All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.
I think you'd be surprised at how much debt the average household carries.
Why can't America?
I can pilot an aircraft, why can't I be an astronaut or land on the moon? This is an absurd argument. No one says that you shouldn't live within your means, but countries have a lot of different responsibilities and options than the average citizen. For one, the US can print its own currency - albeit causing inflation. A country owes a billion dollars to someone? Print a billion dollar note and pay them. They just reduced the value of the country's currency, but are debt free (unless they other party owns TIPS). And debt based financing is very common - Boeing might be delivering an aircraft at the end of 6 months to a client, but doesn't have the money for payroll stashed in a bank. They take a loan (debt) to finance growth (making a profit on the aircraft sales) while hiring employees. Countries do the same.
You can buy bonds for many companies on the market - IBM, MSFT, etc.And if the country/organization is credit worthy, they can sell bonds at very low yields - effectively almost "free" money. If they use that for growth, they will profit. The same holds for countries.
Basically, your analogy is flawed - debt isn't itself necessarily a problem. It is what you do with that debt that decides if you go broke or profit.
At a university where I work, there is a requirement that any project involving storing personal data must go through several periodic reviews and has to meet some strict requirements - encryption is a must (without it, the project won't even get off the ground). I'd be very surprised if there are no regulations dictating how hospitals must store and protect data.
I read TFA, but I couldn't see whether such requirements are a must for hospices. Did they just go ahead and ignore the requirements? In which case, the fine is too small. Or are there no regulations for healthcare industry (I'd find that very surprising)? Can someone more knowledgeable tell me if this was negligence or outright violation of protocol?
Are we going to have one article for every multinational corporation that uses tax shelters/accounting tricks to avoid paying taxes?
Personally, I don't think what they are doing is "morally" right - but then again, I'm one of those morons who don't think that corporations are people. Frankly, I'm not sure why companies pay taxes (specifically taxes on profits) - I think the rate should be 0 percent. The employees pay taxes (from the CEO to the night custodian). Employees pay taxes to drive to work, use facilities, etc.
If they are using land, they should pay tax on that (i.e. physical presence) - just like any homeowner. If they are using electricity, the pay the utility company (and they shouldn't get a subsidized power bill, unless they have an agreement with a private utility company). A company can't do much with money in isolation. It needs to spend it or invest it and pay capital gains tax.
The biggest flaw that I see is that the company starts "gifting" executives cars and accommodation. The employee might not pay tax on it - it isn't bought from their income. The executive is happy - they get "lower" tax rate effectively (since they don't pay for the car/house). But you can't stop companies from having their own vehicles - Fedex can and should own aircrafts. I don't see a clean way to distinguish these cases.
Maybe someone can enlighten me on why companies are taxed, and other flaws with eliminating corporate tax?
Unless you're a doctor or a lawyer, your Indian degree is less than worthless.
Hmm... nice choice there - especially since doctors and lawyers can't generally practice in other countries based on their Indian degrees. On the other hand, a lot of Indian engineers (or engineers from most countries) can take up jobs wherever they get the opportunity. Bitter much?
Whenever I read submissions like this, I wonder why they put a sentence like "genius in flunked out of...". Unless the area they were a genius in was the same one he/she failed at, it seems kind of flame-bait - trying to start an "school is useless - look at these outliers" discussion.
Ramanujan was brilliant at mathematics, and there is no denying that. But like any school/college, his was made for the average person. Sure, it would be great if education was tailored to each individual's aptitude. But we don't have a good way of finding out what that is directly yet. Instead, we throw a bunch of subjects at students, and they figure out where there relative strengths are. And they focus on one or two areas where their natural aptitude lies (or more realistically, where their job prospects and abilities/interests combine to give "best" results; best being chosen by the student. Some may chase money, others fame, others just want to solve interesting problems - applications/paycheck be damned).
And discovering outliers early is hard when the teachers themselves are not much better at their subjects than the students. If some kindergarten student started using calculus for loading of building blocks, it won't be much use if her teacher doesn't realize that what she is doing is phenomenal (especially since the child will have her own notations/symbols). Obviously, that is an extreme example, but the point remains - outliers will have a tough time in the current system.
Alternatively, we can let everyone do what they find interesting, but a majority of students will just spend time doing "fun" things like sports - which is not necessarily bad. But as long as we have the current system where you starve if you can't hold down a job doing "productive things", I think the educational system prepares most people for such a world.
Outliers are great - and can help speed up society's progress significantly. But at the end of the day, they are just that - outliers. If you design a system to help the outliers, most people (myself included) would wind up getting a very bad outcome - because most people aren't phenomenally skilled at anything (and no, being the best me I can be doesn't cut it). And if you have a lot of starving deadbeats on the street (instead of the mediocre, but holding down a job majority) I expect society to completely break down - and that won't help the outliers either.
I think he is using the wrong tool for the job, and then blaming the tool. I don't know about the collaboration features, having never used them. But Google docs was never (IMO) intended to be a replacement for a professional editing tool.
He talks about style sheet feature in the professional writers world. I don't know what that is, because I use Google docs for simple things. Sharing a to-do list with colleagues. Sharing a grocery list with my family. Short story writing in my spare time. Yes, a lot of professional writers need particular features - but MOST people don't. If you try to include features that everyone and their dog would want, you'd get a mess that is unusable, especially in a browser (I can configure MS Word to some extent. Change the layout, add shortcuts to the ribbon, etc).
