I think we're saying the same thing. Just because an employer has to pay $100k for a job doesn't mean they "want" to pay that much. It's worth $30k to them but they can't find anybody near by willing to do that.
So they go looking for somebody willing to take the job for less. Or realize that the work isn't something they want to do and that consolidation is necessary and the only way to achieve that is through outsourcing the service.
We had a skill that was semi-valued but not at a full-time level. So management kept asking the expert to do other tasks that he really wasn't trained in nor wanted to learn. He left the company seeing no growth and was never replaced. Years later in the midst of quality problems a senior manager asked "what does John's testing effort tell us?" -- "Oh, John quit a year ago, we haven't been doing his kind of testing since."
The universe is supposed to be of an infinite size. We keep assuming that intelligent life must be far more advanced than we are - even though we all "started with a bang" around the same time (given the random flicker required to make life emerge).
Why is it that these other life beings can't be 5 kazillion light years away and we just haven't heard from them yet. Or another race of "humans" just like us barely walked on their own local moon 50 years ago -- and they too are beaming signals into space wondering where everyone else is?!
The scientist types sure have an inferiority complex.
I remember using the AAA TripTik when I was a kid. Mom would have one printed before our long vacation drives - very useful map. Each was very fresh and contained construction notes, detours, and other information.
But in the end - the giant paper map was always consulted for the big picture.
I still use the paper map even with my GPS. GPS gets me there when I know where I want to go --- but the map lets me strategize and change my plans.
My father always told me "don't get good at something you don't like to do" --- years later I'd learn that it was true, and B) don't ever get good at something that isn't valued (or can be automated).
The low wages for these IT jobs is simply the Value That Companies Put on the Work. They need a semi-skilled laborer to write 'em some dumb code. Or push buttons for a manual testing effort. The cost of "now" vs "automate it" -- usually "now" wins. Regardless of how bad you may feel about somebody doing the same job for less -- realize this -- it's all the employer is willing to pay to get the job done.
you are correct - the position has changed. The technology exists currently (not a "in 10 years" problem) -- political might is the weak link. Although there are missing components to make it real - using storage tech and a smart grid it could be done by 2050.
You semi-humorously point out what the power grid might become in a 2.0 model. Like you I don't see the grid going way - NYC doesn't have enough space to generate electricity on rooftops. Rural places that have room for panels will reduce their need for the grid. I've also read that solar can't power the world (not enough sun reaches our surface). Sure - improvements in efficiency are needed and will occur. MPG for a home!? A hybrid model of mini generators and large ones.
For me - I live in the woods. Great for my A/C bill. However, the whole neighborhood has a large plot of open common land which could become a solar panel farm. Do we selfishly pay to wire this to "our" homes?.. or make it part of the larger grid. Well.... isn't this is the grid by definition. Pay the experts with the infrastructure.
The future grid became clearer to me when I learned about batteries being used to charge off-peak (nighttime) and run A/C during the day for large demand items like A/C units. The hot summer demands will only grow. The mini generators (wind & private solar) help produce "local" energy and slow the growth of the grid and also prevent/reduce the emergency power days that are becoming common across the country.
As our population increases, total demand for energy will also increase. Now the grid doesn't need to expand as fast.
Correct. I was told that a rough-cut 2x4 would actually be 2x4. However, 2x4's that most of us buy are "finished" meaning smoothed and sanded.
I have purchased such wood items and they sure seem strange to hold in your hands because they aren't the expected dimensions.
This is all understood by the tradesmen - so educating everyone else -- well it would be a horrible world if suddenly 2x4 weren't... 2x4's anymore. "I'd like a 1.3251 by 3.5856 please"
You are probably correct. However, when the system finally fails it might force an upgrade/replacement or retirement of the system. Sometimes catching fire is the only way we cook our sacred cow burgers.
Or the old guy retires.
Seriously - I've seen this happen. "Most Important Process" in the place is handled by "one" person who quits because s/he can't get away from doing the process. No matter how many times they brought it up for review, nope "this is the most important process" - even attempts to be promoted to a new job/role and management sticks the task with them. So they quit. Then nobody is assigned to do the job (maybe a few cracks at it on a volunteer basis) - but in the end the task goes undone for an extended period of time before finally somebody officially declares it obsolete.
