First, TFA is a very poorly structured blog post. It meanders like the Mississippi river and doesn't properly support the points it tries to make. It makes assumptions that no grad student or wiki editor would get away with.
It's true, we pay in this way for much of our content. And we pay ceaselessly with distractions that have no relevance in our lives. Do we really need to see 17 ads for furniture stores, 36 ads for alcohol products and 7 ads for feminine intimate garments every day? Even if they are erotic, they are not part of our scheduled activities and they detract from our productivity. The problem is that companies believe that mass advertising will work for them. They are victims, just as we are, of the ad industry.
Now, here is the problem: All these companies are selling a commodity. None of them have a unique product or service. Their survival depends upon convincing people otherwise through advertising and SEO. They are 'me too' companies who jumped on some bandwagon. They sell cars or tacos or pest control in a market with many competitors. Apparently they never stopped to consider whether the market needed what they want to sell.
There are companies that sell commodities with a unique flair: Victoria Secret, Apple, Tesla and I hate to say it, Nike. They really have elevated a category of products above the crowd. Is it the product or is it the branding that makes it interesting?
If you are/have a company you can avoid the mass advertising circus by offering something unique. Something not obtainable elsewhere. Something that is needed or something (like an Apple watch) that people will covet. If you can't do this, please close your useless business and stop polluting the air with your advertising.
"Before you splash out on a dedicated tool such as Camtasia, you might want to try out Windows 10's hidden tool."
And before you splash out (?) on writing a clever app for Windows users, remember that M$ will incorporate your functionality in their next update.
Users win of course; but developers may stop innovating if there is no $ reward. Then M$ would have to do their own innovating. Nobody wins if that happens.
"...particularly acute at start-ups, where black founders are just 1 percent..."
Of course we need legislation to assure that 10% of founders are black. Yes, 50% female, and what about me- 10% left handed. Every day we see founders doing well, getting rich with their IPOs and starting spaceship companies. Perhaps the law should say that no white male with a great business idea should be allowed to go forward until a certain number of minorities have had their chance. No doubt there are many minorities waiting patiently to bring their great idea forward, but they are held back by... by... well unfairness of course.
Geez, just dripping with sarcasm. Now I need to understand why there is such an imbalance in basketball, pop music, healthcare and child care. It seems to me that certain ethnic/gender groups are under represented. In my accounting classes, only one percent of my mates were left handed- a sure sign of unfairness!
This has been a really interesting thread. Yeah, those millions were in my dreams but that was because I was essentially offering a commodity. I had developed some work methods for efficiency, a price structure that accurately reflected my costs, and a powerful sales tactic, but to most buyers I was indistinguishable from other contractors.
In my current businesses I have things that are not available anywhere else. I compete with nobody. I have intellectual property. It's too late in my lifecycle to expect millions, but it's fun and gets me up in the morning with a smile. Find a way to add that kind of value to your business. Best wishes.
micahraleigh says: "When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose."
In an ideal universe, the free press would tell consumers what had happened. In an ideal world, consumers would re-think doing business with those fishing companies. In an ideal world, fishing companies who were respectable, who provided for employees, who didn't kill other species, who went 'green' etc; those companies would find thoughtful consumers flocking to them.
Wouldn't it be great to have a free press? Free to tell us about defective products, and dangerous products like cigarettes? Free to tell us about worker exploitation? Free to tell us about suicides among Chinese workers who make our toys? As long as they depend on corporations for advertising, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. There is some free press but it's not easy to find and some times you have to pay to keep them going.
There are many people who NEED the low priced products available from McDonalds and Walmart. But there are many more who could be more thoughtful in their purchases.
micahraleigh says: "Most people who buy lunch at McDonald's just want to pay for their meal. They don't want to pay for someone's children's college. "
True, but you've mistaken the tree for the forest. The reality is most people don't want to pay for anything. We live in the time where 'something for nothing' is the goal. If it comes from slave labor in some far away country, that's someone else' problem.
