Oh, I agree. I paid cash for mine, and it translates into much higher monthly deposits to a savings account.
Of course, I spoke about interest rates because the vast majority of people DO finance auto purchases. I sold cars for a summer during college, and I think maybe 10% (probably less) of the sales were cash. Of course, that's localized to the area in which I worked, but still...
Like I said, the US automakers' use of big incentives and 0% interest at random intervals kills their resale market, and indirectly kills their retail market.
The car example cited in this article (Toyota with $850 of incentives per car vs. US car manufacturers with $3K average) is a perfect example of why US automakers are so very, very screwed.
No matter how much Consumer Reports et al. say the reliability has improved, and no matter how much the US makers craft intriguing and unique new offerings, their cars' value will continue to tank.
Sure, all cars lose value the minute they're driven off the lot, and it's a substantial number. But go take a look at what happens to a Civic or Camry versus what happens to a Fusion/Taurus or Malibu. Go ahead, check it out. It's awful.
I bought a new Scion tC last year. I was all primed to buy a used carwith ~35K miles; it makes sense to let someone else take the financial hit. Then I looked at the prices on used Scions, used Civics, etc. $17K cars were selling for $14K after three years. It made absolutely no sense to go buy a three year old car with a nearly-expired warranty and a possibly shady maintenance record when $3K got me a brand new one. On top of that, I was paying cash; the price difference is narrowed even more if you're financing, because the used car will almost certainly have a higher APR.
Now contrast this with a Ford Focus or Chevy Cobalt or similar. Go look at the similar models, and marvel at how much more has bled off of the value; it's because the $17K Ford, depending on when you catch it, might be only $15K, and might have a 7% or a 0% APR. It's great in the short term, and if I was interested in a Focus I'd be all over it.
Ultimately, if I was buying this car to drive it into the ground and toss it at 300K miles, it would be smarter to buy the Ford (assuming the reliability was the same, which isn't really the case with the Focus). Most people, myself included, don't do that. They get rid of the car in the 80K to 120K range, when it's starting to show some age but before it might potentially require major repairs. And many people look at how the US automakers have played their "SUPER LOW 72 MONTHS 0%! $3,000 CASH BACK" games and they walk across the street to the guys who might charge a bit more, but won't slash their prices next week. All things being equal, a Camry with the same MSRP as a Malibu or Fusion will resell for more at every step in its life, and it's because Toyota has shown that they're going to hand out approximately the same deal to everyone.
I want to buy American, or at least be able to widen my prospects when looking at cars. I really do. If I were willing to drive cars into the dirt, I could probably do it, but I'm not comfortable with the risks near the end of the car's life. A $2,000 engine repair does make better financial sense than buying a new car, but not when your car won't start, and you have to get a rental for a week, and you're wondering if it will be okay for another year or will require a new transmission in four months. So, like most people, I sell mine before I think those problems will show. As long as the US automakers are willing to go "Crazy Eddie" and reap the short-term profits, though, they'll continue to lose out on long-term buyers like me. I sincerely hope other industries are willing to look at Ford, GM, and Chrysler's experience when they think that it's a good idea to slash their prices.
I'm sure they do occasionally block the restructures, which is why the solutions to failing schools don't always stretch as far as they should.
Teachers' unions get brought up a lot in educational arguments, but most people ignore the fact that in many parts of the country the unions are powerless.
Teachers' unions are powerful in states where unions in general still have power: The northwest and the heavy manufacturing states. In other states, though, they're really nothing more than professional organizations. I belong to a union, ATPE (The Association of Texas Professional Educators). I don't really agree with a lot of what they do, but they are the cheapest way to get professional liability insurance. For $130 a year I get $4 million of protection and $20,000 of legal fees paid. Beyond that, ATPE is nothing more than a PAC at the state level. The hallowed "tenure" that gets brought up so often in discussion just consists of a slightly different type of contact. During the first two to four years at a school, a principal can elect not to renew your contract for any reason at all. After that time, you're placed on a more stable contract where the principal has to show a decent reason to not renew (usually, poor appraisals two years in a row, with immediate suspension or dismissal for serious crimes).
