I love my Tilt 2 (AT&T branded Touch Pro 2, with WM 6.5), and I enjoy two things most about it:
1) Over a decade of legacy applications that I can find and run for it. 2) It's an "open" (using the term VERY loosely) platform that anyone can develop and publish for. There's no centralized app store.
The things I don't like about it are that WP7 essentially sounds the alarm to developers to stop developing for Windows Mobile 6.5 and below, and the fact that it's a bit slow compared to newer hardware.
Unless Windows Phone 7 makes major, major improvements I'll likely be looking to Android for my next phone.
They're all satellites (though Kepler orbits the sun, not Earth) that are producing exciting science.
And when The James Webb Space telescope goes online, we're expecting to be able to have access to even more exciting data that we simply can't collect with the instruments already up there.
I like the Princess Bride as much as the next guy, but satellites can be exciting too.
Not that I think a space elevator is likely any time soon, but you're assuming a single "you guys".
There are currently several companies in the LEO business in this country. They don't all have the same nose cone issue, one single rocked design of one company does. It's like saying the Japanese can't design a car because of the accelerator peddle nonsense from the past year that plagued Toyota. Free countries are not uniform.
Putting windows in and smashing them *is* economically productive. It's a loss to you, but it stimulates the economy.
In the case of this launch, it's also both. It's a loss, because we won't have the primary benefit of the satellite, which is the data it would provide. But it's also stimulative, because much of the money that would have been spent on the project was already spent in building the thing and attempting to launch.
It's a loss but the bright side is that that loss had some economic benefit to the overall economy. Clearly it would have been better had it succeeded though.
Same here. I've heard for years "just scroll down". Believe me, I've tried, and not found anything. Perhaps the problems I was searching for were ones that had no answer yet, but it's happened so much, that I suspect it's something else.
"Different content" is the key as far as I'm concerned. The same content can be served via JavaScript rendered HTML with fancy effects, or it can be plain jane static HTML.
So long as the content itself is the same, I wouldn't penalize for it. In fact, I'd argue that if you want to serve content via JavaScript, that using feature detection and falling back to more basic methods if JavaScript (or other features) are not supported by the client would be a good thing. Not just for spiders either.
You make a solid argument, until you get to the "nature" part.
I agree with the data. Males outperform females in a variety of subjects. SATs support this out. High school data, college data, grad schools, and high tech profession rates all support this. The data is in. Males tend to outperform females.
But I am unaware of any evidence that it's biological in nature. While I can not discount the possibility, you offer no evidence for what I consider quite an extraordinary claim. Is it your assumption, or are you aware of a study to support the claim?
Without data that supports the idea that it's biological, you can't say that it is. It could very well be cultural.
That's an important difference! If it's biological, we basically have to live with the idea that genders are limited in ways we haven't wanted to accept. If it's cultural, than the mantra of "you can do whatever you put your mind to" has more truth to it.
When you say something like "SAT scores support this" you're saying something that's easily provable. Males outperform females. Here are the numbers.
When you say something like "nature agrees with me" you're offering an explanation as to why. But you're not backing it up.
There is a gap.
Why is the gap there? Can we do anything about it? Should we? These are important questions.
Test scores in school are uneven and have been for many years. Generally, girls do better than boys in a variety of subjects, but most girls fall off a cliff academically about the time they hit puberty. Boys tend to loose interest as well, but the numbers are far less dramatic.
The end result is that in high school and college, males tend to out perform females. This isn't proof that males are more capable, just proof of what they've achieved.
So if you have a pool of males that are (on average) more qualified in math and science than the pool of females entering the work force, why should the numbers match up?
If we want to address the questions of gender inequality in the workforce for technical professions, it needs to start earlier than the workforce. It needs not letting as many girls loose interest in math and science.
I don't know if that's possible, or even desirable. But I do know that if we're going to commit ourselves to the objective of increasing female participation in math, science, engineering, etc., that it's the only sensible, fair way of doing so.
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men enjoy that do not apply to women in equal or greater measure. 2) Please enumerate any government-imposed responsibilities which women endure that do not apply to men in equal or greater measure.