We also live in a time when few people will accept responsibility. That's why we have the government, the corporations and the 1% we have. We vote with our dollars, we vote with our apathy, we vote with ignorance and we will pay the price in the long run.
That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.
But you say: " I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy." - and that's quite wrong.
I ran my own construction company and helped run another. There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families. During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active. The benefit was (as you suggested) quality work, but even more we learned that their loyalty paid of in monetary and other ways.
There have been companies that cared about employees, and employees who respond with loyalty. There was an entire nation (Japan) with this attitude. This is out of fashion lately but can be found to some extent at companies like Starbucks and Costco and many smaller companies. OTOH there are profitable companies like Walmart whose employees depend on welfare to survive.
You may choose how to run your company. I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.
Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.
People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income. Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.
Corporations have been winning for a long time now and this 'gig economy' is the next step.
This is a hard reality for humans to accept, but there is a permanent cure for many terrible diseases. We call it DEATH.
Am I joking? No.
We have all seen those dramatic nature shows where the lion catches the gazelle and rips it apart. The narrator of the show explains that by catching and eliminating the slower gazelle, the lion benefits the gazelle species by removing defective elements that otherwise would reproduce.
Human evolution has taken a turn for the worse. Rather than eliminating the weak elements and promoting the strong, we have reversed the evolutionary direction. We expend great resources to help the weak survive. OTOH, If a certain deadly disease was allowed to run its course, and all victims died before they could reproduce, the disease would kill itself. It would be removed from the gene pool.
If we live long enough as a species, and don't blow up the planet, we may well solve these problems without too much death and discomfort. Nature's way is not pretty to watch.
When we talk about what people want, we are talking about what they are programmed to want. This discussion has already pointed out environmental programming that goes into each of us: the roles we are expected to play; the attitudes we should have; etc... but this discussion has entirely missed a far more essential programming that influences us all.
We, many of us programmers, tend to forget that we are exquisitely programmed ourselves by our DNA. We do its bidding without question. Do you think that the enjoyment of sex is a rational choice that you consciously made? Do you think that it is rational to judge a person by their appearance? Our attitudes and behavior and life choices are powerfully influenced by forces we can not control and do not understand. Forces that have evolved over a billion years.
We live to serve our DNA, Our individual lives are irrelevant. We are simply a step in an evolutionary process that works toward the perfection that we haven't reached.
I RTFA (cute story) and I'm finding mostly negative comments here. I feel the same way but am looking for a positive aspect.
Can Twitter produce a verified historical trail of messages relevant to an investigation? Where I live, government and utility officials are being forced to reveal their communications for the last several years (it seems there is a possibility of corruption, yes unthinkable but there you have it).
Can a person be clearly held responsible for statements they have made (no chance of a hacked account)? Will Twitter still exist in three or seven years? Is there any provision for private, secret communication on Twitter? (I don't know the answers, I'm not a member.)
I know nothing about Twitter but that it is fast and convenient for casual communication. That's probably good for some informal government/citizen/media interaction. "Hey, streetsweeper, could you pass by my street next week?" Could it be used for voting or serious polling of public opinion? I doubt it--after all it is a closed, proprietary, walled garden part of the Real Internet which is available to almost everyone. Email and snailmail seem to carry more weight where I live and voice phone calls are remarkably potent for getting bureaucrats and politicians to respond.
There, I looked for a positive aspect but found little. Sorry.
Well yes, I suppose you are irony impaired. Or maybe the ACs who replied don't know the meaning of the word irony:
"noun: irony
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
Do you take that to mean that I believe 50% should be women? Can you not see the last sentence? Sorry you are so impaired. Maybe you should go back to Reddit.
Judging by the names of the contributors there are people from around the world. By 'people' I mean men, males, not females. Shouldn't there be a law that requires 50% female participation in the open software movement? We take Google, Microsoft & Apple to task for their lack of diversity... what about us?
In case you are irony impaired, this is an observation that has more to do with the real world than the world of open or any other software. Women seem to have other priorities.