The closest I have come to a specialized writing software is Scrivener - and I love it. It has features MS Word doesn't have. And I don't expect Word to have them. But that isn't Word's fault - not everyone wants a pinboard and notes section while writing technical papers. They want to send a letter to Grandma thanking her for the check.
And while Word might have some of the features he wants, that comes at a cost - I think MS realized it when they made Microsoft Works. A simple Word editor, a simple spreadsheet etc. It was much easier to use. But it tanked for reasons I don't know. Maybe (pure guesswork) because the mentality while buying software is - "I don't know what this feature is. But hey, I might want it some day!".
Do you expect Paint to have all the features of Photoshop? Frankly, I couldn't use photoshop because I found it too complex, and I use Paintshop Pro. But that isn't Paint/Paintshop's flaw - if I need the features, I'll find the tool that fits the job.
I think the answer to whether the computer "revolution" has run its course is no for two reasons: (1) Shift in paradigm, and (2) Applications.
For the first few decades, the focus was on two aspects - making computers easier and faster. Easier via interfaces (and devices) and via algorithm improvements, and faster was mostly higher clock speeds, pipelining, etc. Only relatively recently, has the push been on distributed/parallel computing (which is different from "cloud" computing) - formulating problems in a way that parallel computing can greatly reduce execution time. Most languages have very manual ways (i.e. great programming effort) to use multiple processors. Additionally, the state of distributed algorithms and optimization is starting to get more focus now. But we have a long way to go.
The other is the applications of computing - most of the computer revolution was focused on end users (which, relatively, focused on the well-off/rich people). Apart from a few government/research groups, massive improvements in computing resources have not been used to tackle "hard" problems - sociological, economical, policy decisions, etc. We saw a bit of that in the elections - figuring out how people will vote. But there is so much more to do there.
As to whether robots/automation will make human labor irrelevant (even educated people) - I hope so. Not because I am against education; I am all for people getting smarter. But right now, survival seems to be the driving motivator for people having jobs - work or starve. I might be overly optimistic, but I think life would get much better if people had the freedom to do what they loved without fearing starvation. Some people think that if you don't have the stick, people would just sit around in their underwear and watch TV all day. I disagree. I know lots of smart people who won't take risks and follow their passion because they need to put food on their table, or need health insurance or something along those lines (I am guilty of that as well). But I believe that if people are allowed to follow their passion, you will find a much improved society. The great leaps and bounds in society took place because people didn't have to spend every second wondering about survival or getting eaten. If everyone had to hunt for each meal, we would be much further back in technology, arts, etc. I believe that if you remove the threat to survival, people can do wonderful things. (Just to be clear: I am not a commie saying that all wealth has to be distributed. If you want a yacht, work for it - build your own or get money. But you shouldn't have to worry about starving in case your yacht business doesn't take off. The worst that might happen is you still have a basic standard of living - not a mansion, but you don't need to fear frostbite).
Neither are bears. They're godless killing machines.
Seriously. I think it is high time that we started proselytizing bears. It is the disappearance of God from those pagan woodland surroundings (what's left of them) that is responsible for atrocities by bears.
And while we are on the topic, there are no laws prohibiting a bear from buying an automatic gun! They don't even have a mandatory background checks. Won't someone think of the children?
While I don't care much if VLC is ported, the idea of a community sponsored software development is interesting to me. I have often felt that software design decisions appear arbitrary for me (small time no-influence user). This gives people an actual insight into what are popular features, and a heads-up on future changes.
While many companies have feedback (submit suggestions) on their website, it seems like it is flushed down the tubes. I get a "Thank you for blah blah blah" and have no idea of what happened. The only token I had that my suggestion was heard was this one time where the company representative called me up with follow up questions and to discuss what could be done (again, I am a no-name client, not someone who pays millions for "privileged status").
I'd also like to see software with easy in-application access to feedback - the moment you think of something, you should be able to send off a report asking for the feature. And it should analyze the data and tell you if there is something similar to this request so you can upvote that instead. Basically, listen to your damn users and let them know that you are aware of their suggestions in a meaningful (not generic email) type of way.
Apart from the fact that they're fairly overpriced for what they can do,...
Well, that depends. If you are looking for a camera with a lot of different settings and good file formats (such as RAW data for images, lots of white balance options, and manual settings (aperture, focus, ISO, DOF) there are much better options for that price. Even wifi can be obtained by using special SD cards. However, the reason I have one is because of the robust housing - I can dive to 130 feet without it leaking.
The camera is targeted for people who want to take decent images that can survive harsh environments - I don't know why they can't make inexpensive housing for great cameras for less. But if you want a waterproof housing for a DSLR, it can really set you back much than this whole setup (camera+housing) costs. When I am taking regular shoots in non-extreme environments, I use my prosumer camera. But there aren't really any good competitors at a significantly cheaper price point for what these cameras can survive.
... is the animated gif pornography and scanned images from magazines;) Now with their copyright-laws-this and paywall-that... sheesh. Is there nothing big companies won't ruin??? (Hold on, I want to watch this hot video on Youtube)
Seriously - there is a lot more content now. Create a dummy account if you don't want to share your information. Don't let yourself get tagged on photos. Give a false name and location. It isn't too hard to access 99% of the content with just a few keystrokes with little risk to privacy.