I can only think of a couple examples, but: 1) Men have the right to serve in combat arms capacities in the U.S. Military, and women do not. 2) Women are often given preferential treatment in child custody cases in the legal system.
I'll admit I can't think of any other cases that are formally, or informally supported by government, but shouldn't there be none? Shouldn't gender not come into the equation?
I don't care if my fire department is 80% male, or an infantry unit, or anything else. So long as the qualifications look at ability, and nothing more.
That said, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Dr. Story Musgrave a couple of years back. He basically sold me on the idea that we need to shelve manned space flight at least for the time being.
The argument in a nutshell is this:
All the good science is currently coming from unmanned exploration.
The Space Shuttle only exists to go to ISS.
ISS only exists to give the Shuttle a place to go.
Manned space exploration can and should be continued when there is a real purpose, and actual benefit that can be garnered from it. Once we have goals. Until then, the money can be better spend on robotic exploration.
He's one of the most experienced astronauts alive today. He's certainly not anti-manned spaceflight, But he makes a very good point. We're spinning our wheels now. We should continue only when we have a real direction for manned spaceflight. Until then, the science can continue on the robotic side.
Others have called News Corp. Evil, etc. I have no love of Rupert Murdoch, and I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment to a degree, but I think it goes a bit far.
The thing is, that's my opinion. And your opinion. But you have to recognize that not everyone shares it.
That said, I am very, very surprised that Apple is in bed with News Corp. Not because I think Apple should oppose them, or because I think Apple management has any particular political ideology.
But surely Apple must recognize that News Corp. is a terrible mis-match for the large demographic for their shiny toys?
While the iPod / iPhone / iPad demographic has opened up in the past couple years, it's still largely driven by young, wealthy. tech savvy. This demographic trends opposite the direction News Corp has with it's TV and Print Publications in the past.
Unless this is a concerted effort to open up their demographic further, or unless the iPad demo has shifted from that of the iPad / iPod, I don't understand the decision to tie a signature feature to the News Corp brand.
There's we've been conditioned to consider certain things to sound "correct" because of certain almost subliminal noise characteristics. It's a form of nostalgia, really.
It's the same thing with vinyl and the "hiss" and popping sounds that it produces. It's technically inferior, but it sounds *good* on a subjective level.
There's nothing wring with saying you prefer a certain sound, but that doesn't make it "better" or "superior".
Your concerns are justified, but not to the extent you might think.
Also, the F-22 does not represent a "marginal technological advantage", it really is revolutionary. Game changing.
During operational testing and wargames (Northern Edge and Red Flag, that I'm aware of, but possibly others) they'd pit mixed forces of F-22s and F-15s or F-16s against conventional forces without F-22s.
Now, we've all seen the ridiculous kill rations of the F-22. 108:0 in Northern Edge, but what's slightly less well known is this:
These mixed packages of Raptors and Conventional aircraft will typically begin an engagement with the Raptors engaging the aggressor aircraft. The raptors rack up lots of kills, the aggressors rarely score one against the raptors.
But eventually, the inferior numbers of the Raptors means that they'll expend their stores. Out of missiles, they don't just turn and go home, they continue to provide support to their side's conventional fighters. The result is a very lopsided kill ratio. Even when the Raptors don't fire a shot, just having them near by, stealthily providing additional radar data, and pseudo-AWACS support has turned out to be far more helpful than even the most optimistic analysts had predicted.
The results? During that same Northen Edge exercise where the Raptors themselves scored 108 kills against no loss, the team that the Raptors were on had a kill ratio of 241:2.
At least in wargames. Obviously we have no idea if it will pan out in a shooting war.
So while the cuts to the Raptor program may seem dire, they're not AS bad as they may seem. The Raptor is even useful in limited numbers in conjunction with conventional warplanes.
Another great data point is this great quote form an Aggressor Pilot at Red Flag from a Popular Mechanics story:
"My F-16 is still a formidable weapons system in its own right. But it is not even in the same league as an F-22," Brenton says. "Technology keeps the F-22 a virtually undetectable and untouchable regime. It is fair to say that unless an F-22 driver makes a mistake, or has a critical system failure, I will always lose a fight against him. That is a good thing. As a nation, we want it this way. We also want him to be able to handle two, six or eight of us completely on his own."
