple wireless keyboard it horrible. I have never found a tablet keyboard that is tolerable. The HP laptop keyboards are crimes against humanity.
As is said here, physics requires not only an idea that matches the data, but an idea the results in tangible novel predictions that can be tested. Physics is open to new ideas, such as the idea that energy is quantized, but requires those ideas to be formalized and used to create new verifiable knowledge, like the tunneling electron.
In short, physics focuses on practical results while natural philosophy focuses on fanciful conjectures. Physics is does not necessarily lead to a more absolute 'truth' but does provide a reasonably objective method to determine if a particular truth is personal or universal.
In this case, there may be an intelligence behind the physics. My question would be, how does this change the laws and assumptions and results we already have? One this I would suggest is that intelligence can change it's mind, so we would see evidence in the universe of differing laws. In fact we might see this, for instance the lack of antimatter. The second question is does assuming an intelligence help us develop a formal result to explain the discrepancy.
For space battles, the laser weapon is a decent plot device. If you ignore the energy requirements and mass of equipment, the laser solves issues with mass for projectiles and momentum. But in real life we can't ignore energy requirements, the large mass of the unit, and the limited energy density delivered.
Certainly they can get unlimited electric with solar panels. If you never want to go outside, and can afford a plane to Santa Fe, it would not be a bad life. For household use they can basically make water if they want to pay enough. My concern would be manufacturing, which is a stated goal, and requires vast amount of cheap water. I can imagine that if they were just mining bitcoin this would be a good setup.
The most reliable precursor is a white male who beats their wife and kids, triggered by some sort of martial problem. The mother in law attended the church in question. We already know this.
We know the USAF gave him a minimum sentence for cracking his babies skull, did not give him a dishonorable discharge, and chose to protect this baby beater by not entering his information into the criminal database. If there is anything to investigate, it is whey the USAF protect wife and kid heaters. The USAF, in fact, could have put him in jail for fiver years, given him a dishonorable discharge, and made his crime public record. The reason that dozens of people are dead is because they chose not to.
The iPhone thing is just another effort to continue to erode our rights to privacy. It is not going to bring the dead back. It is not going to prevent the air force from releasing another trained killer, maybe this time a baby killer, back into society to murder even more people.