Complaining about sharing? What was the equivalent of Wikipedia or Sourceforge? Search algorithms weren't as good then. Even forgetting the social networking stuff - a lot more open and free pages exist today to provide you with information.
I think the real question is is it anthropogenic? Your question supposes that "the cause" is entirely anthropogenic.
While I do think so, my final point (like yours) was whether we should be trying to "fix" it or start looking for recovery solutions (i.e. assume the climate will change on a global scale causing effects like ocean rise, extreme weather - irrespective of the cause - and start looking at survival methods). Right now if a place floods people are evacuated. Once the waters recede, they go back to the same place and rebuild. That is like a band-aid - fixing one local problem, rather than relocating them (and telling them that if they choose to go back, no one is coming to save you next time).
Disclaimer: I am honestly not trolling here. I really wonder about this.
TL/DR version: Can we really change our behavior, or just start planning for a worst-case scenario?
Should we be trying to combat climate change in the sense that is it really possible? I think that, as a species, we would rather let people in the future (even if they are future versions of ourselves) deal with the problems rather than take hit in the near term for long term benefits.
Coupled with the fact that the most populated countries have a majority of their population relatively poor, I think it is impractical to expect them to stop burning fossil fuels and force clean energy solutions that might be more expensive/impractical (I believe that the industrialized nations consume most of the energy now, but with India and China becoming more economically important and successful, they will also start consuming more energy).
I saw the article about Thorium reactors a few days ago, but I doubt that we can stop burning things for energy in a short term. With all the infrastructure and interests of powerful groups to keep us on fossil fuels (In the words of comedian John Oliver: BP going green? Only in their logo), I don't expect major change in the near future.
Maybe I am too cynical and need to have hope for the future, but I wonder if we shouldn't start planning backup mechanisms to permanently help people when changes happen - right now, we seem to be doing short-term "deal with this disaster now" fixes.
I've seen trolls on Youtube who display more professionalism. I get it - you don't like the OS. I don't expect you to say otherwise. That is your right as a reviewer. But using analogies like Goblin farts, raping dogs? (I closed the video at this point - I realized this wasn't a reviewer so much as a rant)
And I'm not sure whether he was using a tablet or a computer with a keyboard (as suggested by the animation). If one app pops up and it is full screen and you can't figure out how to close it - how about Alt+Tab? How about Win+Tab (which has been there since Vista)? Hell, how about Alt+F4 to close apps? Should the user know these shortcuts? Of course not. But he seems to be using it like a tablet (everything full screen) while wanting a desktop experience, but refusing to touch the keyboard. He doesn't get that he can press the home button (start) - like every other phone or tablet (I don't know how to close apps on any other mobile device either - without task killing)
It seems like this guy has never used Windows before and looks at the tablet UI and decides that he doesn't want to use the keyboard or mouse. Sure, there could be indicators that tell him where the start is and charms bar is (I won't defend all the poor UI choices). But if he claims he wanted to use it for 30 days, maybe he could put an hour effort in learning how to use the OS?
It was like the first time I moved from Windows to Linux (I use both on a daily basis - I love Linux for remote command line via SSH, but as a desktop I prefer Windows). If I wrote a rant about how Windows shortcuts failed in Linux and dropped it after half an hour, I'd get flamed and fully deserve it. Every OS has a different system. There are only two major additional shortcuts in Windows 8 that I use - Win+I, and Win+C. Everything else is almost like Windows 7 - whether it is a change for better/worse is a personal opinion.
But if you want to be a profession reviewer, take some damn pride in the job and put some minimal effort into what you are doing. Here is a hint: If you want to write a complete review, learn some tricks that can help you navigate the OS and share it - then it might even be helpful to a broader audience. The OS is something people interact with (via applications) for years. So if you take one hour to learn a few tricks that saves you a lot of time, it is worth it for a normal user and that would be a good review. If you want to claim (after learning a few simple shortcuts) that it is still not worth it - go ahead. I'll listen. But to say - I started it and it didn't immediately do everything just the way I want - that isn't a review. That is whining.
He didn't say content creation was flat-out 'impossible' but only that it was painfully difficult in comparison to earlier OS versions.
That is the part I don't get. If you are using the computer as a content-generation system, you should have two monitors. I hardly know anyone who is using a single monitor setup for work anymore. And the moment you use dual monitors, the standard desktop is on at least one of the monitors.
This poll does, and strangely enough doesn't find much difference.
I find the data extremely interesting, specifically the effectiveness by age group - it seems that younger people (some of whom have had to deal with the TSA for a significant portion of their lives) are significantly more likely to rate the agency positive compared to an older age group. This was an effect I feared - people get used to anything, and become passive. They don't know how much better air travel could be.
I hope someone can give me some other viewpoint, because it seems to me that the lesson many government agencies might take away is this: Doesn't matter how well/poorly you do - just create enough of a bureaucracy/hysteria so that you can last for a decade, and people will accept it as the new normal.
While I understand that people have to feed their families and need a job, the people working at the TSA employees get no sympathy from me. Yes, you have every right to hate your job and still do it. But if you are in a "service" industry (or more generally, where you interact with a large number of people), you shouldn't do a shitty job just because you hate it. Most TSA people seem to try the experience unpleasant for passengers. And with a myriad of changing rules, they don't seem to grasp that people will make mistakes. Even a slight deviation from routine gets you the "deluxe" treatment (like the woman carrying a bottle with breast milk being held up for hours).