I won't deny that the unions are much, much more powerful in, say, New York or Detroit, though. I can tell you that an elementary school in Galveston, TX went through a radical restructure either last year or the year before for failing to meet a bunch of standards (not just AYP). 90% of the staff was fired, and only the teachers who had demonstrated progress in their classes stuck around. A couple of schools in Houston ISD have been restructured as charter schools, and I can name probably 10 high schools in the Houston area that are "schools of choice." I don't know how well teachers' unions do in other states, but they're not blocking the federal measures in Texas.
CompleatGentleman already said it better than I could: those kids don't necessarily get a better education. 5 or 10 ESL students failing to pass an English test doesn't mean that the school is sub-par in any way, shape, or form. The institution they're being bussed off to isn't necessarily any better, and as an added incentive, thousands of dollars that could be used for GT/AP/IB programs or helping those ESL students is instead spent on school buses to ship kids around a district. You can watch a relatively minor problem snowball into a huge one because of the way this is implemented, and it happens a lot more often that you'd think.
When a school is bad, it isn't a single sub-population dragging it down; you see it across the board and in areas other than AYP (graduation and overall test success rates, for example.) I'm not opposed to shipping kids out in that kind of a situation; it means a school really has slipped into unacceptable territory. For a fraction of a percent of the school to allow such actions to take place, though, is pretty ridiculous.
Your response is correct, but the Time article doesn't appear to address the reason. Most people are familiar with the phrase "No Child Left Behind," but don't actually understand how it works.
AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is a factor in the ranking of school systems. Specifically, it was designed to expose the fact that many school had masked the few poor performers with the majority of successful students.
What it effectively means is that all "sub-populations" (broken by ethnic groups, ESL/Limited English Proficiency, "at-risk," and low-income, among others) must demonstrate "adequate yearly progress." It's designed to even be a bit forgiving - the low-income group doesn't necessarily have to pass, they just have to have improved a reasonable amount from the year before. A subpopulation counts if it is 1% of the school population or 30 kids (IIRC).
If a school fails to meet AYP for two years in a row, they become a "school of choice." Parents may now choose to pull their students from that school and send them to another one, and the failing school will pay for transportation. I'm not sure how it works out in small, rural districts where a given high school is the only one in the district.
Once a school fails in AYP, kids start getting pulled. The kids who get pulled are the ones who have parents who care about education; that usually translates to the kids who do well in a school being pulled from it. You can see how much this would impact a school.
If a school fails to meet AYP for five years in a row, a radical restructuring is due; this generally means that large amounts of the staff need to be fired, or the school should be converted to a charter school or something similar. In practice, though, the actual actions at this stage usually aren't as substantial.
With the background out of the way, it's fairly easy to see why geniuses don't matter: they'll pass the test. Five or ten ESL students (or low-income, or at-risk, or whatever) can make or break a school of 3000. With the way the NCLB program has structured AYP, it should be obvious where a principal/district would focus resources.
I'm not arguing that schools don't need monitoring; they do, no doubt. But if this system sounds ridiculous to you, please do all of us a favor and let your elected officials know.
Patent disputes are settled in Federal court. Although there are a few situations where a state court might end up addressing a patent, any case that may not have been settled correctly will ultimately end up in Federal court on appeal (specifically the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).
Federal judges are appointed, not elected. I'm blanking on if Federal Circuit judges undergo Senate confirmation; I think D.C. circuit judges are the only ones in the appellate courts who avoid it, but I can't remember for sure. So in addition to being appointed and not elected, those judges have to face scrutiny by at least some Senators who are not at all fond of the president who appointed the judge.
Once appointed, they can't be removed unless impeached, and their pay can't be reduced. They have no mandatory age for retirement. They can, in short, operate with complete autonomy, and every step of their career ladder is designed to isolate them from "corporate masters" and the fickle desires of the public.
I'm not really certain where the systemic corruption would come from. I suppose a judge could be bribed, but that would ignore the fact that by taking a federal position, judges have already acknowledged that money isn't an issue. Federal judges get a good but not great salary; it's a position for succesful attorneys who have already made their fortune (or at least the fortune they're happy with). Federal judge positions are about the power and the prestige; any federal judge who wants money needn't hassle with bribes because there are plenty of firms who would triple or quadruple that judges salary if he or she went back to the private sector. This is in addition to the fact that they face no political pressure regarding their employment.
Yeah, I'd take the judge over the jury any day of the week.