Science fiction sometimes has a theme in which someone wants to die but is prevented from doing so. Often by law, sometimes by some magical immortality gene. It's technically illegal to commit suicide in many places, with or without help.
I'm of two minds. Suppose your employer considers you essential to her business; takes a life insurance policy on you and surrounds you with protection to prevent any 'accident'. You aren't allowed near any sharp objects. You are a wage slave (if not a sex slave), an investment, and whether you want to live or die is irrelevant. You live to serve the machine as long as technology can keep you alive.
The right to die is critical in a free society. For whatever reason, no power should intrude. Sure, offer counseling, try to minimize the reasons to commit suicide, but in the end stand back and let the person decide for himself.
The *other* mind suggests to me that some people may not be mature enough to make a rational decision of this sort. Here is where this kind of subversive, intrusive technology might be warranted. Teenagers, pregnant women and PTSD soldiers should certainly be given counseling, and perhaps legally prevented from suicide for a certain time period.
A permit system could solve some of the confusion. Qualified adults could apply. They might be required to inform next of kin, etc... to settle financial, insurance & legal matters... to sign waivers releasing liability from others... And then they get a packet of drugs and instructions/suggestions for an easy transition for all involved.
An authoritative, expensive survey to affirm what we already know. What's remarkable is that few will argue the results. You might think that conservatives would be embarrassed to see that their kind don't believe in evolution, but since they are conservative they probably agree. It's difficult to see who benefits from this exhaustive study.
Sorry, still don't see any evidence of research. It's a slightly interesting link but lacking anything but an assertion. If you have the citation, show it.
I see no evidence that anyone has studied the additional drag caused by bug debris. Lots of study given to a cure, none for the 'problem'. Exactly how much drag do they cause? Perhaps they should start with an analysis of the golf ball. All those distortions on the surface that we call 'dimples'. They must cause a great deal of drag that prevents long distances being reached. Oh, wait...
I clean my visor with a microfiber cloth and Armor-All (or equivalent). No scratching, no harsh chemical, a well-lubricated surface... The slight, slick residue helps prevent other bugs/debris from sticking in the future. There were three miracle chemicals produced in the last century- Armor-All, WD-40, and silicone (glues/sealers/lubricants/sex toys).
Some professions attract certain kinds of people. Where I used to live almost all restaurants were run by Greek men. Where I now live, all donut shops are run by Cambodians and the taco shops are run by hispanics. The hospitals here vary- some have mostly black staffs, some mostly Filipino and all mostly female. In Los Angeles, I'm told, the garbage industry is monopolized by Armenians. When I worked for Volkswagen in Chicago, over 90% of the technical employees were German, the rest were Austrian (not one female employee). The sales staff were all American.
Should we force all these industries to diversify? They are that way because people made individual choices that created the flavor of each industry. If those choices lead to business success and employee bliss, so be it. I'd say that they are proof that the US is the most diversified nation on earth.
Around the world, religious nutcases impede progress. In every case that I am aware of, some individual gains power and authority by restricting the rights of others, in most cases restricting the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of their followers and the world around them. Do the Aztecs, the Maya, the Vikings or the American Indians have the power to carry on this foolishness? No, because there is no crazed leader nor is there a body of ignorant fearful followers. But in some Muslim, Jewish and certain other areas, primitive religions defy science, common sense and public safety for ideals that are tenuous at best.
Find out what person or group benefits from this charade and eliminate their incentive to protest the telescope. Debunk the mystical nonsense that they use to indoctrinate their followers. In most (all?) cases the followers are motivated by fear, and the leaders are experts at exploiting that. Empower these ignorant people to understand the real world, which may not be quite as scary as they think.
Educate everyone. No, not the job training that passes for education these days. Real education in the ways of the world, history and wisdom. Give everyone the tools for survival and excellence.
Not sure if this is actually an innovation, but it is a rare attempt to 'think different'. Remember that phrase? As an Apple evangelist for 36 years, I appreciate anything that goes beyond 'clone' status. Anyone who moves technology forward. Do we want adventurous leaders in our industry or do we want commodity followers?