That mirrors my experiences. I used it when I first bought an Apple product years ago - it works great to create tasks, send text messages, and hands free stuff "do I have any messages?" I'm able to edit message or have it read them back to me before sending.
But --- that's about all it can do. Few apps can participate (any?)
I'd like the phone to work as a single unit. "what time is Batman playing tonight?" Great - "Schedule Watch Batman at 8pm and Invite Bob too"
Search sucks. I ask Siri questions all the time. Either "Sorry Siri isn't available" or "Not sure what you mean - here's a web search" But if I ask Google Search the same question the google app Reads the Answer to me !!
It is not a personal assistant. Just a voice controlled remote control.
Geez - is TSA really worried about a battery of a certain size? Or is it a bomb disguised as a big battery?
If it simply the requirement of a powerful energy source -- then what about those darn power outlets that were added to planes so we could use our laptop on long flights?!
Seriously - I think you've all latched onto the wrong threat. I'm assuming the real issue is the laptop is the bomb and needs power to detonate. It isn't the battery - its the size of the package. A Cell phone is too small, but big thick 1990's Dell Laptop can carry enough material to make a big hole. And apparently so can an iPad. People have problems bringing blocks of cheese on a plane because they show up as C-4 on the x-ray. Batteries probably look like cheese like -> C-4
Well - "they" thought underwear had enough room too. These people are failing and iterating looking for something that will work. Basic business: fail-fast, iterate,.... succeed? Sneakers didn't make a hole. iPad? try it.
exactly!! This sounds like a great idea as long as the revenge hacking isn't granted indemnification. It'd be like a bar room brawl. I can see the web-ads now "Under attack? click here to fix your network!"
Windows 10 does come with lots of location and tracking services. This must all be part of the implementation. At location XML tags to all of the files and they can track who uploads illegal copies of Windows to a torrent - then automate sending the authorities to your house.
It's all about share-holder value. Even hers. She found a buyer and saved coin. So she made ~$200 mil. Good for her.
To me Yahoo! always seemed doomed. The Microsoft bid ~8 years ago shed Yahoo in a bad light - a company struggling to stay on top against Google and Bing. At the time I wondered why MS would want Yahoo - didn't seem like a good fit. Yahoo was buying search results and not making them (or being paid to send requests to MS) - Search as a Service? okay - the engine isn't the special sauce, but the data is (who searched for what).
She did the best with what she had. We can all argue whether Verizon is going to be a good fit. But Time-Warner bought AOL bought Netscape ( Netscape who? yeah that was only the biggest thing on the web). But was it TW the bad steward? AOL? the mix? Or did Netscape implode and buzzards bought the carcase? (I think they imploded having no product). Could Yahoo really have been turned around - or does it need a corp overlord like Verizon to make it happen. Is Yahoo really a standalone company or a bunch of product subdivisions.
This is where I think Yahoo was headed. AOL like it, and Compuserve, and that Apple thing (yeah - remember Apple had one too - can't remember the name). Things come and go. Maybe Verizon can find a home for it - the name Yahoo! might be worth something (someday).
No - what I meant was... they need to develop an (overly) intimate understanding of what the code is trying to achieve.
In most programming languages I can quickly understand the purpose and make a change. Maybe there's some concept like "functional density" which is "Low" in a language like C# and very "high" in F#. Therefore I can make non-functionality changes in C# that serve little purpose and unlikely to have side-affects because lots of code is crap to fill whitespace. But functional languages lack "white-space-code":-)
I will add that I've achieved a lot more functionality quickly using R & Python. My implementation of an internal utility was ~50 lines in Python vs the existing utility written in C# which was easily near ~500 lines. Granted I pulled in a lot of modules so the total size was larger -- but my effort was small to achieve the same goal. Same thing with my R programs.
The only reason I can't say the same with F# is that I have a (relatively) lower number of hours in it.