Unlike typical U.S. military pilots, the Red Flag and Top Gun instructors do basically nothing but fly (simulated) combat sorties day in and day out. They're among the best of the best when they start the job, and the nature of the job makes them better. If one of them says he can't kill a Raptor in an F-16 unless something exceptional happens, I believe him.
Of course, as you pointed out, there is a threshold in numbers where you have too few to make a difference, or the numbers you do have become over-taxed, but it seems that between the obscene kill ratio of the Raptor, and it's "multiplying factor" for conventional forces that this it's very hard to say how low a number would be ineffective.
No, it makes sense to have a "stalled" category. Look at repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Nothing happened for the first year and a half he was in office. Then progress happened quite rapidly. He didn't break the promise, it passed. But it took a damn long while.
I'd say that that was "stalled" then moved to "Promises Kept".
I'm not sure DADT is the best example for this, but sometimes the political realities mean you can't do things right away.
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, if he said "I'll do X in my first year in office" you can call that broken, perhaps. Though this seems nit-picky to me.
That's all reasonable, and I can agree with all of it, except the end.
We have regulations that regulate nuclear facilities, biological weapons research, and all manner of deeply technical and dangerous stuff. They can't all be "high school graduate" level.
Surely you must realize the reason for this? It may not apply in every case, but it makes sense for an congress to set up a loose framework law that establishes an organization like the FAA, FCC, FDA, or FTC, then give that body the power to regulate with force of law.
When you have an area that is technical, or highly specialized, it makes sense to have our legislators, who are (mostly) not experts in these fields delegate the fine points to an agency staffed with genuine experts.
Also, regulations are much easier to implement and change than laws are. If the FAA wants to change something like the requirements for storage of aviation gas, it has a process it follows, but basically it just does it. It doesn't require a period of debate, and an up or down vote of people that probably doesn't even understand the underlying issues.
It makes sense to have different levels of rules. You put your more important rules at the top and have a higher bar to pass / change or repeal them. Your more technical, specialized, or less critical rules, you put at a lower level, and they're administered by specialists.
I do agree with your point about standards set by private companies having defacto force of law. It seems like a bad idea on the surface. But it still makes sense that if a credible group like NEC has done the work, and it's acknowledged to make sense, and be the gold standard for the area, to just cite it rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Can we please stop pretending that major usability or engineering decisions have anything to do with Apple's CEO?
I am fairly certain that he is paid to run the company, and that Apple pays people to make these kinds of decisions.
Steve Jobs is an executive. He is charismatic and gives presentations for major product launches too. But he doesn't make every trivial decision for every Apple product.
Agreed. Dark Knight replaced the Burton Batman films as my favorite, but the Batmobile didn't seem like the Batmobile - just another of Batman's "wonderful toys".
Read further along (different post in this thread, I think). I am talking about doing exactly that.
The way I see it, the second amendment is ambiguous and troublesome. Regardless if you want to ban guns or keep it, I think the amendment should be repealed and replaced with a more explicit one. If for no other reason than for clarity.
Do we want citizens to be able to bear any arms? (Clearly not, Abrams Tanks should be regulated, but this isn't in the constitution).
Is the purpose of letting citizens bear arms self defense? Defense against government? Simply on the principal that denying the right to arm ones self would encroach on freedoms unnecessarily? What's with the "well regulated militia" bit? These have become important questions that are not addressed.
Again, I lean toward the guns do more harm than good side. That said, I'm not explicitly taking sides in ban vs. allowing guns. I'm simply saying that the second amendment is unnecessarily contentious, we have a constitutional process to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more.
I love my Tilt 2 (AT&T branded Touch Pro 2, with WM 6.5), and I enjoy two things most about it:
1) Over a decade of legacy applications that I can find and run for it.
2) It's an "open" (using the term VERY loosely) platform that anyone can develop and publish for. There's no centralized app store.