I worked in a spice factory for 3 days, long ago. They made hot dog spice. I walked in the first day and smelled hot dogs. I was instantly hungry for, guess what, a hot dog!
This was a powerful spice that filled the air, and my eyes and the pores of my skin. So powerful that anything it was applied to would smell like hot dog. Anything. Whatever smell it might have had before, like rotten meat, etc, would be covered by the spice. Anything. Pull a lump from the toilet and spice it up--delicious!
Manufacturers know our weakness. Salt, sugar, chocolate, vanilla, cooking oil, smoke flavoring and more spices/colorants/flavorings than you can imagine. They know the 'mouth feel' that we prefer- crunchy, chewy etc depending on the food. They understand our response to packaging, naming, labeling, product placement... And manufacturers will apply these items to the most unhealthy food knowing that we will buy it. Yum, garlic flavored genetically engineered corn chips! (cost pennies to manufacture, dollars to buy) These addictions lead us to a slow motion form of suicide.
Aren't you more comfortable knowing that your lettuce is 'gluten free'? You wouldn't want to drink beer without the 'lead free' label, would you? And your linens should definitely have the 'underwriters lab' approval. I surely hope your grapes have the 'no trans-fats' designation.
Products have long had labels for consumer safety. Excessive use of similar terms, often for products that have no need of such claims, can undermine the usefulness of the labels that *are* important.
Slashdot Mirror
First, TFA is a very poorly structured blog post. It meanders like the Mississippi river and doesn't properly support the points it tries to make. It makes assumptions that no grad student or wiki editor would get away with.
It's true, we pay in this way for much of our content. And we pay ceaselessly with distractions that have no relevance in our lives. Do we really need to see 17 ads for furniture stores, 36 ads for alcohol products and 7 ads for feminine intimate garments every day? Even if they are erotic, they are not part of our scheduled activities and they detract from our productivity. The problem is that companies believe that mass advertising will work for them. They are victims, just as we are, of the ad industry.
Now, here is the problem: All these companies are selling a commodity. None of them have a unique product or service. Their survival depends upon convincing people otherwise through advertising and SEO. They are 'me too' companies who jumped on some bandwagon. They sell cars or tacos or pest control in a market with many competitors. Apparently they never stopped to consider whether the market needed what they want to sell.
There are companies that sell commodities with a unique flair: Victoria Secret, Apple, Tesla and I hate to say it, Nike. They really have elevated a category of products above the crowd. Is it the product or is it the branding that makes it interesting?
If you are/have a company you can avoid the mass advertising circus by offering something unique. Something not obtainable elsewhere. Something that is needed or something (like an Apple watch) that people will covet. If you can't do this, please close your useless business and stop polluting the air with your advertising.
"Before you splash out on a dedicated tool such as Camtasia, you might want to try out Windows 10's hidden tool."
And before you splash out (?) on writing a clever app for Windows users, remember that M$ will incorporate your functionality in their next update.
Users win of course; but developers may stop innovating if there is no $ reward. Then M$ would have to do their own innovating. Nobody wins if that happens.
"...particularly acute at start-ups, where black founders are just 1 percent ..."
Of course we need legislation to assure that 10% of founders are black. Yes, 50% female, and what about me- 10% left handed. Every day we see founders doing well, getting rich with their IPOs and starting spaceship companies. Perhaps the law should say that no white male with a great business idea should be allowed to go forward until a certain number of minorities have had their chance. No doubt there are many minorities waiting patiently to bring their great idea forward, but they are held back by ... by ... well unfairness of course.
Geez, just dripping with sarcasm. Now I need to understand why there is such an imbalance in basketball, pop music, healthcare and child care. It seems to me that certain ethnic/gender groups are under represented. In my accounting classes, only one percent of my mates were left handed- a sure sign of unfairness!
"Slightly fewer millions"? Cute.
This has been a really interesting thread. Yeah, those millions were in my dreams but that was because I was essentially offering a commodity. I had developed some work methods for efficiency, a price structure that accurately reflected my costs, and a powerful sales tactic, but to most buyers I was indistinguishable from other contractors.
