My Dell Inspiron worked beautifully for about the first six months that I owned it. Then the battery stopped holding charge. Then the battery stopped recharging, period, unless the cord was jiggled around just so and left there perfectly motionless. Then around the one-year point, the laptop started critically overheating and shutting down if I tried to do anything more CPU-intensive than running Microsoft Office. By the time I finally decided to replace it, it would only work with the power cord plugged in (thus making it into more of a "small desktop" than a portable computer) and only with a floor fan set up blowing directly onto the back of it.
I decided to go with a MacBook Pro to replace it, and haven't regretted the decision for an instant. But the critical thing, I think, is deciding to lay out some money to get a quality system, regardless whether it's Mac or PC. My Dell cost me about $300 less than the MBP did. I'd have gladly spent the extra $300 (or more) in order to get a machine that was going to work well for the next few years, instead of causing me endless headaches with battery and overheating problems. The Dell was no bargain in the end.
FWIW, I bought that Dell in 2007, so maybe they've improved in the subsequent 5 years. But I won't be spending my money to find out.
You don't have to be a taxpayer to buy a stamp. USPS will sell a stamp to any-dang-body. Even furriners and Commies. "Taxpayer" implies tax-funded. That said, I suppose I could have been a bit more precise with my language. (Everyone's a critic!)
We expect the average person graduating from high school to have enough raw brainpower to be able to read, write, and do a non-trivial amount of mathematics. If you can get through an algebra class, you can get through a very basic stats class. Or even just a stats unit in one of your other math classes. I don't think it makes sense to tailor the entire curriculum to people who are too dumb to be able to do algebra. Some people can't manage to write a coherent paragraph either, and yet we still expect students to be able to do that.
I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results. Newspaper reporting has never done a particularly good job of accurately reporting study data or scientific findings, but today's news environment (consisting of old-school newspapers desperate for ratings, politically-slanted news organizations, and of course the blogosphere) is orders of magnitude worse. (People should also understand what an order of magnitude is.)
I mean, people are always going to try to lie with numbers and cook their data, but a better-educated public will be inoculated against it to some extent. When a politician says, "Look, this study shows that we save money by sending drug users to prison," you'll have more people who can say, "Wait, those numbers don't look right. How was this data collected? I don't agree with those findings" rather than simply saying, "Oh, okay, someone did a study so it must be true."
Well, you weren't in time before I (among others) came up with that stupid remark, but quality info is always acceptable in lieu of timeliness, so I think it's OK.
And the ability to make posts that are restricted from particular circles. It's ridiculous that you can specify exactly which circles and individuals you DO want to see a post but you can't specify who you DON'T want to see a post. Seems like pretty obvious functionality.
My local circle of friends went in heavily for Google+ as soon as it opened. Two of them actually cancelled their Facebook accounts in favor of having only Google+, although tellingly, one of those has since reopened his FB account and started using it on a regular basis again; the other one is still a Google+ diehard, but did reopen an "events-only" FB account because he was tired of getting left out of event invitations.
I started a thread on G+ recently asking my circles if they were still getting value from G+, and the general consensus was that people want it to work, like the features, but just aren't seeing the social interaction that would make it viable. A lot of people reported that they use it primarily as a blog aggregator. This has been my experience as well, and I'm probably a heavier G+ user than most.
I think that the invite-only rollout was probably a misstep, as was not allowing business accounts for the first several months. Lack of event integration is also a problem.
My personal experience bears this out. Graduated from college, bought a car, started driving everywhere instead of walking everywhere: Gained 20 pounds.
My husband: Took a job working for the USPS as a mail carrier, spends every day walking around: Lost 20 pounds. (And he wasn't overweight to start with; this took him from the top of "normal" BMI to closer to the middle.)