This is the very definition. This guy was dumb - seriously... the depth of hacking he did was amazing. You'd think at some level one might step back and think "well if they weren't going to lay me off.... this step will definitely get me **fired**"
Functional programming is getting better. I use lambdas in C# all the time, sometimes in Python too (although I don't like the syntax), and I've tried them in Java. In C#/Java/et al they are fabulous ways to focus on the Functionality and not the Implementation (what the heck is this FOR loop doing?).
Pure functional has problems that will be solved. Jet.com is based on F# (the whole website and backend - yes a bit of C# here and there). Now could be the time to jump in - while being aware that patterns and practice are an emerging area and there will be growing pains.
I've been using F# and R for over a year now. F# caused me to suffer from a problem that early OOP/C++ programming had - methods/layers that hid too much and made debugging difficult because it wasn't clear where it went wrong. Plus the syntax of these languages can be confusing, and procedural languages (C#/++/Java) work the way we "think" "step1 - do this, step2 - do that" Functional focuses on the end product and not the steps in between. Beyond different syntax, we need to think differently.
I've found myself passing too many arguments "down" to the layers (again - something early OOP suffered from). The promise of altering the lower implementation layers without affecting top-level code hasn't panned out. I've had a bit better luck with R but the problems I'm solving are different. F# has been a "real" program and R has been computation of stats (grab data and compute min/max/avg). OOP solved it through better patterns such as ambient properties and policy injection, possibly OCP (which is NOT a functional solution). I'm finding the readability of code to be difficult (esp this Javascript nested stuff -- seems like using the wrong tool for the job, as in, I want to program like this and let's' see what's in the web toolbox... Javascript it is).
While I like F# my biggest mind-bender has been around function composition. The idea of magic params that the runtime simply solves causes a lot of "magic" to occur that isn't obvious to the coder. Yes - shorter code. However, the next person must spend time reading and understanding the code before being able to make changes that doesn't break the implementation. Again - the OOP problem. To read an F# function and wonder "where'd param 3 come from?" or "where *does* param 3 come from?" Quite possibly new patterns that must be learned.
Microsoft created a game on XBox using F#. So it is possible. There's an F# compatible release of XNA. I can't remember the game - maybe "Go" ?
Hunt in DotNetRocks for the topic - there have been multiple episodes over the years discussing this. Google "XBox F#" - there's a slideshare on the topic.
Thank you !! Absolutely. Eating Fresh fruit delivers the benefits. Squishing it into a juice removes that benefit.
Blending them breaks down something that your body needs to "chew" on the food - otherwise it is a direct inject to the bloodstream and your glucose spikes. Like the crack version of fruits.
Which reminds me --- Coca Cola pulled out of the Cold Drink effort with Keurig. After product launch it all tanked. --- again they forgot to test the market. Nobody wanted to pay a big price for the machine, have it occupy counter space, and then fork over about the same money as a can of soda costs.
oh- and everyone is getting wise to health and sugar -- and that they should drink less soda.
One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?
This doesn't sound like the Jack LaLanne Juicer thingy (which sells for $150). I think the Premium Experience folks ran amok on this one- those Tech Billionaires must have thought "yeah I'd drop $400 on this" but forgot to test the market. I personally don't need another kitchen gadget - let alone a $400 one.
My friend used to have a coffee maker that you filled with beans and it would drop in & grind one serving on demand. Seemed cool and was expensive. After using it while visiting for a week I can't imaging a IoT angle to it. I just put my cup under it and pressed "go"
Sure - show me the work - fair enough. There are lots of citations available - sorry this isn't wikipedia.
For example - Alan Alda covered this on Scientific American Frontiers when he visited the Ford driving simulator. Part of the show had him carrying out tasks while driving so that the viewer could get an idea of what distractions looks like.
It is known that the brain devotes more effort to listening to a phone call than listening to kids in the backseat. Probably because there's pressure to pay attention to the phone call where as you can ignore the children - or scream "shut up !!" at them...but not your boss on the phone.
This is an area of research. IBM even prototyped a driving assistant that could monitor the outside world and disable your phone to "turn down" the distraction level. Hey - talking on a quiet long straight country road vs rush-hour traffic in LA has a different impact-of-risk. Make a mistake in the country and...well probably nothing happens..maybe kill a bunny.