In my current businesses I have things that are not available anywhere else. I compete with nobody. I have intellectual property. It's too late in my lifecycle to expect millions, but it's fun and gets me up in the morning with a smile. Find a way to add that kind of value to your business. Best wishes.
micahraleigh says: "When the government of Fiji comes in and says the fishing companies have to pay for free health care and the companies relocate and everyone loses their jobs (true story) the workers are the ones who lose."
In an ideal universe, the free press would tell consumers what had happened. In an ideal world, consumers would re-think doing business with those fishing companies. In an ideal world, fishing companies who were respectable, who provided for employees, who didn't kill other species, who went 'green' etc; those companies would find thoughtful consumers flocking to them.
Wouldn't it be great to have a free press? Free to tell us about defective products, and dangerous products like cigarettes? Free to tell us about worker exploitation? Free to tell us about suicides among Chinese workers who make our toys? As long as they depend on corporations for advertising, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. There is some free press but it's not easy to find and some times you have to pay to keep them going.
There are many people who NEED the low priced products available from McDonalds and Walmart. But there are many more who could be more thoughtful in their purchases.
micahraleigh says: "Most people who buy lunch at McDonald's just want to pay for their meal. They don't want to pay for someone's children's college. "
True, but you've mistaken the tree for the forest. The reality is most people don't want to pay for anything. We live in the time where 'something for nothing' is the goal. If it comes from slave labor in some far away country, that's someone else' problem.
We also live in a time when few people will accept responsibility. That's why we have the government, the corporations and the 1% we have. We vote with our dollars, we vote with our apathy, we vote with ignorance and we will pay the price in the long run.
That's an interesting reply to my original '1%' post. You've taken the employer perspective as many other employers would.
But you say: " I'm guessing you've never run a company. I do run a manufacturing company. Paying people to do nothing (read work inefficiently) is pretty much the best way I know of to put a company into bankruptcy." - and that's quite wrong.
I ran my own construction company and helped run another. There is plenty of room in construction work for people to drag their feet, to slack off and take advantage of their employer. In our companies, we took a personal interest in our employees (typically around 30) and their families. During the inevitable slow periods we tried everything imaginable to keep everyone on payroll. We bid jobs below cost at times just to keep them active. The benefit was (as you suggested) quality work, but even more we learned that their loyalty paid of in monetary and other ways.
There have been companies that cared about employees, and employees who respond with loyalty. There was an entire nation (Japan) with this attitude. This is out of fashion lately but can be found to some extent at companies like Starbucks and Costco and many smaller companies. OTOH there are profitable companies like Walmart whose employees depend on welfare to survive.
You may choose how to run your company. I'd prefer to make slightly fewer millions knowing that my employees can thrive.
Not long before you were born there was a system of employment called 'piece work'. If you work in a sweat shop or on a farm or in a factory, you got paid according to what you produced. Usually this meant that you worked your butt off and still got paid less than hourly workers. This has been frowned upon until recently.
People raising a family, paying a mortgage, saving for retirement or children's education need a reliable income. Corporations don't want to get weighed down with that burden--they want people that they can call when needed and dump when the need passes.
Corporations have been winning for a long time now and this 'gig economy' is the next step.
This is a hard reality for humans to accept, but there is a permanent cure for many terrible diseases.
We call it DEATH.
Am I joking? No.
We have all seen those dramatic nature shows where the lion catches the gazelle and rips it apart. The narrator of the show explains that by catching and eliminating the slower gazelle, the lion benefits the gazelle species by removing defective elements that otherwise would reproduce.
Human evolution has taken a turn for the worse. Rather than eliminating the weak elements and promoting the strong, we have reversed the evolutionary direction. We expend great resources to help the weak survive. OTOH, If a certain deadly disease was allowed to run its course, and all victims died before they could reproduce, the disease would kill itself. It would be removed from the gene pool.
