I actually feel ambivalent about this. While it is true that the DS is essentially incapable of doing many genres of 3D games, I personally am not unhappy about this. As a result of this hardware limitation, the DS has become the main console for people who like 2D sprite-based games. I love those games; there are few of them on "larger" consoles, but on the DS, new 2D games like Mario & Luigi, Advance Wars, New Super Mario or Professor Layton are even more common than 3D games.
While I personally have no problems seen the DSi's Screen, I know a lot of 40+ gamers who love the idea of playing interesting DS games like Scribblenauts, but can't play them because they can't see the small screens clearly enough. This would definitely be a great idea, I think, and since it would not be meant as a replacement for the current DSi, I don't really see any problem with it for existing DSi owners either.
This just in! The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone! Spray can manufacturers do nothing to prevent people from doing illegal graffitis! Sock manufacturers do nothing to keep people from kicking each other's asses!
I find it amazing that you call the study a waste because everybody already knew what the results would be, yet then immediately contradict the results of the study.
now this statement is released benefiting who now?
Presumably, it benefits other people in similar situations, and it benefits the public because they may learn something about the person who probably contributed more than anyone else towards saving them from Nazi Germany.
I see that you replied to something I said, namely:
Presumably, you're not arguing that you're faster than a "real" touch typist.
My own quote is stupid in hindsight. What I meant and should have said is "Presumably, you're not arguing that you wouldn't be able to type faster if you knew how to touch type."
Obviously, some non-touch typists are faster than some touch typists.
"touch typist" != "fast typist"
I am faster at 65wpm than many touch typists, and I'm certainly not the fastest non-touch typist on/.
I don't see how your ability to type at 65 wpm changes the fact that touch typists are faster on average. It's highly likely that you'd be able to type even faster if you had learned to touch type.
Lies, damn lies, and all that. Too many unfounded assumptions to support your conclusion.
That's the kind of relativist bs that really annoys me. You don't explain to me what I got wrong in particular. Instead, you just sweepingly declare that the things I have said are invalid. Well, two can play that game. Your claim that I have made too many unfounded assumptions is pure bullshit. I've given my sources. If you disagree with what I have said, make specific claims instead of just declaring that I'm wrong. What are you, a politician?
While the Microsoft investment was important for Apple, it had nothing to do with money. The main thing Apple got out of the deal was Microsoft's commitment to continue Office on the Mac. There was serious doubt at the time whether Microsoft would kill Office, and the deal with Apple stopped that doubt.
As far as money goes, Microsoft's investment was far too small to have any real influence on the company. And even given the Office announcement, Microsoft very likely didn't save Apple, because Apple didn't need saving.
Presumably, you're not arguing that you're faster than a "real" touch typist. So perhaps the difference is a quarter of an hour for you instead of an hour. My point, however, stands.
Proper touch typing is important; improper touch typing (wrong hand position, using the wrong shift key for capitals, etc) can cause physical harm to your hands and wrists. Thus I would say that it is important for children to learn how to touch type properly, even if they only get to really use it at a later date.
I'm a software engineer who can't touch type. And I can honestly say that learning wouldn't increase my productivity in any measurable way.
I'm a software engineer who can touch type. And I can honestly say that not knowing how to touch type would decrease my productivity in a measurable way.
That's anecdotal evidence, by the way.
Let's look at the larger picture here. You're correct that the "typing" part only makes up part of what a software engineer does. I'd say about 25-50% of my time is spent typing (not only code, also documentation, e-mails, blog posts on the internal company blog, wiki updates, etc.). Wikipedia says:
An average professional typist reaches 50 to 70 wpm, while some positions can require 80 to 95 (usually the minimum required for dispatch positions and other time-sensitive typing jobs), and some advanced typists work at speeds above 120.
Two-finger typists, sometimes also referred to as "hunt and peck" typists, commonly reach sustained speeds of about 37 wpm for memorized text, and 27 wpm when copying text but in bursts may be able to reach up to 60 to 70 wpm.
So let's say it's 60 wpm for touch typing (I know I'm quite a bit faster than that, but we want to go with averages) and 37 wpm for two-finger typing.
So, considering all this data: We probably spend about a third of our work time typing, and touch typing is on average roughly 1.6 times as fast as two-finger typing. For an 8-hour work day, that results in 2.7 hours of typing, of which roughly one hour is "wasted" for two-finger typers.
I'd say one hour each day is a measurable increase (or decrease) in productivity.
On top of that touch typing just isn't comfortable for many people.
Then many people learned it wrongly.
Hurt my wrists horribly to try to type like that.
Then your position is incorrect. You really should have learned how to touch type properly:-)
You're missing the point of the game. Rock Band isn't about playing a guitar, it's about - doh - being in a rock band, just like Gran Turismo isn't about driving a car, but about racing.
Rock Band isn't a replacement for a real guitar, just like Gran Turismo isn't a replacement for the car in your garage.