But that isn't the point of all of this -- it is distracted driving and people don't believe it or are willing to accept the risk.
Unfortunately the scientific data does not agree with your opinion.
The issue isn't whether this is dangerous - science says it is. People want to take this risk. Heavy drinking will kill your liver - yet people still binge drink (and you might be surprised to find out how low # of drinks that defines binge). Don't eat sugar - most have a Mountain Dew in their hand right now. It doesn't matter that a Church van gets whacked by a texting driver and kills many -- not in my backyard.
No matter the number of studies telling of the risks - people will continue to believe that they are above average and that they can operate a cell phone while driving. Years ago I wondered how talking on the phone stacks up against "fiddling with radio, talking to passenger, eating snack" - and turns out talking on the phone is more dangerous for several reasons. One - your participant is not in the car with you. When talking to a passenger - they too can see a sticky situation coming up and will curb the conversation along with the driver. Also people tend to devote more focus on phone conversations than they would say...eating a snack.
IBM once put forward a system that could monitor the road, traffic density, and other attributes and plug that into the cell phone. Diverting calls to voice-mail if you had the brakes on, or heavy traffic etc. The more dangerous the situation and it would lock out external distractions.
Companies like Ford have tested this in their driving simulators. They know. My father has a GM with a navigation system that can't be operated while the car is in motion..... and I'll tell you what.. it is the most frustrating feature ever. I just pull out my phone or Garmin and think....why th' f* pay $1500 for a lousy nav system that you can't use.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that he's 18 - he has discovered the world isn't fair.
He goes three months and doesn't have a backup? Even in a ZIP file or on a USB drive, or "insert cloud drive service here"
An unfortunate mistake and maybe even a poorly implemented feature.
but I have little sympathy because - well his HD could have crashed or a crypto-worm or... basic data loss could have occurred.
However - how'd we all learn this lesson? Let others stumble before us or put our own finger in the fan !!!
I think we're saying the same thing. Just because an employer has to pay $100k for a job doesn't mean they "want" to pay that much. It's worth $30k to them but they can't find anybody near by willing to do that.
So they go looking for somebody willing to take the job for less. Or realize that the work isn't something they want to do and that consolidation is necessary and the only way to achieve that is through outsourcing the service.
We had a skill that was semi-valued but not at a full-time level. So management kept asking the expert to do other tasks that he really wasn't trained in nor wanted to learn. He left the company seeing no growth and was never replaced. Years later in the midst of quality problems a senior manager asked "what does John's testing effort tell us?" -- "Oh, John quit a year ago, we haven't been doing his kind of testing since."
The universe is supposed to be of an infinite size. We keep assuming that intelligent life must be far more advanced than we are - even though we all "started with a bang" around the same time (given the random flicker required to make life emerge).
Why is it that these other life beings can't be 5 kazillion light years away and we just haven't heard from them yet. Or another race of "humans" just like us barely walked on their own local moon 50 years ago -- and they too are beaming signals into space wondering where everyone else is?!
The scientist types sure have an inferiority complex.
Seriously -- this needed a study? The whole purpose of these lists is to be Click Bait and drive ad revenue to the web site.
oh wait - the author created an article referencing something stupid to drive clicks to her web site. How very meta !!!
news at 11.
I remember using the AAA TripTik when I was a kid. Mom would have one printed before our long vacation drives - very useful map. Each was very fresh and contained construction notes, detours, and other information.
But in the end - the giant paper map was always consulted for the big picture.
I still use the paper map even with my GPS. GPS gets me there when I know where I want to go --- but the map lets me strategize and change my plans.
My father always told me "don't get good at something you don't like to do" --- years later I'd learn that it was true, and B) don't ever get good at something that isn't valued (or can be automated).
The low wages for these IT jobs is simply the Value That Companies Put on the Work. They need a semi-skilled laborer to write 'em some dumb code. Or push buttons for a manual testing effort. The cost of "now" vs "automate it" -- usually "now" wins. Regardless of how bad you may feel about somebody doing the same job for less -- realize this -- it's all the employer is willing to pay to get the job done.