Case in point - I got a belt that has an buckle that can be removed because I got tired of pulling my belt on and off each time I flew. And I have been through the all types of scanners without a problem in most airports. But one day a new type of scanner seems to have a problem with just the belt "blocking" the view. So rather than just make me remove the whole belt and pass through, they need to do a pat-down that takes much longer. BTW, what happens if my trousers fall down because I need to keep my hands on my head while being scanned? Do I need to register on some type of list somewhere?
No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.
Considering that atheism is one of the older ideas in philosophy and a school of thought in several major religions, I guess more mass-violence can be linked with Christianity. So maybe Gingrich's god is the one responsible?
Or it might have something to do with the fact that technology has made it easy for one person to injure/kill many others with little effort. There have always been people whose behavior/thoughts are outside the norm. Generally, they couldn't do much harm before they were "caught". I heard about this one guy who went about with strange ideas a long time ago, but fortunately they got hold of him and nailed him to a cross before he could do too much damage.
If you want a society with free and unrestricted access to weapons, you have to accept that there is a trade-off and innocent people are going to get hurt. You have to find a freedom/risk point that is socially acceptable. I doubt a guy with a bow and arrow could go on a spree like this.
But in the US, such logical issues cannot be a part of the conversation. Every explanation must be simple, and capable of being condensed into a sound bite for the cameras, and put on a bumper sticker. Otherwise, it is just to complicated for Average-Jane who believes she is capable of understanding complex issues by intuition and rhetoric. Any attempt to say that normal civilians do not need automatic weapons capable of shooting hundreds of rounds a minute (I don't know the specifics of this case, and I choose not to keep a gun) will be seen as an attack on freedom and tyrannical takeover by the government.
So yeah, let's go after video games, movies, pornography, drugs, secularism, etc. No one has ever lost a vote for unloading on taboo subjects.
Will God pardon him? If your a Christian, perhaps.
Bad grammar, on the other hand, is unforgivable. Eternal fires await those who mix up "your" and "you're". Hell will be slightly hotter than your current residence (under a bridge).
Taskbar. Does it have a taskbar readily available at the bottom or side of the screen at all times?
Actually, it does have a task bar. And if you have a dual monitor setup, the taskbar is open on one monitor at all times (and if you don't open some "app" on the second monitor, it is open on both monitors at all times).
Not that I'd recommend anyone upgrade to Win8. I like it, but I also got it free from my organization. I don't really see any must-have features (unlike Windows 7, which had all the nice snap-to functionality that I couldn't get with XP). Sure, it might boot faster, but it has been months since I rebooted my computers. The extended task bar (one on each monitor) is also nice, but I generally reserve one screen for "Metro" apps. Once you know the keyboard shortcuts (Win+C, Win+I, Win+H), it is better than Windows 7 for social stuff (quickly sharing websites, tweeting, Skype). But from a work point of view, it is not significantly better than Windows 7.
I'm curious as to what would happen if some parents/citizens "snapped" and a big group got into a fist fight with these people. Could they then claim temporary insanity? What if a group of sympathetic people claimed that this group (that beat up the WBC group) acted in self defense and the WBC group started it? Would that stand up in court?
What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?
Well, the space station should have enough room and life support to keep all members of congress alive for many years. Oh, and it will create jobs. And when it is done, the problems of an economy will vanish (along with the rest of the planet).
And once the planet is destroyed, you'll have a space station inhabited (almost?) entirely by people holding law and MBA degrees... Coming to think of it, I think the people left behind are the lucky ones.
The problem with E-readers is that there seems to be very little MUST-UPGRADE-NOW mentality in the users. There is no real reason for me to buy the latest-and-greatest E-ink reader when my current device works just fine.
Compare this to a smartphone/computer/tablet. Most people I know wait for their contract to expire and get a new "free" phone immediately. I know people who get new laptops every 3-4 years. Both from a hardware and software point of view, upgrading offers significant benefits for these devices (I can't personally speak about tablets, having never owned one). For some devices, the software upgrades aren't available on older devices (either due to a hardware limitation, or to get people to upgrade their devices).
I bought a Kindle DX soon after it was launched, and I have a smartphone. The collections "feature" was the latest good update I recollect for my Kindle. Sure, it might be nice to have lighting on the device, but I can just get a clip on light if I really want to. My Kindle DX is a device I use regularly, but unless they make great software improvements in handling PDF documents/improved page refresh, I don't see any reason to upgrade (especially since I don't really care for a smaller E-reader).
My phone on the other hand runs Gingerbread (flashed my own ROM), and I don't think it can support the latest Android OS. It doesn't have two cameras, or the best sound, or the fastest hardware. So I clearly see the benefit of upgrading to a new phone.
E-readers seem to be like toasters/microwaves - if it works, I'm not going to buy a new one. They are, in a way, dull devices. A tablet/smartphone is like a car. Sure, last year's model might be sufficient, but this year's model gives some improvements that (while not central to what I want a phone for) make it feel that upgrading is worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.
I think you'd be surprised at how much debt the average household carries.
Why can't America?