If we live long enough as a species, and don't blow up the planet, we may well solve these problems without too much death and discomfort. Nature's way is not pretty to watch.
When we talk about what people want, we are talking about what they are programmed to want. This discussion has already pointed out environmental programming that goes into each of us: the roles we are expected to play; the attitudes we should have; etc ... but this discussion has entirely missed a far more essential programming that influences us all.
We, many of us programmers, tend to forget that we are exquisitely programmed ourselves by our DNA. We do its bidding without question. Do you think that the enjoyment of sex is a rational choice that you consciously made? Do you think that it is rational to judge a person by their appearance? Our attitudes and behavior and life choices are powerfully influenced by forces we can not control and do not understand. Forces that have evolved over a billion years.
We live to serve our DNA, Our individual lives are irrelevant. We are simply a step in an evolutionary process that works toward the perfection that we haven't reached.
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
I RTFA (cute story) and I'm finding mostly negative comments here. I feel the same way but am looking for a positive aspect.
Can Twitter produce a verified historical trail of messages relevant to an investigation? Where I live, government and utility officials are being forced to reveal their communications for the last several years (it seems there is a possibility of corruption, yes unthinkable but there you have it).
Can a person be clearly held responsible for statements they have made (no chance of a hacked account)? Will Twitter still exist in three or seven years? Is there any provision for private, secret communication on Twitter? (I don't know the answers, I'm not a member.)
I know nothing about Twitter but that it is fast and convenient for casual communication. That's probably good for some informal government/citizen/media interaction. "Hey, streetsweeper, could you pass by my street next week?" Could it be used for voting or serious polling of public opinion? I doubt it--after all it is a closed, proprietary, walled garden part of the Real Internet which is available to almost everyone. Email and snailmail seem to carry more weight where I live and voice phone calls are remarkably potent for getting bureaucrats and politicians to respond.
There, I looked for a positive aspect but found little. Sorry.
Well yes, I suppose you are irony impaired. Or maybe the ACs who replied don't know the meaning of the word irony:
"noun: irony
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
Do you take that to mean that I believe 50% should be women? Can you not see the last sentence? Sorry you are so impaired. Maybe you should go back to Reddit.
Judging by the names of the contributors there are people from around the world. By 'people' I mean men, males, not females. Shouldn't there be a law that requires 50% female participation in the open software movement? We take Google, Microsoft & Apple to task for their lack of diversity ... what about us?
In case you are irony impaired, this is an observation that has more to do with the real world than the world of open or any other software. Women seem to have other priorities.
Science fiction sometimes has a theme in which someone wants to die but is prevented from doing so. Often by law, sometimes by some magical immortality gene. It's technically illegal to commit suicide in many places, with or without help.
I'm of two minds. Suppose your employer considers you essential to her business; takes a life insurance policy on you and surrounds you with protection to prevent any 'accident'. You aren't allowed near any sharp objects. You are a wage slave (if not a sex slave), an investment, and whether you want to live or die is irrelevant. You live to serve the machine as long as technology can keep you alive.
The right to die is critical in a free society. For whatever reason, no power should intrude. Sure, offer counseling, try to minimize the reasons to commit suicide, but in the end stand back and let the person decide for himself.
The *other* mind suggests to me that some people may not be mature enough to make a rational decision of this sort. Here is where this kind of subversive, intrusive technology might be warranted. Teenagers, pregnant women and PTSD soldiers should certainly be given counseling, and perhaps legally prevented from suicide for a certain time period.
A permit system could solve some of the confusion. Qualified adults could apply. They might be required to inform next of kin, etc ... to settle financial, insurance & legal matters ... to sign waivers releasing liability from others ... And then they get a packet of drugs and instructions/suggestions for an easy transition for all involved.
Tell me about it when they don't have the wind pushing them forward. Try crossing the Pacific from east to west.
An authoritative, expensive survey to affirm what we already know. What's remarkable is that few will argue the results. You might think that conservatives would be embarrassed to see that their kind don't believe in evolution, but since they are conservative they probably agree. It's difficult to see who benefits from this exhaustive study.