Don't get good at those jobs.
you are correct - the position has changed. The technology exists currently (not a "in 10 years" problem) -- political might is the weak link. Although there are missing components to make it real - using storage tech and a smart grid it could be done by 2050.
https://cleantechnica.com/2015...
Thanks
You semi-humorously point out what the power grid might become in a 2.0 model. Like you I don't see the grid going way - NYC doesn't have enough space to generate electricity on rooftops. Rural places that have room for panels will reduce their need for the grid. I've also read that solar can't power the world (not enough sun reaches our surface). Sure - improvements in efficiency are needed and will occur. MPG for a home!? A hybrid model of mini generators and large ones.
For me - I live in the woods. Great for my A/C bill. However, the whole neighborhood has a large plot of open common land which could become a solar panel farm. Do we selfishly pay to wire this to "our" homes? .. or make it part of the larger grid. Well.... isn't this is the grid by definition. Pay the experts with the infrastructure.
The future grid became clearer to me when I learned about batteries being used to charge off-peak (nighttime) and run A/C during the day for large demand items like A/C units. The hot summer demands will only grow. The mini generators (wind & private solar) help produce "local" energy and slow the growth of the grid and also prevent/reduce the emergency power days that are becoming common across the country.
As our population increases, total demand for energy will also increase. Now the grid doesn't need to expand as fast.
Correct. I was told that a rough-cut 2x4 would actually be 2x4. However, 2x4's that most of us buy are "finished" meaning smoothed and sanded.
I have purchased such wood items and they sure seem strange to hold in your hands because they aren't the expected dimensions.
This is all understood by the tradesmen - so educating everyone else -- well it would be a horrible world if suddenly 2x4 weren't... 2x4's anymore. "I'd like a 1.3251 by 3.5856 please"
You are probably correct. However, when the system finally fails it might force an upgrade/replacement or retirement of the system. Sometimes catching fire is the only way we cook our sacred cow burgers.
Or the old guy retires.
Seriously - I've seen this happen. "Most Important Process" in the place is handled by "one" person who quits because s/he can't get away from doing the process. No matter how many times they brought it up for review, nope "this is the most important process" - even attempts to be promoted to a new job/role and management sticks the task with them. So they quit. Then nobody is assigned to do the job (maybe a few cracks at it on a volunteer basis) - but in the end the task goes undone for an extended period of time before finally somebody officially declares it obsolete.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
That mirrors my experiences. I used it when I first bought an Apple product years ago - it works great to create tasks, send text messages, and hands free stuff "do I have any messages?" I'm able to edit message or have it read them back to me before sending.
But --- that's about all it can do. Few apps can participate (any?)
I'd like the phone to work as a single unit. "what time is Batman playing tonight?" Great - "Schedule Watch Batman at 8pm and Invite Bob too"
Search sucks. I ask Siri questions all the time. Either "Sorry Siri isn't available" or "Not sure what you mean - here's a web search" But if I ask Google Search the same question the google app Reads the Answer to me !!
It is not a personal assistant. Just a voice controlled remote control.
Geez - is TSA really worried about a battery of a certain size? Or is it a bomb disguised as a big battery?
If it simply the requirement of a powerful energy source -- then what about those darn power outlets that were added to planes so we could use our laptop on long flights?!
Seriously - I think you've all latched onto the wrong threat. I'm assuming the real issue is the laptop is the bomb and needs power to detonate. It isn't the battery - its the size of the package. A Cell phone is too small, but big thick 1990's Dell Laptop can carry enough material to make a big hole. And apparently so can an iPad. People have problems bringing blocks of cheese on a plane because they show up as C-4 on the x-ray. Batteries probably look like cheese like -> C-4
Well - "they" thought underwear had enough room too. These people are failing and iterating looking for something that will work. Basic business: fail-fast, iterate,.... succeed? Sneakers didn't make a hole. iPad? try it.
exactly!! This sounds like a great idea as long as the revenge hacking isn't granted indemnification. It'd be like a bar room brawl. I can see the web-ads now "Under attack? click here to fix your network!"