The things I don't like about it are that WP7 essentially sounds the alarm to developers to stop developing for Windows Mobile 6.5 and below, and the fact that it's a bit slow compared to newer hardware.
Unless Windows Phone 7 makes major, major improvements I'll likely be looking to Android for my next phone.
Hubble, Chandra, Fermi, Kepler, SWIFT.
They're all satellites (though Kepler orbits the sun, not Earth) that are producing exciting science.
And when The James Webb Space telescope goes online, we're expecting to be able to have access to even more exciting data that we simply can't collect with the instruments already up there.
I like the Princess Bride as much as the next guy, but satellites can be exciting too.
Not that I think a space elevator is likely any time soon, but you're assuming a single "you guys".
There are currently several companies in the LEO business in this country. They don't all have the same nose cone issue, one single rocked design of one company does. It's like saying the Japanese can't design a car because of the accelerator peddle nonsense from the past year that plagued Toyota. Free countries are not uniform.
Actually both statements are correct.
Putting windows in and smashing them *is* economically productive. It's a loss to you, but it stimulates the economy.
In the case of this launch, it's also both. It's a loss, because we won't have the primary benefit of the satellite, which is the data it would provide. But it's also stimulative, because much of the money that would have been spent on the project was already spent in building the thing and attempting to launch.
It's a loss but the bright side is that that loss had some economic benefit to the overall economy. Clearly it would have been better had it succeeded though.
Can you back any of this up? Because I don't see any evidence that Jobs gives the company much in the way of highly specific direction.
It seems to me that the iPhone, iPad, iPod, x86 architecture Mac, and countless other things would have happened had Jobs been at the helm or not.
iOS likely would be just as intuitive, and just as locked down Jobs or no Jobs.
I doubt the app store was his idea and his idea alone.
I just don't see why he will make or break the company. Can you be more specific? I'm just speculating, and perhaps I'm wrong.
Same here. I've heard for years "just scroll down". Believe me, I've tried, and not found anything. Perhaps the problems I was searching for were ones that had no answer yet, but it's happened so much, that I suspect it's something else.
"Different content" is the key as far as I'm concerned. The same content can be served via JavaScript rendered HTML with fancy effects, or it can be plain jane static HTML.
So long as the content itself is the same, I wouldn't penalize for it. In fact, I'd argue that if you want to serve content via JavaScript, that using feature detection and falling back to more basic methods if JavaScript (or other features) are not supported by the client would be a good thing. Not just for spiders either.
Yes, exactly. I almost made that point, but then refrained. You said it better than I could have though.
That's just he thing. What is the difference between self-segregation and segregation?
In the case of men and women, if only the men want to segregate, is that okay?
What about if only the women do?
What if both genders want to segregate, but it's not unanimous? Is it majority rule? Unanimous consent?
What defines "Self segregation" for a group of 20,000?
Why is one okay, and not the other?
Segregation is segregation.
Why does one of the groups wanting segregation make it suddenly okay?
You make a solid argument, until you get to the "nature" part.
I agree with the data. Males outperform females in a variety of subjects. SATs support this out. High school data, college data, grad schools, and high tech profession rates all support this. The data is in. Males tend to outperform females.
But I am unaware of any evidence that it's biological in nature. While I can not discount the possibility, you offer no evidence for what I consider quite an extraordinary claim. Is it your assumption, or are you aware of a study to support the claim?
Without data that supports the idea that it's biological, you can't say that it is. It could very well be cultural.
That's an important difference! If it's biological, we basically have to live with the idea that genders are limited in ways we haven't wanted to accept. If it's cultural, than the mantra of "you can do whatever you put your mind to" has more truth to it.
When you say something like "SAT scores support this" you're saying something that's easily provable. Males outperform females. Here are the numbers.
When you say something like "nature agrees with me" you're offering an explanation as to why. But you're not backing it up.
There is a gap.
Why is the gap there? Can we do anything about it? Should we? These are important questions.
There is a point though.
Test scores in school are uneven and have been for many years. Generally, girls do better than boys in a variety of subjects, but most girls fall off a cliff academically about the time they hit puberty. Boys tend to loose interest as well, but the numbers are far less dramatic.
