RIM did a great job for the time in which they really were market leaders.
Now, the market has moved on. The proprietary technologies of yesterday have open and Windows equivalents.
RIM needs to find a way to bring its unique interface, reliability and software experience to an open smartphone.
I think that smartphones are what they do well, and they should continue to make them, instead of hoping they can make a tablet that will keep them "relevant."
Do what you do. Do it well. Make it open, or Windows-based, because either one is a market already waiting.
Why are you so convinced that everyone is so dumb?
Why are you applying binary labels to a more complex situation?
The average IQ in this country is around 100. You can work out a standard distribution around that.
First you said that it was stupid to give everyone an education. Now you're saying that it's okay for everyone to get some education. Two totally different things.
My statement refers to the tests, not the education.
No it does not.
Not convincing.
Why do you think that offering education geared to an average intelligence is not going to harm those who need something more stimulating?
I see a lot of bored kids in our high schools. Are you telling me they just have attitude problems?
This is admirable, but I'll know a product is "fully open" when I can fork the project, modify the designs, and then print the thing on my home 3D printer.
I've seen plenty of studies that demonstrate that learning changes connections between neurons. Literally, the very act of learning creates new pathways in the brain, and the number of connections in the brain are highly correlated to intelligence.
That means you included the word create, and asserted that education creates intelligence. Just to make sure we're speaking the same language, you agree with that?
I never said any one system perfect, but I certainly think that having a system at all is better than having 98% of people shovel cow shit and de-tassle corn for 50 years like in the middle ages.
First, I'm not sure if your history is correct.
Second, if they lack the ability to use it, isn't handing them tools to abuse a stupid idea?
I'd argue it's much more feasible to just provide education for everyone. The intelligent people should mostly show up that way. With your way, if your selection method is imperfect, you might miss out.
My way hasn't been explained and so your claim there is off-base. For example, it could be a graduated method not unlike the first part of our current system.
Second, intelligent people are what we need most. Losing them is losing our best help.
Which brings us back to my point: providing education for everyone ensures that it conforms to the lowest common denominator, and leaves out the best, which defeats the point of education (to make sure the intelligent have the tools they need).
We got ourselves away from AT&T after we took a careful look at the actual speeds we were receiving. Bandwidth to AT&T's internal network is great, but getting anything from the world beyond is very, very slow. Further, there were inexplicable thirty second to ten minute downtimes frequently throughout the day. It's not surprising they're ranked #22 among US broadband ISPs.
The response from AT&T staff has been puzzling. When made aware of the problem, they shrugged it away. It was nearly impossible to get someone coherent (not a question of accent, but of ability to form language; intoxication was suspected in one case) on the phone. This and several other factors convinced us that AT&T intends to exit this market, and anyone who signs up for their service in the meantime is doomed.
But once you add mass education into the mix, you will unearth and/or create plenty of smart people that way, rather than just by the stupid people dying off.
Education does not improve intelligence. It improves knowledge, perhaps, but if those people lack the intelligence to apply it, it won't help at all.
Further, not all people are bright enough to benefit from education. When you insist on "educating" them, you create a memorization contest, not a thinking contest, and as a result you penalize smart people, who tend to get bored and zone out when memorization contests come around.
Perhaps educating the capable was a better idea than educating everyone and pretending they're capable, thus ruining the value of education for everyone.
As soon we form fixed civilizations, natural selection is no longer in effect.
For a few millennia, perhaps, we get by with early social selection, which shows people selecting mates for admire for bravery, intelligence, wisdom and strength. This puts the wealthiest, smartest, most healthy and most attractive into the same elite breeding pool.
After that, society gets faddish. Think of Rome in its final days. People no longer pick the best, but the most popular. That means people who are good salespeople, drama queens, hip cats, etc.
I think that's why Facebook got popular; to post 500 animated GIFs of sparkle-bunnies dancing the macarena, you have to post them one at a time as status updates.
As robots become more available, and they can take on the jobs that ordinary workers do, look for employers to replace employees with robots wherever they can.
Not only are costs lower, with wages versus maintenance, but there's no chance of strikes, labor disruptions, lawsuits, etc.
What will we do when there are no "worker" jobs and everyone has to be a web developer?
If we're giving points for overcoming hardship, give more to poor kids, divorced kids, kids with alcoholic parents, kids where more than one parent likes disco, dubstep or rap/rock, maybe even do it by zipcode for kids who are exposed to more crime or more familial strife.
We already know that kids who are exposed to abuse have lower IQs (whether that's cause or correlation, or reverse cause, I don't know).
Using the same example of the third-grade math test: the state goal is for 45 percent of black students to answer 23 of 35 items correctly and for 82 percent of Asian students to answer 23 of 35 items correctly.