Slashdot Mirror
My Dell Inspiron worked beautifully for about the first six months that I owned it. Then the battery stopped holding charge. Then the battery stopped recharging, period, unless the cord was jiggled around just so and left there perfectly motionless. Then around the one-year point, the laptop started critically overheating and shutting down if I tried to do anything more CPU-intensive than running Microsoft Office. By the time I finally decided to replace it, it would only work with the power cord plugged in (thus making it into more of a "small desktop" than a portable computer) and only with a floor fan set up blowing directly onto the back of it.
I decided to go with a MacBook Pro to replace it, and haven't regretted the decision for an instant. But the critical thing, I think, is deciding to lay out some money to get a quality system, regardless whether it's Mac or PC. My Dell cost me about $300 less than the MBP did. I'd have gladly spent the extra $300 (or more) in order to get a machine that was going to work well for the next few years, instead of causing me endless headaches with battery and overheating problems. The Dell was no bargain in the end. FWIW, I bought that Dell in 2007, so maybe they've improved in the subsequent 5 years. But I won't be spending my money to find out.
You don't have to be a taxpayer to buy a stamp. USPS will sell a stamp to any-dang-body. Even furriners and Commies. "Taxpayer" implies tax-funded. That said, I suppose I could have been a bit more precise with my language. (Everyone's a critic!)
The USPS is not taxpayer-funded. Really. You can look it up.
Earth Fire Wind Water Heart! By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!
You can keep the bitcoin, though.
We expect the average person graduating from high school to have enough raw brainpower to be able to read, write, and do a non-trivial amount of mathematics. If you can get through an algebra class, you can get through a very basic stats class. Or even just a stats unit in one of your other math classes. I don't think it makes sense to tailor the entire curriculum to people who are too dumb to be able to do algebra. Some people can't manage to write a coherent paragraph either, and yet we still expect students to be able to do that.
I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results. Newspaper reporting has never done a particularly good job of accurately reporting study data or scientific findings, but today's news environment (consisting of old-school newspapers desperate for ratings, politically-slanted news organizations, and of course the blogosphere) is orders of magnitude worse. (People should also understand what an order of magnitude is.)
I mean, people are always going to try to lie with numbers and cook their data, but a better-educated public will be inoculated against it to some extent. When a politician says, "Look, this study shows that we save money by sending drug users to prison," you'll have more people who can say, "Wait, those numbers don't look right. How was this data collected? I don't agree with those findings" rather than simply saying, "Oh, okay, someone did a study so it must be true."
Well, you weren't in time before I (among others) came up with that stupid remark, but quality info is always acceptable in lieu of timeliness, so I think it's OK.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
And the ability to make posts that are restricted from particular circles. It's ridiculous that you can specify exactly which circles and individuals you DO want to see a post but you can't specify who you DON'T want to see a post. Seems like pretty obvious functionality.
My local circle of friends went in heavily for Google+ as soon as it opened. Two of them actually cancelled their Facebook accounts in favor of having only Google+, although tellingly, one of those has since reopened his FB account and started using it on a regular basis again; the other one is still a Google+ diehard, but did reopen an "events-only" FB account because he was tired of getting left out of event invitations.
I started a thread on G+ recently asking my circles if they were still getting value from G+, and the general consensus was that people want it to work, like the features, but just aren't seeing the social interaction that would make it viable. A lot of people reported that they use it primarily as a blog aggregator. This has been my experience as well, and I'm probably a heavier G+ user than most.
I think that the invite-only rollout was probably a misstep, as was not allowing business accounts for the first several months. Lack of event integration is also a problem.
My personal experience bears this out. Graduated from college, bought a car, started driving everywhere instead of walking everywhere: Gained 20 pounds.
My husband: Took a job working for the USPS as a mail carrier, spends every day walking around: Lost 20 pounds. (And he wasn't overweight to start with; this took him from the top of "normal" BMI to closer to the middle.)
We have increasingly sedentary lifestyles and an overwhelming abundance of insanely cheap food. Even the expensive food is cheaper than it used to be. Check out this graph of food expenditures as a percentage of personal income over the last 90 years.