I can pilot an aircraft, why can't I be an astronaut or land on the moon? This is an absurd argument. No one says that you shouldn't live within your means, but countries have a lot of different responsibilities and options than the average citizen. For one, the US can print its own currency - albeit causing inflation. A country owes a billion dollars to someone? Print a billion dollar note and pay them. They just reduced the value of the country's currency, but are debt free (unless they other party owns TIPS). And debt based financing is very common - Boeing might be delivering an aircraft at the end of 6 months to a client, but doesn't have the money for payroll stashed in a bank. They take a loan (debt) to finance growth (making a profit on the aircraft sales) while hiring employees. Countries do the same.
You can buy bonds for many companies on the market - IBM, MSFT, etc.And if the country/organization is credit worthy, they can sell bonds at very low yields - effectively almost "free" money. If they use that for growth, they will profit. The same holds for countries.
Basically, your analogy is flawed - debt isn't itself necessarily a problem. It is what you do with that debt that decides if you go broke or profit.
At a university where I work, there is a requirement that any project involving storing personal data must go through several periodic reviews and has to meet some strict requirements - encryption is a must (without it, the project won't even get off the ground). I'd be very surprised if there are no regulations dictating how hospitals must store and protect data.
I read TFA, but I couldn't see whether such requirements are a must for hospices. Did they just go ahead and ignore the requirements? In which case, the fine is too small. Or are there no regulations for healthcare industry (I'd find that very surprising)? Can someone more knowledgeable tell me if this was negligence or outright violation of protocol?
So, Honolulu is in Kenya now? It's good to know.
Yeah, that is what Apple Maps tells me ;)
Are we going to have one article for every multinational corporation that uses tax shelters/accounting tricks to avoid paying taxes?
Personally, I don't think what they are doing is "morally" right - but then again, I'm one of those morons who don't think that corporations are people. Frankly, I'm not sure why companies pay taxes (specifically taxes on profits) - I think the rate should be 0 percent. The employees pay taxes (from the CEO to the night custodian). Employees pay taxes to drive to work, use facilities, etc.
If they are using land, they should pay tax on that (i.e. physical presence) - just like any homeowner. If they are using electricity, the pay the utility company (and they shouldn't get a subsidized power bill, unless they have an agreement with a private utility company). A company can't do much with money in isolation. It needs to spend it or invest it and pay capital gains tax.
The biggest flaw that I see is that the company starts "gifting" executives cars and accommodation. The employee might not pay tax on it - it isn't bought from their income. The executive is happy - they get "lower" tax rate effectively (since they don't pay for the car/house). But you can't stop companies from having their own vehicles - Fedex can and should own aircrafts. I don't see a clean way to distinguish these cases.
Maybe someone can enlighten me on why companies are taxed, and other flaws with eliminating corporate tax?
Unless you're a doctor or a lawyer, your Indian degree is less than worthless.
Hmm... nice choice there - especially since doctors and lawyers can't generally practice in other countries based on their Indian degrees. On the other hand, a lot of Indian engineers (or engineers from most countries) can take up jobs wherever they get the opportunity. Bitter much?
Whenever I read submissions like this, I wonder why they put a sentence like "genius in flunked out of ...". Unless the area they were a genius in was the same one he/she failed at, it seems kind of flame-bait - trying to start an "school is useless - look at these outliers" discussion.
Ramanujan was brilliant at mathematics, and there is no denying that. But like any school/college, his was made for the average person. Sure, it would be great if education was tailored to each individual's aptitude. But we don't have a good way of finding out what that is directly yet. Instead, we throw a bunch of subjects at students, and they figure out where there relative strengths are. And they focus on one or two areas where their natural aptitude lies (or more realistically, where their job prospects and abilities/interests combine to give "best" results; best being chosen by the student. Some may chase money, others fame, others just want to solve interesting problems - applications/paycheck be damned).
And discovering outliers early is hard when the teachers themselves are not much better at their subjects than the students. If some kindergarten student started using calculus for loading of building blocks, it won't be much use if her teacher doesn't realize that what she is doing is phenomenal (especially since the child will have her own notations/symbols). Obviously, that is an extreme example, but the point remains - outliers will have a tough time in the current system.
Alternatively, we can let everyone do what they find interesting, but a majority of students will just spend time doing "fun" things like sports - which is not necessarily bad. But as long as we have the current system where you starve if you can't hold down a job doing "productive things", I think the educational system prepares most people for such a world.
Outliers are great - and can help speed up society's progress significantly. But at the end of the day, they are just that - outliers. If you design a system to help the outliers, most people (myself included) would wind up getting a very bad outcome - because most people aren't phenomenally skilled at anything (and no, being the best me I can be doesn't cut it). And if you have a lot of starving deadbeats on the street (instead of the mediocre, but holding down a job majority) I expect society to completely break down - and that won't help the outliers either.
I think he is using the wrong tool for the job, and then blaming the tool. I don't know about the collaboration features, having never used them. But Google docs was never (IMO) intended to be a replacement for a professional editing tool.
He talks about style sheet feature in the professional writers world. I don't know what that is, because I use Google docs for simple things. Sharing a to-do list with colleagues. Sharing a grocery list with my family. Short story writing in my spare time. Yes, a lot of professional writers need particular features - but MOST people don't. If you try to include features that everyone and their dog would want, you'd get a mess that is unusable, especially in a browser (I can configure MS Word to some extent. Change the layout, add shortcuts to the ribbon, etc).