They've adjusted by what they see as the likely scores for each group, so that they can claim they're reaching their targets, without their statistics showing the actual percentage of students who don't pass, thus embarrassing the educational system.
Yes and no, I'd guess. Affirmative action gives weight to admissions and prevents discrimination after the test, where this changes the test result interpretations themselves. It's like a subtler form of affirmative action.
For the last 70 years, we've been operating on the "blank slate" principle that all people are equal in ability.
This legislation seems to reverse course, and argue for paternalism, or the idea that certain favored races should help the others at their own expense (nasty catch: in exchange for those races playing by the favored races' rules).
It's an interesting turn of events, but I think it's going to backfire. It's condescending, even if it "means well," because it essentially tells certain races that they're not good enough, but just because we, the races perceived to be in control, are generous, we'll help them be almost as equal as we are.
Think about this critically: you probably want your operating system to be the master of its new hardware, and then you want it to interpret the needs of your older software.
If compatibility mode won't do it, set yourself up a VM and run everything in there. You can share a drive with the host OS and thus be nearly transparent.
It doesn't make sense to me to hobble the OS in order to run older software, when the newer OS is better with the newer hardware.
The biggest problem with Windows was not that it did not unify desktop and mobile. This wasn't the biggest problem with any OS. It's a solution begging for a problem.
I have to disagree here. While I'm not a big fan of mobile computing, it is massively important. Most people who do not need a command line are using mobile computing.
("Using" is a relative term. They are using it for Facebook, shopping, Googling, etc. I doubt they're using it in the sense of running MATLAB or Visual Studio on it.)
Apple is currently in a bind because it has two OSes to support: iOS and OS X. Whether or not the desktop PC is dead (I don't believe that hogwash), the desktop PC is being somewhat displaced by tablets and phones and other mobile computing devices.
The ability for a company to develop one app for both will be a large boon, as will the ability for people to move their software between mobile and stationary computing.
That could be true. Then again, the difference between updates and upgrades can be squirrely. All Windows systems could be viewed as updates to the original NT 3.5, and priced correspondingly. This gives us several models:
1. As is. 2. Update path (maybe $35 an update, roughly equivalent to current prices) 3. Upgrade path. 4. Subscription.
Can't tell which would be sensible. A subscription would have to be $20/year for XP, which I think I ran for ten years after buying for something like $200 (memory is hazy here).
Slashdot Mirror
RIM did a great job for the time in which they really were market leaders.
Now, the market has moved on. The proprietary technologies of yesterday have open and Windows equivalents.
RIM needs to find a way to bring its unique interface, reliability and software experience to an open smartphone.
I think that smartphones are what they do well, and they should continue to make them, instead of hoping they can make a tablet that will keep them "relevant."
Do what you do. Do it well. Make it open, or Windows-based, because either one is a market already waiting.
Ego, posturing, cheerleading and drama get in the way of data and analysis.
That's an unusual supposition. Here's a more thorough view:
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gifted.shtml
Why are you applying binary labels to a more complex situation?
The average IQ in this country is around 100. You can work out a standard distribution around that.
My statement refers to the tests, not the education.
Not convincing.
Why do you think that offering education geared to an average intelligence is not going to harm those who need something more stimulating?
I see a lot of bored kids in our high schools. Are you telling me they just have attitude problems?
This is admirable, but I'll know a product is "fully open" when I can fork the project, modify the designs, and then print the thing on my home 3D printer.
It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.
Are we really handing patents out for this?
What if the tablet has a video connector, or a USB port. Who patented that?
Can I be the guy who patented having a power connection on electronic devices? I'll sit back and let everyone else do the work for a change.
Please go ahead and post that evidence.
That means you included the word create, and asserted that education creates intelligence. Just to make sure we're speaking the same language, you agree with that?
First, I'm not sure if your history is correct.
Second, if they lack the ability to use it, isn't handing them tools to abuse a stupid idea?
My way hasn't been explained and so your claim there is off-base. For example, it could be a graduated method not unlike the first part of our current system.
Second, intelligent people are what we need most. Losing them is losing our best help.
Which brings us back to my point: providing education for everyone ensures that it conforms to the lowest common denominator, and leaves out the best, which defeats the point of education (to make sure the intelligent have the tools they need).
We got ourselves away from AT&T after we took a careful look at the actual speeds we were receiving. Bandwidth to AT&T's internal network is great, but getting anything from the world beyond is very, very slow. Further, there were inexplicable thirty second to ten minute downtimes frequently throughout the day. It's not surprising they're ranked #22 among US broadband ISPs.
The response from AT&T staff has been puzzling. When made aware of the problem, they shrugged it away. It was nearly impossible to get someone coherent (not a question of accent, but of ability to form language; intoxication was suspected in one case) on the phone. This and several other factors convinced us that AT&T intends to exit this market, and anyone who signs up for their service in the meantime is doomed.