The end result is that in high school and college, males tend to out perform females. This isn't proof that males are more capable, just proof of what they've achieved.
So if you have a pool of males that are (on average) more qualified in math and science than the pool of females entering the work force, why should the numbers match up?
If we want to address the questions of gender inequality in the workforce for technical professions, it needs to start earlier than the workforce. It needs not letting as many girls loose interest in math and science.
I don't know if that's possible, or even desirable. But I do know that if we're going to commit ourselves to the objective of increasing female participation in math, science, engineering, etc., that it's the only sensible, fair way of doing so.
I can only think of a couple examples, but:
1) Men have the right to serve in combat arms capacities in the U.S. Military, and women do not.
2) Women are often given preferential treatment in child custody cases in the legal system.
I'll admit I can't think of any other cases that are formally, or informally supported by government, but shouldn't there be none? Shouldn't gender not come into the equation?
I don't care if my fire department is 80% male, or an infantry unit, or anything else. So long as the qualifications look at ability, and nothing more.
Little Big Planet. But honestly, there's noting else that is interesting to me that's exclusive. I'm not buying a PS3 just for Little Big Planet.
Shameless self promotion: On the 25th anniversary of the disaster, I wrote about Challenger's final mission, how continuing pushing science education can honor the crew's memory..
That said, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Dr. Story Musgrave a couple of years back. He basically sold me on the idea that we need to shelve manned space flight at least for the time being.
The argument in a nutshell is this:
He's one of the most experienced astronauts alive today. He's certainly not anti-manned spaceflight, But he makes a very good point. We're spinning our wheels now. We should continue only when we have a real direction for manned spaceflight. Until then, the science can continue on the robotic side.
Others have called News Corp. Evil, etc. I have no love of Rupert Murdoch, and I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment to a degree, but I think it goes a bit far.
The thing is, that's my opinion. And your opinion. But you have to recognize that not everyone shares it.
That said, I am very, very surprised that Apple is in bed with News Corp. Not because I think Apple should oppose them, or because I think Apple management has any particular political ideology.
But surely Apple must recognize that News Corp. is a terrible mis-match for the large demographic for their shiny toys?
While the iPod / iPhone / iPad demographic has opened up in the past couple years, it's still largely driven by young, wealthy. tech savvy. This demographic trends opposite the direction News Corp has with it's TV and Print Publications in the past.
Unless this is a concerted effort to open up their demographic further, or unless the iPad demo has shifted from that of the iPad / iPod, I don't understand the decision to tie a signature feature to the News Corp brand.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head.
There's we've been conditioned to consider certain things to sound "correct" because of certain almost subliminal noise characteristics. It's a form of nostalgia, really.
It's the same thing with vinyl and the "hiss" and popping sounds that it produces. It's technically inferior, but it sounds *good* on a subjective level.
There's nothing wring with saying you prefer a certain sound, but that doesn't make it "better" or "superior".
This sounds far fetched. I'd say Sagan's Corollary applies here.
Your concerns are justified, but not to the extent you might think.
Also, the F-22 does not represent a "marginal technological advantage", it really is revolutionary. Game changing.
During operational testing and wargames (Northern Edge and Red Flag, that I'm aware of, but possibly others) they'd pit mixed forces of F-22s and F-15s or F-16s against conventional forces without F-22s.
Now, we've all seen the ridiculous kill rations of the F-22. 108:0 in Northern Edge, but what's slightly less well known is this:
These mixed packages of Raptors and Conventional aircraft will typically begin an engagement with the Raptors engaging the aggressor aircraft. The raptors rack up lots of kills, the aggressors rarely score one against the raptors.
But eventually, the inferior numbers of the Raptors means that they'll expend their stores. Out of missiles, they don't just turn and go home, they continue to provide support to their side's conventional fighters. The result is a very lopsided kill ratio. Even when the Raptors don't fire a shot, just having them near by, stealthily providing additional radar data, and pseudo-AWACS support has turned out to be far more helpful than even the most optimistic analysts had predicted.