The closest I have come to a specialized writing software is Scrivener - and I love it. It has features MS Word doesn't have. And I don't expect Word to have them. But that isn't Word's fault - not everyone wants a pinboard and notes section while writing technical papers. They want to send a letter to Grandma thanking her for the check.
And while Word might have some of the features he wants, that comes at a cost - I think MS realized it when they made Microsoft Works. A simple Word editor, a simple spreadsheet etc. It was much easier to use. But it tanked for reasons I don't know. Maybe (pure guesswork) because the mentality while buying software is - "I don't know what this feature is. But hey, I might want it some day!".
Do you expect Paint to have all the features of Photoshop? Frankly, I couldn't use photoshop because I found it too complex, and I use Paintshop Pro. But that isn't Paint/Paintshop's flaw - if I need the features, I'll find the tool that fits the job.
I think the answer to whether the computer "revolution" has run its course is no for two reasons: (1) Shift in paradigm, and (2) Applications.
For the first few decades, the focus was on two aspects - making computers easier and faster. Easier via interfaces (and devices) and via algorithm improvements, and faster was mostly higher clock speeds, pipelining, etc. Only relatively recently, has the push been on distributed/parallel computing (which is different from "cloud" computing) - formulating problems in a way that parallel computing can greatly reduce execution time. Most languages have very manual ways (i.e. great programming effort) to use multiple processors. Additionally, the state of distributed algorithms and optimization is starting to get more focus now. But we have a long way to go.
The other is the applications of computing - most of the computer revolution was focused on end users (which, relatively, focused on the well-off/rich people). Apart from a few government/research groups, massive improvements in computing resources have not been used to tackle "hard" problems - sociological, economical, policy decisions, etc. We saw a bit of that in the elections - figuring out how people will vote. But there is so much more to do there.
As to whether robots/automation will make human labor irrelevant (even educated people) - I hope so. Not because I am against education; I am all for people getting smarter. But right now, survival seems to be the driving motivator for people having jobs - work or starve. I might be overly optimistic, but I think life would get much better if people had the freedom to do what they loved without fearing starvation. Some people think that if you don't have the stick, people would just sit around in their underwear and watch TV all day. I disagree. I know lots of smart people who won't take risks and follow their passion because they need to put food on their table, or need health insurance or something along those lines (I am guilty of that as well). But I believe that if people are allowed to follow their passion, you will find a much improved society. The great leaps and bounds in society took place because people didn't have to spend every second wondering about survival or getting eaten. If everyone had to hunt for each meal, we would be much further back in technology, arts, etc. I believe that if you remove the threat to survival, people can do wonderful things. (Just to be clear: I am not a commie saying that all wealth has to be distributed. If you want a yacht, work for it - build your own or get money. But you shouldn't have to worry about starving in case your yacht business doesn't take off. The worst that might happen is you still have a basic standard of living - not a mansion, but you don't need to fear frostbite).
My favorite web comic for several years has been Looking for Group
Neither are bears. They're godless killing machines.
Seriously. I think it is high time that we started proselytizing bears. It is the disappearance of God from those pagan woodland surroundings (what's left of them) that is responsible for atrocities by bears.
And while we are on the topic, there are no laws prohibiting a bear from buying an automatic gun! They don't even have a mandatory background checks. Won't someone think of the children?
While I don't care much if VLC is ported, the idea of a community sponsored software development is interesting to me. I have often felt that software design decisions appear arbitrary for me (small time no-influence user). This gives people an actual insight into what are popular features, and a heads-up on future changes.
While many companies have feedback (submit suggestions) on their website, it seems like it is flushed down the tubes. I get a "Thank you for blah blah blah" and have no idea of what happened. The only token I had that my suggestion was heard was this one time where the company representative called me up with follow up questions and to discuss what could be done (again, I am a no-name client, not someone who pays millions for "privileged status").
I'd also like to see software with easy in-application access to feedback - the moment you think of something, you should be able to send off a report asking for the feature. And it should analyze the data and tell you if there is something similar to this request so you can upvote that instead. Basically, listen to your damn users and let them know that you are aware of their suggestions in a meaningful (not generic email) type of way.
Apart from the fact that they're fairly overpriced for what they can do,...
Well, that depends. If you are looking for a camera with a lot of different settings and good file formats (such as RAW data for images, lots of white balance options, and manual settings (aperture, focus, ISO, DOF) there are much better options for that price. Even wifi can be obtained by using special SD cards. However, the reason I have one is because of the robust housing - I can dive to 130 feet without it leaking.
The camera is targeted for people who want to take decent images that can survive harsh environments - I don't know why they can't make inexpensive housing for great cameras for less. But if you want a waterproof housing for a DSLR, it can really set you back much than this whole setup (camera+housing) costs. When I am taking regular shoots in non-extreme environments, I use my prosumer camera. But there aren't really any good competitors at a significantly cheaper price point for what these cameras can survive.
... is the animated gif pornography and scanned images from magazines ;) Now with their copyright-laws-this and paywall-that... sheesh. Is there nothing big companies won't ruin???