I know you're partially joking, but yes, they do still use floppies. The district provides them space on a file server that's accessible from any school in the district. I've tried explaining the idea of emailing something home for the non-techies and I advocate getting a $10 USB flash drive at the beginning of the school year, but they still insist on bringing floppies.
On the plus side, I'm never hurting for disks for BIOS flashes; at the end of any year, I will have a stack of 20 or so floppies that the kids left behind.
That should be I would feel no less confident in a Computer Applications teacher who didn't recognize a SQL query than I would in one who couldn't mix in Audacity, texture in 3DS Max, or create an elevation drawing in a CAD program.
I wouldn't deny that the geeks know more about particular computing topics than than a random Computer Lit. or equivalent teacher.
I wouldn't hold any teacher of an Applications-focused class in contempt for not recognizing a SQL query - it has no bounds on their job whatsoever. Nor would I find it "wrong" if a student in the class could explain recursion and the teacher couldn't. Most courses that function as Computer Literacy or similar have as their focus 1) teach about the basics of computer hardware and the internet, 2) teach about the basics of OS usage/file management, and 3) teach how to perform common tasks that most computer users have a use for.
Every unit I work through asks kids to do something that they might legitimately do in school or life as an average person. My spreadsheet unit culminates in them producing a household budget based on jobs they "draw" at the beginning of class. My word processing unit quickly covers the basics and then focuses on advanced ideas such as macros/autoComplete/mail merges that are actually of use to a lot of people.
Databases just don't have a place for the average person. Sure, I can contrive an example problem like, say, a wedding guest list, but it would be a contrived example. It's less a Spanish teacher not speaking the language than it is a History teacher who isn't as big of a Civil War nerd as a given student.
I encourage the budding geeks to take computer science in my school because I know they have very little to learn from my class and bored kids are a bad idea all around. That said, I would feel less confident in a Computer Applications teacher who didn't recognize a SQL query than I would in one who couldn't mix in Audacity, texture in 3DS Max, or create an elevation drawing in a CAD program.
In addition to a 3DS Max course, I teach computer applications at the high school level. It, along with a few other courses (one called Business Computer Information Systems, Computer Science, and some specialized graphics courses) satisfy the state requirement for one year of computer credits. Those state level requirements are prescribed by the state, and are based on teaching certain concepts within a given type of program. Thus, we aren't told to "teach Word;" rather, we're told that any child passing our class should be able to do functions X, Y, and Z in a word processor. My course spends one semester on computer hardware and MS Office, and the subsequent semester on web design using HTML code and WYSIWYG editors, photo editing in Photoshop, and some simple animation in Flash. For an assortment of reasons, some which I support and some which I don't, nearly all of our software is closed-source. I say this only to provide a standard to analyze your statement:
The vast majority kids are not "computer literate" in any functional sense of the word. Honestly, this makes them much like the vast majority of adults, so it's no real surprise. When children (14-18) enter my class, they understand the mere basics of certain programs - thy understand how to instant message, but not necessarily how to uninstall an IM program. They know that some web-based proxy sites can't get around the myspace filter, but they don't understand what's going on or why it would be easier to type in a proxy server address for their browser. They don't understand the first thing about basic file management, or why naming files with descriptive names is a good idea, or why their Powerpoint presentation that's laden with images and sound won't fit on a floppy disk. And they really, really don't understand that a spreadsheet has uses beyond making tables of stuff, that the word "memory" can have different meanings, why their computer is "running slow", or that the concept of mail merge even exists.
In short, they are exactly like most non-techies that you probably interact with on a daily basis. To say that the people teaching the classes don't know anymore is pretty absurd; I'll grant that there are bad teachers, but it honestly isn't that hard to know more than the average person. In my experience, the people who teach these courses (at least the ones I've met) seem intelligent and experienced enough that they certainly have plenty to teach. They may not be "running apache under Gentoo on their toaster" geeks, but they're educated and intelligent, and (most importantly) they know their material.
At my school, the 10% who are geeks or gunning for extra GPA take our Computer Science AP course. The rest end up in my course or one of the similar ones. I assure you: most kids are not computer literate, and I truly believe they do benefit from some useful computer education.
Am I missing something here?
on
Project Arcade
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The author of this review asks, "What if you just want to convert an old (non-working, I hope) cabinet into a MAME arcade cabinet? Lots of information is out there, but where do you start?" Based on the review, the book seems to focus a lot on making your own replica cabinet from scratch.