The results? During that same Northen Edge exercise where the Raptors themselves scored 108 kills against no loss, the team that the Raptors were on had a kill ratio of 241:2.
Here's some more Detail on the Northern Edge engagement:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
At least in wargames. Obviously we have no idea if it will pan out in a shooting war.
So while the cuts to the Raptor program may seem dire, they're not AS bad as they may seem. The Raptor is even useful in limited numbers in conjunction with conventional warplanes.
Another great data point is this great quote form an Aggressor Pilot at Red Flag from a Popular Mechanics story:
Unlike typical U.S. military pilots, the Red Flag and Top Gun instructors do basically nothing but fly (simulated) combat sorties day in and day out. They're among the best of the best when they start the job, and the nature of the job makes them better. If one of them says he can't kill a Raptor in an F-16 unless something exceptional happens, I believe him.
Of course, as you pointed out, there is a threshold in numbers where you have too few to make a difference, or the numbers you do have become over-taxed, but it seems that between the obscene kill ratio of the Raptor, and it's "multiplying factor" for conventional forces that this it's very hard to say how low a number would be ineffective.
No, it makes sense to have a "stalled" category. Look at repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Nothing happened for the first year and a half he was in office. Then progress happened quite rapidly. He didn't break the promise, it passed. But it took a damn long while.
I'd say that that was "stalled" then moved to "Promises Kept".
I'm not sure DADT is the best example for this, but sometimes the political realities mean you can't do things right away.
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, if he said "I'll do X in my first year in office" you can call that broken, perhaps. Though this seems nit-picky to me.
That's all reasonable, and I can agree with all of it, except the end.
We have regulations that regulate nuclear facilities, biological weapons research, and all manner of deeply technical and dangerous stuff. They can't all be "high school graduate" level.
Surely you must realize the reason for this? It may not apply in every case, but it makes sense for an congress to set up a loose framework law that establishes an organization like the FAA, FCC, FDA, or FTC, then give that body the power to regulate with force of law.
When you have an area that is technical, or highly specialized, it makes sense to have our legislators, who are (mostly) not experts in these fields delegate the fine points to an agency staffed with genuine experts.
Also, regulations are much easier to implement and change than laws are. If the FAA wants to change something like the requirements for storage of aviation gas, it has a process it follows, but basically it just does it. It doesn't require a period of debate, and an up or down vote of people that probably doesn't even understand the underlying issues.
It makes sense to have different levels of rules. You put your more important rules at the top and have a higher bar to pass / change or repeal them. Your more technical, specialized, or less critical rules, you put at a lower level, and they're administered by specialists.
I do agree with your point about standards set by private companies having defacto force of law. It seems like a bad idea on the surface. But it still makes sense that if a credible group like NEC has done the work, and it's acknowledged to make sense, and be the gold standard for the area, to just cite it rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Can we please stop pretending that major usability or engineering decisions have anything to do with Apple's CEO?
I am fairly certain that he is paid to run the company, and that Apple pays people to make these kinds of decisions.
Steve Jobs is an executive. He is charismatic and gives presentations for major product launches too. But he doesn't make every trivial decision for every Apple product.
Agreed. Dark Knight replaced the Burton Batman films as my favorite, but the Batmobile didn't seem like the Batmobile - just another of Batman's "wonderful toys".
Read further along (different post in this thread, I think). I am talking about doing exactly that.
The way I see it, the second amendment is ambiguous and troublesome. Regardless if you want to ban guns or keep it, I think the amendment should be repealed and replaced with a more explicit one. If for no other reason than for clarity.
Do we want citizens to be able to bear any arms? (Clearly not, Abrams Tanks should be regulated, but this isn't in the constitution).
Is the purpose of letting citizens bear arms self defense? Defense against government? Simply on the principal that denying the right to arm ones self would encroach on freedoms unnecessarily? What's with the "well regulated militia" bit? These have become important questions that are not addressed.
Again, I lean toward the guns do more harm than good side. That said, I'm not explicitly taking sides in ban vs. allowing guns. I'm simply saying that the second amendment is unnecessarily contentious, we have a constitutional process to fix it.