I'm looking forward to your "People can't be bothered to drive real cars anymore" rant about racing games, though. It's always fun to read posts from people who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about what other people do with their lives.
You have failed to respond to the GP's assertion that government agencies don't adequately compensate high performers
My point is that this is not different from private companies. Most government agencies compensate high performers adequately. Some don't. The same applies to private companies.
Performance bonuses are bullshit, anyways. They don't increase productivity, they destroy team cohesion.
So you're assuming that you're being lied to because you're believing some weird-ass stuff that mostly has no basis in reality. That's like an Alien conspiracy theorist complaining that he's being lied to because the government doesn't say that they have aliens in Roswell.
You're thinking the government is pursuing the public option, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. You're assuming that the quality of health care will decline, even though the opposite is true in every "first-world" country that has public health care.
Maybe you're not being lied to. Maybe you're just wrong.
You won't have to use the public option simply because your employer won't insure you directly anymore â"Âif that'll happen at all. You can still keep your current health care.
That must be one of the most absurd things I've ever read. The whole home computer revolution has occurred during the last roughly 30 years. What more can be said on this topic?
And that is different from private company exactly not at all. There's a reason why both CEOs and politicians often tend to be sociopaths whose main goal seems to be to fill their own coffers. It's not unique to the government at all.
The government screws up. So do private companies. The government does great things. So do private companies. I've yet to see objective data telling me that private companies are inherently better at something compared to "the government". Both are run by humans.
In fact, where comparisons can be made because something is done by both the government and by private companies (train systems, health service, road service), the government typically tends to kick private companies' asses. That's not to say that I want to live in communist russia, quite the opposite. Private companies offer the advantage of competition; no government can tolerate a competing government. My point is merely that governments aren't inherently worse than private companies. Both have their place; private companies make sense where competition is possible and useful, governments make sense where competition is impossible or hurtful.
Is this really an actual problem that needs to be solved? I've never bought or sold a car, but many of my friends have bought or sold used cars, and I've never heard of anyone accidentally buying a car the seller didn't own. What are the statistics on this? Is it really worth going after this problem by giving up privacy? And if it is, does giving up privacy actually solve the problem in any way?
Slashdot Mirror
3D capability leaves a lot to wish for.
I actually feel ambivalent about this. While it is true that the DS is essentially incapable of doing many genres of 3D games, I personally am not unhappy about this. As a result of this hardware limitation, the DS has become the main console for people who like 2D sprite-based games. I love those games; there are few of them on "larger" consoles, but on the DS, new 2D games like Mario & Luigi, Advance Wars, New Super Mario or Professor Layton are even more common than 3D games.
While I personally have no problems seen the DSi's Screen, I know a lot of 40+ gamers who love the idea of playing interesting DS games like Scribblenauts, but can't play them because they can't see the small screens clearly enough. This would definitely be a great idea, I think, and since it would not be meant as a replacement for the current DSi, I don't really see any problem with it for existing DSi owners either.
This just in! The telephone companies do nothing to prevent people from discussing crimes on the phone! Spray can manufacturers do nothing to prevent people from doing illegal graffitis! Sock manufacturers do nothing to keep people from kicking each other's asses!
Some facts might be helpful:
I find it amazing that you call the study a waste because everybody already knew what the results would be, yet then immediately contradict the results of the study.
Perhaps he's proud that society has progressed so much that he is asked to apologize for something that we did just a bunch of decades ago.
now this statement is released benefiting who now?
Presumably, it benefits other people in similar situations, and it benefits the public because they may learn something about the person who probably contributed more than anyone else towards saving them from Nazi Germany.
I see that you replied to something I said, namely:
Presumably, you're not arguing that you're faster than a "real" touch typist.
My own quote is stupid in hindsight. What I meant and should have said is "Presumably, you're not arguing that you wouldn't be able to type faster if you knew how to touch type."
Obviously, some non-touch typists are faster than some touch typists.
I still maintain that hiring, say, a slow touch typist over a fast non-standard typist is absurd and counter-productive
Nobody has claimed or even implied that this would be a good idea.
"touch typist" != "fast typist" /.
I am faster at 65wpm than many touch typists, and I'm certainly not the fastest non-touch typist on
I don't see how your ability to type at 65 wpm changes the fact that touch typists are faster on average. It's highly likely that you'd be able to type even faster if you had learned to touch type.
Assuming that people can't do anything productive (such as thinking) while typing.
They can't.
Lies, damn lies, and all that. Too many unfounded assumptions to support your conclusion.
That's the kind of relativist bs that really annoys me. You don't explain to me what I got wrong in particular. Instead, you just sweepingly declare that the things I have said are invalid. Well, two can play that game. Your claim that I have made too many unfounded assumptions is pure bullshit. I've given my sources. If you disagree with what I have said, make specific claims instead of just declaring that I'm wrong. What are you, a politician?
While the Microsoft investment was important for Apple, it had nothing to do with money. The main thing Apple got out of the deal was Microsoft's commitment to continue Office on the Mac. There was serious doubt at the time whether Microsoft would kill Office, and the deal with Apple stopped that doubt.