If you want to build a cabinet from scratch, it sounds like this would be a fine book. If you want to convert an old cabinet, there are much easier solutions. Ultimarc, for example, produces several products that convert standard JAMMA interfaces to PC keyboard and video connections. JAMMA is the standard that arose to allow for easily changing games out in arcade cabinets.
I ultimately ended up with a HotRodSE connected to a home theater computer because I didn't have the space for a dedicated cabinet. Ultimarc's products, though, appear to allow for the joystick and buttons on a JAMMA cabinet to connect to a PS/2 interface and for the video connector to hook to VGA (refresh and resolutions on arcade machines are different from standard computer modes). They even sell an AGP or PCIe video card that appears to have a special RAMDAC so that you don't have to screw around with getting the weird video modes working.
I've never used Ultimarc's stuff, so I have no idea how well it would work. Assuming it's decent, the formula would be pretty simple: find an older Street Fighter cabinet in decent shape (functioning buttons and non-burned screen). They have six-button configs, which seems to be the most buttons used for the majority of games, thus saving you from having to cut holes for new buttons. Street Fighter was also ridiculously common but is old enough that you should be able to get the cabinet for a few hundred dollars if you're in/near a big city. Pull the board, plop in a computer, wire a couple of adapters, spend some time on a nice front end, and it shouldn't be too much work to have a functional MAME cabinet.
But this is for the whole US, and buying power varies greatly. $170K in Kansas and $170K in NYC are very, very different. Especially when you start considering that progressive taxes further reduce the $170K vs. $55K, and that higher cost of living areas (NYC, SoCal, Chicago, etc.) often have higher taxes to go along with the higher cost of living.
The problem is that grouping the whole US ignores the cost of living in each area.
For comparison: In Houston, teachers make about $42K to start in most of the districts. A 2000 sq. ft. starter home in the 'burbs runs about $130K. Last time I checked, several California districts were paying $70K to start, but the median home in CA is $550K. This is on top of the higher total cost of living (food, gasoline, taxes, etc.) It is no trouble to get on the property ladder with $55K in some parts of the country, and virtually impossible in others. $170K might seem to be pushing the definition, but it would definitely fall squarely in the middle class in some places.
I have read several places that the iMac card is physically the correct size (specifically, it's a Type II card); it won't work for the exact reason I specified: the boot ROM for every MXM card I know of is built for a machine with a BIOS, not EFI. It's the same reason an AGP GeForce 2 didn't work in old G4 Macs - the initial steps at boot are different. In those cases, some of the cards could actually be flashed with a different boot ROM image and work perfectly well. If one of the third party CPU companies - the ones that sell G4 upgrade cards - wanted to, they could pretty easily whip up an MXM module for the iMac, because the physical constraints are not the issue. It's just a software problem at this point (and the not-so-minor fact that the current iMac's MXM module is innacessible.
Possibly. The current 24" iMac uses an optional NVidia 7600GT MXM card (I'm not sure if the base-model 7300GT is also an MXM unit). MXM is NVidia's Portable PCI-Express video card system which is designed to be user-upgradeable. All MXM cards should fit in all MXM systems. Drivers could be an issue depending on how "universal" NVidia's OS X drivers are, and for now, the lack of EFI in the PC laptop world means that NVidia themselves or one of the old third-party Apple hardware companies would have to produce the unit. It is a step in the right direction, though. Apple did explicitly add MXM support for that iMac, and thus they have allowed for some video upgradeability in the future on 24" iMacs.
Given that even the 17" iMac will still likely offer as much if not more space than a 17" notebook, the use of an MXM module (or ATI's comparable product) in the future seems quite possible, especially when you consider that the 24" iMac didn't show up until well after the 17" and 20" models, which may have allowed Apple the extra time to go back and add some additional features..
Fun Fact: There is actually a nudity-free version of Playboy that universities and major libraries often subscribe to and keep in their periodical archives. Although you're obviously making a commentary on the artificial models, you really can read it "just for the articles."
Not only that, but they aren't direct competitors, at least not in an abstract sense. Gates and Jobs both touch on this idea during part 2 of the interview, but they both hesitate to come out and say it.
Apple sells to consumers; Microsoft sells to businesses. I don't mean this in the sense that Microsoft products are in use at more businesses, but rather in the sense that MS sells to HP, Dell, Toshiba, etc.