Education does not improve intelligence. It improves knowledge, perhaps, but if those people lack the intelligence to apply it, it won't help at all.
Further, not all people are bright enough to benefit from education. When you insist on "educating" them, you create a memorization contest, not a thinking contest, and as a result you penalize smart people, who tend to get bored and zone out when memorization contests come around.
Perhaps educating the capable was a better idea than educating everyone and pretending they're capable, thus ruining the value of education for everyone.
This is what popularity does: it selects what offends least, and what is shared in common (lowest common denominator), not what rises above.
As soon we form fixed civilizations, natural selection is no longer in effect.
For a few millennia, perhaps, we get by with early social selection, which shows people selecting mates for admire for bravery, intelligence, wisdom and strength. This puts the wealthiest, smartest, most healthy and most attractive into the same elite breeding pool.
After that, society gets faddish. Think of Rome in its final days. People no longer pick the best, but the most popular. That means people who are good salespeople, drama queens, hip cats, etc.
Thus begins the long slow path to Idiocracy.
I think that's why Facebook got popular; to post 500 animated GIFs of sparkle-bunnies dancing the macarena, you have to post them one at a time as status updates.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57548757-93/here-come-the-humanoids-there-go-u.s-jobs/
As robots become more available, and they can take on the jobs that ordinary workers do, look for employers to replace employees with robots wherever they can.
Not only are costs lower, with wages versus maintenance, but there's no chance of strikes, labor disruptions, lawsuits, etc.
What will we do when there are no "worker" jobs and everyone has to be a web developer?
Why stop at race?
If we're giving points for overcoming hardship, give more to poor kids, divorced kids, kids with alcoholic parents, kids where more than one parent likes disco, dubstep or rap/rock, maybe even do it by zipcode for kids who are exposed to more crime or more familial strife.
We already know that kids who are exposed to abuse have lower IQs (whether that's cause or correlation, or reverse cause, I don't know).
How about we give them some points?
They've adjusted by what they see as the likely scores for each group, so that they can claim they're reaching their targets, without their statistics showing the actual percentage of students who don't pass, thus embarrassing the educational system.
Yes and no, I'd guess. Affirmative action gives weight to admissions and prevents discrimination after the test, where this changes the test result interpretations themselves. It's like a subtler form of affirmative action.
Is it anti-white, or anti- (perceived) wealthy ruling class?
While your family is mixed, it looks like the majority are not that way. Check out the marker maps:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/08/genetic-map-of-europe-again.php
I don't know of any troll-like or shill-like behavior of mine that I could point to.
What did you have in mind?
For the last 70 years, we've been operating on the "blank slate" principle that all people are equal in ability.
This legislation seems to reverse course, and argue for paternalism, or the idea that certain favored races should help the others at their own expense (nasty catch: in exchange for those races playing by the favored races' rules).
It's an interesting turn of events, but I think it's going to backfire. It's condescending, even if it "means well," because it essentially tells certain races that they're not good enough, but just because we, the races perceived to be in control, are generous, we'll help them be almost as equal as we are.
I think everyone can appreciate how sensible this is.
We still have oil energy for what looks like at least another decade, so we need to get our act together in this time.
Germany has made strides toward this goal.
Think about this critically: you probably want your operating system to be the master of its new hardware, and then you want it to interpret the needs of your older software.
If compatibility mode won't do it, set yourself up a VM and run everything in there. You can share a drive with the host OS and thus be nearly transparent.
It doesn't make sense to me to hobble the OS in order to run older software, when the newer OS is better with the newer hardware.
I have to disagree here. While I'm not a big fan of mobile computing, it is massively important. Most people who do not need a command line are using mobile computing.
("Using" is a relative term. They are using it for Facebook, shopping, Googling, etc. I doubt they're using it in the sense of running MATLAB or Visual Studio on it.)
Apple is currently in a bind because it has two OSes to support: iOS and OS X. Whether or not the desktop PC is dead (I don't believe that hogwash), the desktop PC is being somewhat displaced by tablets and phones and other mobile computing devices.
The ability for a company to develop one app for both will be a large boon, as will the ability for people to move their software between mobile and stationary computing.
Thank you? Uh...
But then some other guy writes:
So, shills are trolls now, or trolls are shills?
That could be true. Then again, the difference between updates and upgrades can be squirrely. All Windows systems could be viewed as updates to the original NT 3.5, and priced correspondingly. This gives us several models:
1. As is.
2. Update path (maybe $35 an update, roughly equivalent to current prices)
3. Upgrade path.
4. Subscription.
Can't tell which would be sensible. A subscription would have to be $20/year for XP, which I think I ran for ten years after buying for something like $200 (memory is hazy here).