Windows 10 does come with lots of location and tracking services. This must all be part of the implementation. At location XML tags to all of the files and they can track who uploads illegal copies of Windows to a torrent - then automate sending the authorities to your house.
It's all about share-holder value. Even hers. She found a buyer and saved coin. So she made ~$200 mil. Good for her.
To me Yahoo! always seemed doomed. The Microsoft bid ~8 years ago shed Yahoo in a bad light - a company struggling to stay on top against Google and Bing. At the time I wondered why MS would want Yahoo - didn't seem like a good fit. Yahoo was buying search results and not making them (or being paid to send requests to MS) - Search as a Service? okay - the engine isn't the special sauce, but the data is (who searched for what).
She did the best with what she had. We can all argue whether Verizon is going to be a good fit. But Time-Warner bought AOL bought Netscape ( Netscape who? yeah that was only the biggest thing on the web). But was it TW the bad steward? AOL? the mix? Or did Netscape implode and buzzards bought the carcase? (I think they imploded having no product). Could Yahoo really have been turned around - or does it need a corp overlord like Verizon to make it happen. Is Yahoo really a standalone company or a bunch of product subdivisions.
This is where I think Yahoo was headed. AOL like it, and Compuserve, and that Apple thing (yeah - remember Apple had one too - can't remember the name). Things come and go. Maybe Verizon can find a home for it - the name Yahoo! might be worth something (someday).
Like Circuit City !!!
har har har..
No - what I meant was... they need to develop an (overly) intimate understanding of what the code is trying to achieve.
In most programming languages I can quickly understand the purpose and make a change. Maybe there's some concept like "functional density" which is "Low" in a language like C# and very "high" in F#. Therefore I can make non-functionality changes in C# that serve little purpose and unlikely to have side-affects because lots of code is crap to fill whitespace. But functional languages lack "white-space-code" :-)
I will add that I've achieved a lot more functionality quickly using R & Python. My implementation of an internal utility was ~50 lines in Python vs the existing utility written in C# which was easily near ~500 lines. Granted I pulled in a lot of modules so the total size was larger -- but my effort was small to achieve the same goal. Same thing with my R programs.
The only reason I can't say the same with F# is that I have a (relatively) lower number of hours in it.
This is the very definition. This guy was dumb - seriously... the depth of hacking he did was amazing. You'd think at some level one might step back and think "well if they weren't going to lay me off.... this step will definitely get me **fired**"
Extra years for "dumb-assery"
Functional programming is getting better. I use lambdas in C# all the time, sometimes in Python too (although I don't like the syntax), and I've tried them in Java. In C#/Java/et al they are fabulous ways to focus on the Functionality and not the Implementation (what the heck is this FOR loop doing?).
Pure functional has problems that will be solved. Jet.com is based on F# (the whole website and backend - yes a bit of C# here and there). Now could be the time to jump in - while being aware that patterns and practice are an emerging area and there will be growing pains.
I've been using F# and R for over a year now. F# caused me to suffer from a problem that early OOP/C++ programming had - methods/layers that hid too much and made debugging difficult because it wasn't clear where it went wrong. Plus the syntax of these languages can be confusing, and procedural languages (C#/++/Java) work the way we "think" "step1 - do this, step2 - do that" Functional focuses on the end product and not the steps in between. Beyond different syntax, we need to think differently.
I've found myself passing too many arguments "down" to the layers (again - something early OOP suffered from). The promise of altering the lower implementation layers without affecting top-level code hasn't panned out. I've had a bit better luck with R but the problems I'm solving are different. F# has been a "real" program and R has been computation of stats (grab data and compute min/max/avg). OOP solved it through better patterns such as ambient properties and policy injection, possibly OCP (which is NOT a functional solution). I'm finding the readability of code to be difficult (esp this Javascript nested stuff -- seems like using the wrong tool for the job, as in, I want to program like this and let's' see what's in the web toolbox... Javascript it is).
While I like F# my biggest mind-bender has been around function composition. The idea of magic params that the runtime simply solves causes a lot of "magic" to occur that isn't obvious to the coder. Yes - shorter code. However, the next person must spend time reading and understanding the code before being able to make changes that doesn't break the implementation. Again - the OOP problem. To read an F# function and wonder "where'd param 3 come from?" or "where *does* param 3 come from?" Quite possibly new patterns that must be learned.