Think about it. The largest purchasers of Windows and Office (to a lesser extent) are the big OEMs. Now, granted, HP needs Windows because HP's customers want it. Dell needs Office licenses because its customers want it. Microsoft has succeeded in producing a product that they can more effectively market to what are, in essence, resellers. It gets even more extreme when Bill talks about the number of Windows Mobile devices (140-some) and the robotics field, where the demand for the software starts to take on even less importance than the actual product being sold. Does Windows Mobile have some features that Symbian or something similar doesn't? Honestly, I don't know; I'd wager that a lot of people look even more at the features on those less entrenched interfaces than the desktop OS, where the end user demands the interface they "know." Microsoft is trying to sell Windows Mobile to BMW for their Nav/audio/phone interface, not to the BMW driver who might be interested in those products.
In essence, although those fields are still only a small slice of the pie, they are building more and more toward the direction that originally brought MS success in the PC market - a commodity interface that cold be adapted to a large subset of products. While it may not be their actual goal with this strategy, MS has diversified to the point that if the thin-client/dumb terminal/web apps world ever arrives, they do have a wide variety of products that do not require the use of an x86 processor to be successful.
By contrast, Apple sells their products to the consumer. Apple is not out developing custom version of OS X to run on anyone's PDA - they just drop their own PDA/phone hybrid with what they think the customer wants. Apple isn't developing a DRM/music sales/audio player interface platform, they're selling us a variety of iPods and the accompanying software based on what they think we want. Apple isn't trying to produce a TV-interface targetted OS that can be deployed on a wide variety of hardware, they're selling their own, homebaked product with what they think the end user wants. And consistently, Apple has shown the world that they know what we want better than most of us know what we want.
Although they may seem like direct competitors now (and they definitely are), their paths are diverging. If the PC world continues the way it has, Microsoft will continue to make the bulk of their sales to OEMs, using an OS that's acceptable if not spectacular, that does what we want without too much hassle, at a price that's cheap enough in most cases to keep them on top. Apple will continue selling the tightly integrated software with features that soon become standard requirements, making their profit off of hardware sales. Microsoft will continue to power the bulk of the desktop/laptop world with a product that works well enough, and Apple will continue to grow by making new realms of technology useable enough to the average person that they dominate markets created by smaller and less-funded companies.
And if the PC world doesn't continue as it is? The paths will just diverge that much more. If the thin client world comes to pass, you may see Microsoft much less dominant in the OS world, and much more like the Suns and Oracles of the world that trigger more ready recognition among CIOs and admins than the average consumer. MS will power a lot of the thin clients, sure, but they'll also push further into the embeeded markets as cost of hardware becomes outweighed more and more by cost of development/maintenance and Windows Mobile (or whatever they call it then) becomes a more acceptable competitor in the embedded realm. And Apple will be there too, of course, selling the consumer the thin client he wants, even if he never knew he wanted a thin client that looked and acted this way.
For the price of some of those ridiculous I.C.E. systems, you can just throw in an Alpine Full-Speed compatible deck. The cheapest deck with iPod control capability runs about $120, and the iPod cable is $30. You get direct control over the ipod from the deck - the volume knob acts like the scroll wheel to move through menus and songs. The interface isn't exactly "iPod screen in your dash," but it's pretty decent on its own. Plus, it interfaces through the dock connector and powers/charges your iPod while it's connected. On top of that, even the cheap Alpine deck probably has much better internal components than your factory deck, so it might sound a little better (although that's going to be hindered by the crappy paper speakers your car came with).
The only situation where it doesn't work well is if you have steering wheel audio controls or a navigation system with audio interface, but otherwise, I've been very happy with my Alpine setup.
Not at all. If HR departments decide that they want to hire a woman for a particular job, though, then they've already selected a smaller applicant pool.
On the other hand, I would think the same extra perks that would attract women to a job are also likely to attract a man to that same job.
Of course they are. I simply read this article as less of a "How to recruit a good IT worker" and more of a "How to recruit a good female IT worker." If HR is looking for a worker of indeterminate gender, then it makes logical sense to choose the one who will do the best job for the least amount of money. If HR is looking to hire a woman, then we're already dealing with a smaller labor pool, and HR is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as the rest of us. If your stated goal is to hire a woman to fill a position, as this article seems to assume, then you need to be aware of a what women as a whole do and don't value in a job. While your particular applicant might not fit that bill, it's better to go off of data that suggests what she may want rather than flying blind in the situation. According to this particular study, it's a really mixed bag in terms of what women are looking for in IT careers, so I guess it would be best to save the "Things we offer" section for after you've ascertained what an applicant is looking for.