Sorry, still don't see any evidence of research. It's a slightly interesting link but lacking anything but an assertion. If you have the citation, show it.
I see no evidence that anyone has studied the additional drag caused by bug debris. Lots of study given to a cure, none for the 'problem'. Exactly how much drag do they cause? Perhaps they should start with an analysis of the golf ball. All those distortions on the surface that we call 'dimples'. They must cause a great deal of drag that prevents long distances being reached. Oh, wait...
I clean my visor with a microfiber cloth and Armor-All (or equivalent). No scratching, no harsh chemical, a well-lubricated surface... The slight, slick residue helps prevent other bugs/debris from sticking in the future. There were three miracle chemicals produced in the last century- Armor-All, WD-40, and silicone (glues/sealers/lubricants/sex toys).
Some professions attract certain kinds of people. Where I used to live almost all restaurants were run by Greek men. Where I now live, all donut shops are run by Cambodians and the taco shops are run by hispanics. The hospitals here vary- some have mostly black staffs, some mostly Filipino and all mostly female. In Los Angeles, I'm told, the garbage industry is monopolized by Armenians. When I worked for Volkswagen in Chicago, over 90% of the technical employees were German, the rest were Austrian (not one female employee). The sales staff were all American.
Should we force all these industries to diversify? They are that way because people made individual choices that created the flavor of each industry. If those choices lead to business success and employee bliss, so be it. I'd say that they are proof that the US is the most diversified nation on earth.
Around the world, religious nutcases impede progress. In every case that I am aware of, some individual gains power and authority by restricting the rights of others, in most cases restricting the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of their followers and the world around them. Do the Aztecs, the Maya, the Vikings or the American Indians have the power to carry on this foolishness? No, because there is no crazed leader nor is there a body of ignorant fearful followers. But in some Muslim, Jewish and certain other areas, primitive religions defy science, common sense and public safety for ideals that are tenuous at best.
Find out what person or group benefits from this charade and eliminate their incentive to protest the telescope. Debunk the mystical nonsense that they use to indoctrinate their followers. In most (all?) cases the followers are motivated by fear, and the leaders are experts at exploiting that. Empower these ignorant people to understand the real world, which may not be quite as scary as they think.
Educate everyone. No, not the job training that passes for education these days. Real education in the ways of the world, history and wisdom. Give everyone the tools for survival and excellence.
Not sure if this is actually an innovation, but it is a rare attempt to 'think different'. Remember that phrase? As an Apple evangelist for 36 years, I appreciate anything that goes beyond 'clone' status. Anyone who moves technology forward. Do we want adventurous leaders in our industry or do we want commodity followers?
I worked in a spice factory for 3 days, long ago. They made hot dog spice. I walked in the first day and smelled hot dogs. I was instantly hungry for, guess what, a hot dog!
This was a powerful spice that filled the air, and my eyes and the pores of my skin. So powerful that anything it was applied to would smell like hot dog. Anything. Whatever smell it might have had before, like rotten meat, etc, would be covered by the spice. Anything. Pull a lump from the toilet and spice it up--delicious!
Manufacturers know our weakness. Salt, sugar, chocolate, vanilla, cooking oil, smoke flavoring and more spices/colorants/flavorings than you can imagine. They know the 'mouth feel' that we prefer- crunchy, chewy etc depending on the food. They understand our response to packaging, naming, labeling, product placement... And manufacturers will apply these items to the most unhealthy food knowing that we will buy it. Yum, garlic flavored genetically engineered corn chips! (cost pennies to manufacture, dollars to buy) These addictions lead us to a slow motion form of suicide.
Aren't you more comfortable knowing that your lettuce is 'gluten free'?
You wouldn't want to drink beer without the 'lead free' label, would you?
And your linens should definitely have the 'underwriters lab' approval.
I surely hope your grapes have the 'no trans-fats' designation.
Products have long had labels for consumer safety. Excessive use of similar terms, often for products that have no need of such claims, can undermine the usefulness of the labels that *are* important.