As far as money goes, Microsoft's investment was far too small to have any real influence on the company. And even given the Office announcement, Microsoft very likely didn't save Apple, because Apple didn't need saving.
Presumably, you're not arguing that you're faster than a "real" touch typist. So perhaps the difference is a quarter of an hour for you instead of an hour. My point, however, stands.
Proper touch typing is important; improper touch typing (wrong hand position, using the wrong shift key for capitals, etc) can cause physical harm to your hands and wrists. Thus I would say that it is important for children to learn how to touch type properly, even if they only get to really use it at a later date.
I'm a software engineer who can't touch type. And I can honestly say that learning wouldn't increase my productivity in any measurable way.
I'm a software engineer who can touch type. And I can honestly say that not knowing how to touch type would decrease my productivity in a measurable way.
That's anecdotal evidence, by the way.
Let's look at the larger picture here. You're correct that the "typing" part only makes up part of what a software engineer does. I'd say about 25-50% of my time is spent typing (not only code, also documentation, e-mails, blog posts on the internal company blog, wiki updates, etc.). Wikipedia says:
An average professional typist reaches 50 to 70 wpm, while some positions can require 80 to 95 (usually the minimum required for dispatch positions and other time-sensitive typing jobs), and some advanced typists work at speeds above 120.
Two-finger typists, sometimes also referred to as "hunt and peck" typists, commonly reach sustained speeds of about 37 wpm for memorized text, and 27 wpm when copying text but in bursts may be able to reach up to 60 to 70 wpm.
So let's say it's 60 wpm for touch typing (I know I'm quite a bit faster than that, but we want to go with averages) and 37 wpm for two-finger typing.
So, considering all this data: We probably spend about a third of our work time typing, and touch typing is on average roughly 1.6 times as fast as two-finger typing. For an 8-hour work day, that results in 2.7 hours of typing, of which roughly one hour is "wasted" for two-finger typers.
I'd say one hour each day is a measurable increase (or decrease) in productivity.
On top of that touch typing just isn't comfortable for many people.
Then many people learned it wrongly.
Hurt my wrists horribly to try to type like that.
Then your position is incorrect. You really should have learned how to touch type properly :-)
You're missing the point of the game. Rock Band isn't about playing a guitar, it's about - doh - being in a rock band, just like Gran Turismo isn't about driving a car, but about racing.
Rock Band isn't a replacement for a real guitar, just like Gran Turismo isn't a replacement for the car in your garage.
I'm looking forward to your "People can't be bothered to drive real cars anymore" rant about racing games, though. It's always fun to read posts from people who have nothing better to do with their lives than complain about what other people do with their lives.
Stolen cars mostly get sold, of course. However, that doesn't mean it's a huge problem; the probability of it happening to you is still small.
You're missing the point, but presumably, you already realize this.
You have failed to respond to the GP's assertion that government agencies don't adequately compensate high performers
My point is that this is not different from private companies. Most government agencies compensate high performers adequately. Some don't. The same applies to private companies.
Performance bonuses are bullshit, anyways. They don't increase productivity, they destroy team cohesion.
So you're assuming that you're being lied to because you're believing some weird-ass stuff that mostly has no basis in reality. That's like an Alien conspiracy theorist complaining that he's being lied to because the government doesn't say that they have aliens in Roswell.
You're thinking the government is pursuing the public option, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. You're assuming that the quality of health care will decline, even though the opposite is true in every "first-world" country that has public health care.
Maybe you're not being lied to. Maybe you're just wrong.
You won't have to use the public option simply because your employer won't insure you directly anymore â"Âif that'll happen at all. You can still keep your current health care.
That must be one of the most absurd things I've ever read. The whole home computer revolution has occurred during the last roughly 30 years. What more can be said on this topic?
What healthcare lies are you referring to? Perhaps the lies spread by the Republicans? You can hardly blame the administration for those.
And that is different from private company exactly not at all. There's a reason why both CEOs and politicians often tend to be sociopaths whose main goal seems to be to fill their own coffers. It's not unique to the government at all.
The government screws up. So do private companies. The government does great things. So do private companies. I've yet to see objective data telling me that private companies are inherently better at something compared to "the government". Both are run by humans.
In fact, where comparisons can be made because something is done by both the government and by private companies (train systems, health service, road service), the government typically tends to kick private companies' asses. That's not to say that I want to live in communist russia, quite the opposite. Private companies offer the advantage of competition; no government can tolerate a competing government. My point is merely that governments aren't inherently worse than private companies. Both have their place; private companies make sense where competition is possible and useful, governments make sense where competition is impossible or hurtful.
Is this really an actual problem that needs to be solved? I've never bought or sold a car, but many of my friends have bought or sold used cars, and I've never heard of anyone accidentally buying a car the seller didn't own. What are the statistics on this? Is it really worth going after this problem by giving up privacy? And if it is, does giving up privacy actually solve the problem in any way?