While I'd certainly grant you that sexual stereotyping has a little to do with some of the jobs (police officers, for example), I'm going to have to ask that you seriously rethink your standing here. You are making the 1960's GI Joe vs. Barbie argument all over again, and it's one that's been repeatedly disproven.
If there's anything wrong with my argument regarding dangerous jobs, it's related to the fact that many of those jobs (construction, commercial fishing) are physically demanding enough that they do bias themselves toward men. The time spent in work, though, bears out the record. As a section of the work force, full-time employed men spend more time at work than women; about 8 hours more per week depending on the study criteria. Socially, women are still expected to do more of the work at home, and they are thus more likely to seek out jobs that allow them to do so.
Wide-sweeping generalizations work in this situation because they are wide-sweeping. We're talking about entire sections of the population here, not your sister, neighbor, friend, or self (if you're a woman). My wife works more hours per week than I do, but the demographics bear out exactly what I'm saying. Women are more likely to spend more time at home than men; they are also more likely to seek out jobs that enable them to do so. Couple that with the lack of a stigma for working fewer hours, and you've set up a sweeping generalization that works because *gasp* it's backed up by numbers. It's not a negative "women are lazy" statement by any stretch - their efforts are just focused in other areas. Again, before you start claiming that these are bullshit reasons or stereotyping, please go take a cursory glance at any sociology textbook or labor study.
When we speak about the genders as a whole, men and women communicate in entirely different ways, they crave different things from certain situations, they assert control in different ways, and they manage conflicts in different ways. Men and women are different in ways other than the obvious external characteristics. Is it really that hard to fathom that they desire different things out of their respective careers?
The US DoL has also found in several studies that, when analyzed properly, that pay gap does not exist. That is, women do get paid less, on the whole, than men. Women are more likely to take part-time jobs, more likely to work shorter hours, more likely to leave the workforce for an extended period of time, and less likely to correctly gauge their own value when asking for initial salaries or raises. On top of that, the jobs traditionally held by women (teacher, nurse) are only now starting to have pay levels that are commensurate with the education level. When analyzing a man and a woman who do an identical job, though, the pay is equal.
You see those 20-30% claims pop up every few years because it makes for a good way to get a grant in research and a good headline for rights groups.
Unlike men, who apparently only have a single value and motivation for choosing their career.
While that's not quite true, it's far more accurate when describing a man than a woman. Socially, men are judged and measured by their occupation and potential as a provider. If a man works a laid-back, 25 hour a week part-time job because his spouse allows him to do so, he's a lazy bum; for a woman, it's a perfectly acceptable decision as far as society is concerned (although how an individual woman feels about it is up to her).
Far and above all other standards, men want a decent salary and job security, and they're willing to put up with a lot of crap to get it. According to Department of Labor statistics, for example, 90% of on-the-job deaths are men, and men work more hours both in fullt-ime and part-time jobs than women; Men will take the dangerous, filthy, and more time-intensive jobs because of the extra pay associated with them.
Women certainly value good pay and stability, and this study isn't questioning that. Rather, it is saying that opening a book and saying, "Look ladies, we have good pay and stability" isn't the deal maker that it is for men. Socially, women can afford (more than men) to demand additional perks from a job. We're all familiar with the list: flexible hours, jobs that focus more on interpersonal communication, etc. Again, a total generalization but true when looked at as a total generalization.
In essence: if you are an HR manager, part of your job is to bring in diverse employees. The reasons for that are certainly debatable, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be as big of a deal as some make it out to be. But if you are an HR manager, and if you are attempting to recruit more women, you should probably rethink your sales pitch.
And that pretty much sums it up. Other than the DRM issues, HDMI is a solid interface (which is, of course, like the old joke about "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?").
A combination of DVI plus audio was pretty much a foregone conclusion. DVI had taken over the computer world in the monitor interface department, and it's competitors are fewer and fewer these days. Allowing for easier connection of computers and computer-like media devices was becoming more and more important, and DVI was there and ready. The myriad of pins on the DVI connection make for a chunky connection, which is a bigger problem on TV gear than on a computer, so a shrinking of the interface is logical.