(Hold on, I want to watch this hot video on Youtube)
Seriously - there is a lot more content now. Create a dummy account if you don't want to share your information. Don't let yourself get tagged on photos. Give a false name and location. It isn't too hard to access 99% of the content with just a few keystrokes with little risk to privacy.
Complaining about sharing? What was the equivalent of Wikipedia or Sourceforge? Search algorithms weren't as good then. Even forgetting the social networking stuff - a lot more open and free pages exist today to provide you with information.
I think the real question is is it anthropogenic? Your question supposes that "the cause" is entirely anthropogenic.
While I do think so, my final point (like yours) was whether we should be trying to "fix" it or start looking for recovery solutions (i.e. assume the climate will change on a global scale causing effects like ocean rise, extreme weather - irrespective of the cause - and start looking at survival methods). Right now if a place floods people are evacuated. Once the waters recede, they go back to the same place and rebuild. That is like a band-aid - fixing one local problem, rather than relocating them (and telling them that if they choose to go back, no one is coming to save you next time).
Disclaimer: I am honestly not trolling here. I really wonder about this.
TL/DR version: Can we really change our behavior, or just start planning for a worst-case scenario?
Should we be trying to combat climate change in the sense that is it really possible? I think that, as a species, we would rather let people in the future (even if they are future versions of ourselves) deal with the problems rather than take hit in the near term for long term benefits.
Coupled with the fact that the most populated countries have a majority of their population relatively poor, I think it is impractical to expect them to stop burning fossil fuels and force clean energy solutions that might be more expensive/impractical (I believe that the industrialized nations consume most of the energy now, but with India and China becoming more economically important and successful, they will also start consuming more energy).
I saw the article about Thorium reactors a few days ago, but I doubt that we can stop burning things for energy in a short term. With all the infrastructure and interests of powerful groups to keep us on fossil fuels (In the words of comedian John Oliver: BP going green? Only in their logo), I don't expect major change in the near future.
Maybe I am too cynical and need to have hope for the future, but I wonder if we shouldn't start planning backup mechanisms to permanently help people when changes happen - right now, we seem to be doing short-term "deal with this disaster now" fixes.
I've seen trolls on Youtube who display more professionalism. I get it - you don't like the OS. I don't expect you to say otherwise. That is your right as a reviewer. But using analogies like Goblin farts, raping dogs? (I closed the video at this point - I realized this wasn't a reviewer so much as a rant)
And I'm not sure whether he was using a tablet or a computer with a keyboard (as suggested by the animation). If one app pops up and it is full screen and you can't figure out how to close it - how about Alt+Tab? How about Win+Tab (which has been there since Vista)? Hell, how about Alt+F4 to close apps? Should the user know these shortcuts? Of course not. But he seems to be using it like a tablet (everything full screen) while wanting a desktop experience, but refusing to touch the keyboard. He doesn't get that he can press the home button (start) - like every other phone or tablet (I don't know how to close apps on any other mobile device either - without task killing)
It seems like this guy has never used Windows before and looks at the tablet UI and decides that he doesn't want to use the keyboard or mouse. Sure, there could be indicators that tell him where the start is and charms bar is (I won't defend all the poor UI choices). But if he claims he wanted to use it for 30 days, maybe he could put an hour effort in learning how to use the OS?
It was like the first time I moved from Windows to Linux (I use both on a daily basis - I love Linux for remote command line via SSH, but as a desktop I prefer Windows). If I wrote a rant about how Windows shortcuts failed in Linux and dropped it after half an hour, I'd get flamed and fully deserve it. Every OS has a different system. There are only two major additional shortcuts in Windows 8 that I use - Win+I, and Win+C. Everything else is almost like Windows 7 - whether it is a change for better/worse is a personal opinion.
But if you want to be a profession reviewer, take some damn pride in the job and put some minimal effort into what you are doing. Here is a hint: If you want to write a complete review, learn some tricks that can help you navigate the OS and share it - then it might even be helpful to a broader audience. The OS is something people interact with (via applications) for years. So if you take one hour to learn a few tricks that saves you a lot of time, it is worth it for a normal user and that would be a good review. If you want to claim (after learning a few simple shortcuts) that it is still not worth it - go ahead. I'll listen. But to say - I started it and it didn't immediately do everything just the way I want - that isn't a review. That is whining.
He didn't say content creation was flat-out 'impossible' but only that it was painfully difficult in comparison to earlier OS versions.
That is the part I don't get. If you are using the computer as a content-generation system, you should have two monitors. I hardly know anyone who is using a single monitor setup for work anymore. And the moment you use dual monitors, the standard desktop is on at least one of the monitors.
This poll does, and strangely enough doesn't find much difference.
I find the data extremely interesting, specifically the effectiveness by age group - it seems that younger people (some of whom have had to deal with the TSA for a significant portion of their lives) are significantly more likely to rate the agency positive compared to an older age group. This was an effect I feared - people get used to anything, and become passive. They don't know how much better air travel could be.
I hope someone can give me some other viewpoint, because it seems to me that the lesson many government agencies might take away is this: Doesn't matter how well/poorly you do - just create enough of a bureaucracy/hysteria so that you can last for a decade, and people will accept it as the new normal.