So I say - give it a try. Learn a new language.
Microsoft created a game on XBox using F#. So it is possible. There's an F# compatible release of XNA. I can't remember the game - maybe "Go" ?
Hunt in DotNetRocks for the topic - there have been multiple episodes over the years discussing this. Google "XBox F#" - there's a slideshare on the topic.
Thank you !! Absolutely. Eating Fresh fruit delivers the benefits. Squishing it into a juice removes that benefit.
Blending them breaks down something that your body needs to "chew" on the food - otherwise it is a direct inject to the bloodstream and your glucose spikes. Like the crack version of fruits.
Which reminds me --- Coca Cola pulled out of the Cold Drink effort with Keurig. After product launch it all tanked. --- again they forgot to test the market. Nobody wanted to pay a big price for the machine, have it occupy counter space, and then fork over about the same money as a can of soda costs.
oh- and everyone is getting wise to health and sugar -- and that they should drink less soda.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?
This doesn't sound like the Jack LaLanne Juicer thingy (which sells for $150). I think the Premium Experience folks ran amok on this one- those Tech Billionaires must have thought "yeah I'd drop $400 on this" but forgot to test the market. I personally don't need another kitchen gadget - let alone a $400 one.
My friend used to have a coffee maker that you filled with beans and it would drop in & grind one serving on demand. Seemed cool and was expensive. After using it while visiting for a week I can't imaging a IoT angle to it. I just put my cup under it and pressed "go"
Sure - show me the work - fair enough. There are lots of citations available - sorry this isn't wikipedia.
For example - Alan Alda covered this on Scientific American Frontiers when he visited the Ford driving simulator. Part of the show had him carrying out tasks while driving so that the viewer could get an idea of what distractions looks like.
It is known that the brain devotes more effort to listening to a phone call than listening to kids in the backseat. Probably because there's pressure to pay attention to the phone call where as you can ignore the children - or scream "shut up !!" at them...but not your boss on the phone.
An article from 2014 shows the same: https://www.scientificamerican...
This is an area of research. IBM even prototyped a driving assistant that could monitor the outside world and disable your phone to "turn down" the distraction level. Hey - talking on a quiet long straight country road vs rush-hour traffic in LA has a different impact-of-risk. Make a mistake in the country and...well probably nothing happens..maybe kill a bunny.
But that isn't the point of all of this -- it is distracted driving and people don't believe it or are willing to accept the risk.
Unfortunately the scientific data does not agree with your opinion.
The issue isn't whether this is dangerous - science says it is. People want to take this risk. Heavy drinking will kill your liver - yet people still binge drink (and you might be surprised to find out how low # of drinks that defines binge). Don't eat sugar - most have a Mountain Dew in their hand right now. It doesn't matter that a Church van gets whacked by a texting driver and kills many -- not in my backyard.
No matter the number of studies telling of the risks - people will continue to believe that they are above average and that they can operate a cell phone while driving. Years ago I wondered how talking on the phone stacks up against "fiddling with radio, talking to passenger, eating snack" - and turns out talking on the phone is more dangerous for several reasons. One - your participant is not in the car with you. When talking to a passenger - they too can see a sticky situation coming up and will curb the conversation along with the driver. Also people tend to devote more focus on phone conversations than they would say...eating a snack.
IBM once put forward a system that could monitor the road, traffic density, and other attributes and plug that into the cell phone. Diverting calls to voice-mail if you had the brakes on, or heavy traffic etc. The more dangerous the situation and it would lock out external distractions.
Companies like Ford have tested this in their driving simulators. They know. My father has a GM with a navigation system that can't be operated while the car is in motion..... and I'll tell you what.. it is the most frustrating feature ever. I just pull out my phone or Garmin and think....why th' f* pay $1500 for a lousy nav system that you can't use.
golly gee - some touchy-feely money was saved? Or was real money saved?
If you can't put it into numbers - it didn't happen. I'm pretty sure that's like totally a rule of science.