Other than a more secure attachment method (latch? Thumbscrews?), HDMI is a decent interface: 1080p (and beyond) capable, 48-bit color in the latest version, and enough bandwidth for the newer audio signals. Sure, there are problems past 50 or 60 ft. runs, but those honestly comprise such a tiny amount of installs that it shouldn't be a primary concern for any consumer video interface. 50 Ft. is more than enough for a pretty nice projector install; if you need more than that, cost likely isn't a huge factor and an inline repeater shouldn't be a big deal.
No, it's the DRM that causes issues with the handshake when switching signals. It's the DRM that will make us eventually change out a perfectly good videocard if we want the Hi-Def formats. It's the DRM that complicates what would be simple external switch boxes. It would have been nice to see HDMI evolve along with component as the high-end, easier hook-up alternative, but instead component is being dropped because of the "analog hole" problem that makes all but the industry big wigs laugh.
No, the cat's out of the bag - HDMI is here to stay, and other than the current DRM issues, it's a pretty decent interface. My wish for the future would be something similar to what firewire was supposed to be: every box with an "in" and an "out" interface, strung along in a SCSI-like chain from A to B to C to TV. Or some miracle 10gbps wireless that's reliable enough for this type of situation. Here's hoping.
You left out getting rid of the berry flesh and roasting the beans in your foraging process, but I'll assume it was part of the fun smarminess. Also, percolators have been around for a hell of a lot longer than your grandparents, at least in the western world.
Finally, having once tasted "coffee" made in that manner, I stand by my assertion - you can't make coffee using just a kettle (and I'm not a coffee snob at all; I'll usually just tolerate the stuff).
To close a two-day discussion on coffee, I'll wrap around to my original point: coffee is not intended to be served at 185 degrees, period. There is absolutely no logical reason to serve it at that temperature unless you just made it yourself and are running out the door with it in a travel cup. The GP doesn't understand why McDonald's got busted for it, and even defended serving 185F liquid in a flimsy-ass styrofoam cup. Simply put: Coffee is intended to be consumed somewhere around 140 degrees. Styrofoam is a good insulator, and will prevent that coffee from cooling effectively. Most of the mechanisms involved in *sigh* MODERN coffee production are designed to allow the boiling water that produces the flavor to cool before reaching your mouth. The case has been hashed out all over the internet and the vast majority completely agree with me: McDonald's had no business giving her coffee at that temperature, even if she was foolish enough to rest it in her crotch.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree. I paid cash for mine, and it translates into much higher monthly deposits to a savings account.
Of course, I spoke about interest rates because the vast majority of people DO finance auto purchases. I sold cars for a summer during college, and I think maybe 10% (probably less) of the sales were cash. Of course, that's localized to the area in which I worked, but still...
Like I said, the US automakers' use of big incentives and 0% interest at random intervals kills their resale market, and indirectly kills their retail market.
The car example cited in this article (Toyota with $850 of incentives per car vs. US car manufacturers with $3K average) is a perfect example of why US automakers are so very, very screwed.
No matter how much Consumer Reports et al. say the reliability has improved, and no matter how much the US makers craft intriguing and unique new offerings, their cars' value will continue to tank.
Sure, all cars lose value the minute they're driven off the lot, and it's a substantial number. But go take a look at what happens to a Civic or Camry versus what happens to a Fusion/Taurus or Malibu. Go ahead, check it out. It's awful.
I bought a new Scion tC last year. I was all primed to buy a used carwith ~35K miles; it makes sense to let someone else take the financial hit. Then I looked at the prices on used Scions, used Civics, etc. $17K cars were selling for $14K after three years. It made absolutely no sense to go buy a three year old car with a nearly-expired warranty and a possibly shady maintenance record when $3K got me a brand new one. On top of that, I was paying cash; the price difference is narrowed even more if you're financing, because the used car will almost certainly have a higher APR.
Now contrast this with a Ford Focus or Chevy Cobalt or similar. Go look at the similar models, and marvel at how much more has bled off of the value; it's because the $17K Ford, depending on when you catch it, might be only $15K, and might have a 7% or a 0% APR. It's great in the short term, and if I was interested in a Focus I'd be all over it.