While I understand that people have to feed their families and need a job, the people working at the TSA employees get no sympathy from me. Yes, you have every right to hate your job and still do it. But if you are in a "service" industry (or more generally, where you interact with a large number of people), you shouldn't do a shitty job just because you hate it. Most TSA people seem to try the experience unpleasant for passengers. And with a myriad of changing rules, they don't seem to grasp that people will make mistakes. Even a slight deviation from routine gets you the "deluxe" treatment (like the woman carrying a bottle with breast milk being held up for hours).
Case in point - I got a belt that has an buckle that can be removed because I got tired of pulling my belt on and off each time I flew. And I have been through the all types of scanners without a problem in most airports. But one day a new type of scanner seems to have a problem with just the belt "blocking" the view. So rather than just make me remove the whole belt and pass through, they need to do a pat-down that takes much longer. BTW, what happens if my trousers fall down because I need to keep my hands on my head while being scanned? Do I need to register on some type of list somewhere?
No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.
Considering that atheism is one of the older ideas in philosophy and a school of thought in several major religions, I guess more mass-violence can be linked with Christianity. So maybe Gingrich's god is the one responsible?
Or it might have something to do with the fact that technology has made it easy for one person to injure/kill many others with little effort. There have always been people whose behavior/thoughts are outside the norm. Generally, they couldn't do much harm before they were "caught". I heard about this one guy who went about with strange ideas a long time ago, but fortunately they got hold of him and nailed him to a cross before he could do too much damage.
If you want a society with free and unrestricted access to weapons, you have to accept that there is a trade-off and innocent people are going to get hurt. You have to find a freedom/risk point that is socially acceptable. I doubt a guy with a bow and arrow could go on a spree like this.
But in the US, such logical issues cannot be a part of the conversation. Every explanation must be simple, and capable of being condensed into a sound bite for the cameras, and put on a bumper sticker. Otherwise, it is just to complicated for Average-Jane who believes she is capable of understanding complex issues by intuition and rhetoric. Any attempt to say that normal civilians do not need automatic weapons capable of shooting hundreds of rounds a minute (I don't know the specifics of this case, and I choose not to keep a gun) will be seen as an attack on freedom and tyrannical takeover by the government.
So yeah, let's go after video games, movies, pornography, drugs, secularism, etc. No one has ever lost a vote for unloading on taboo subjects.
Will God pardon him? If your a Christian, perhaps.
Bad grammar, on the other hand, is unforgivable. Eternal fires await those who mix up "your" and "you're". Hell will be slightly hotter than your current residence (under a bridge).
Taskbar. Does it have a taskbar readily available at the bottom or side of the screen at all times?
Actually, it does have a task bar. And if you have a dual monitor setup, the taskbar is open on one monitor at all times (and if you don't open some "app" on the second monitor, it is open on both monitors at all times).
Not that I'd recommend anyone upgrade to Win8. I like it, but I also got it free from my organization. I don't really see any must-have features (unlike Windows 7, which had all the nice snap-to functionality that I couldn't get with XP). Sure, it might boot faster, but it has been months since I rebooted my computers. The extended task bar (one on each monitor) is also nice, but I generally reserve one screen for "Metro" apps. Once you know the keyboard shortcuts (Win+C, Win+I, Win+H), it is better than Windows 7 for social stuff (quickly sharing websites, tweeting, Skype). But from a work point of view, it is not significantly better than Windows 7.
I'm curious as to what would happen if some parents/citizens "snapped" and a big group got into a fist fight with these people. Could they then claim temporary insanity? What if a group of sympathetic people claimed that this group (that beat up the WBC group) acted in self defense and the WBC group started it? Would that stand up in court?
What would be the point of building a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser when all live on the same planet as all of our enemies?
Well, the space station should have enough room and life support to keep all members of congress alive for many years. Oh, and it will create jobs. And when it is done, the problems of an economy will vanish (along with the rest of the planet).
And once the planet is destroyed, you'll have a space station inhabited (almost?) entirely by people holding law and MBA degrees... Coming to think of it, I think the people left behind are the lucky ones.
The problem with E-readers is that there seems to be very little MUST-UPGRADE-NOW mentality in the users. There is no real reason for me to buy the latest-and-greatest E-ink reader when my current device works just fine.
Compare this to a smartphone/computer/tablet. Most people I know wait for their contract to expire and get a new "free" phone immediately. I know people who get new laptops every 3-4 years. Both from a hardware and software point of view, upgrading offers significant benefits for these devices (I can't personally speak about tablets, having never owned one). For some devices, the software upgrades aren't available on older devices (either due to a hardware limitation, or to get people to upgrade their devices).
I bought a Kindle DX soon after it was launched, and I have a smartphone. The collections "feature" was the latest good update I recollect for my Kindle. Sure, it might be nice to have lighting on the device, but I can just get a clip on light if I really want to. My Kindle DX is a device I use regularly, but unless they make great software improvements in handling PDF documents/improved page refresh, I don't see any reason to upgrade (especially since I don't really care for a smaller E-reader).
My phone on the other hand runs Gingerbread (flashed my own ROM), and I don't think it can support the latest Android OS. It doesn't have two cameras, or the best sound, or the fastest hardware. So I clearly see the benefit of upgrading to a new phone.
E-readers seem to be like toasters/microwaves - if it works, I'm not going to buy a new one. They are, in a way, dull devices. A tablet/smartphone is like a car. Sure, last year's model might be sufficient, but this year's model gives some improvements that (while not central to what I want a phone for) make it feel that upgrading is worth it.