Ultimately, if I was buying this car to drive it into the ground and toss it at 300K miles, it would be smarter to buy the Ford (assuming the reliability was the same, which isn't really the case with the Focus). Most people, myself included, don't do that. They get rid of the car in the 80K to 120K range, when it's starting to show some age but before it might potentially require major repairs. And many people look at how the US automakers have played their "SUPER LOW 72 MONTHS 0%! $3,000 CASH BACK" games and they walk across the street to the guys who might charge a bit more, but won't slash their prices next week. All things being equal, a Camry with the same MSRP as a Malibu or Fusion will resell for more at every step in its life, and it's because Toyota has shown that they're going to hand out approximately the same deal to everyone.
I want to buy American, or at least be able to widen my prospects when looking at cars. I really do. If I were willing to drive cars into the dirt, I could probably do it, but I'm not comfortable with the risks near the end of the car's life. A $2,000 engine repair does make better financial sense than buying a new car, but not when your car won't start, and you have to get a rental for a week, and you're wondering if it will be okay for another year or will require a new transmission in four months. So, like most people, I sell mine before I think those problems will show. As long as the US automakers are willing to go "Crazy Eddie" and reap the short-term profits, though, they'll continue to lose out on long-term buyers like me. I sincerely hope other industries are willing to look at Ford, GM, and Chrysler's experience when they think that it's a good idea to slash their prices.
I'm sure they do occasionally block the restructures, which is why the solutions to failing schools don't always stretch as far as they should.
Teachers' unions get brought up a lot in educational arguments, but most people ignore the fact that in many parts of the country the unions are powerless.
Teachers' unions are powerful in states where unions in general still have power: The northwest and the heavy manufacturing states. In other states, though, they're really nothing more than professional organizations. I belong to a union, ATPE (The Association of Texas Professional Educators). I don't really agree with a lot of what they do, but they are the cheapest way to get professional liability insurance. For $130 a year I get $4 million of protection and $20,000 of legal fees paid. Beyond that, ATPE is nothing more than a PAC at the state level. The hallowed "tenure" that gets brought up so often in discussion just consists of a slightly different type of contact. During the first two to four years at a school, a principal can elect not to renew your contract for any reason at all. After that time, you're placed on a more stable contract where the principal has to show a decent reason to not renew (usually, poor appraisals two years in a row, with immediate suspension or dismissal for serious crimes).
I won't deny that the unions are much, much more powerful in, say, New York or Detroit, though. I can tell you that an elementary school in Galveston, TX went through a radical restructure either last year or the year before for failing to meet a bunch of standards (not just AYP). 90% of the staff was fired, and only the teachers who had demonstrated progress in their classes stuck around. A couple of schools in Houston ISD have been restructured as charter schools, and I can name probably 10 high schools in the Houston area that are "schools of choice." I don't know how well teachers' unions do in other states, but they're not blocking the federal measures in Texas.
CompleatGentleman already said it better than I could: those kids don't necessarily get a better education. 5 or 10 ESL students failing to pass an English test doesn't mean that the school is sub-par in any way, shape, or form. The institution they're being bussed off to isn't necessarily any better, and as an added incentive, thousands of dollars that could be used for GT/AP/IB programs or helping those ESL students is instead spent on school buses to ship kids around a district. You can watch a relatively minor problem snowball into a huge one because of the way this is implemented, and it happens a lot more often that you'd think.
When a school is bad, it isn't a single sub-population dragging it down; you see it across the board and in areas other than AYP (graduation and overall test success rates, for example.) I'm not opposed to shipping kids out in that kind of a situation; it means a school really has slipped into unacceptable territory. For a fraction of a percent of the school to allow such actions to take place, though, is pretty ridiculous.
Your response is correct, but the Time article doesn't appear to address the reason. Most people are familiar with the phrase "No Child Left Behind," but don't actually understand how it works.
AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is a factor in the ranking of school systems. Specifically, it was designed to expose the fact that many school had masked the few poor performers with the majority of successful students.
What it effectively means is that all "sub-populations" (broken by ethnic groups, ESL/Limited English Proficiency, "at-risk," and low-income, among others) must demonstrate "adequate yearly progress." It's designed to even be a bit forgiving - the low-income group doesn't necessarily have to pass, they just have to have improved a reasonable amount from the year before. A subpopulation counts if it is 1% of the school population or 30 kids (IIRC).
If a school fails to meet AYP for two years in a row, they become a "school of choice." Parents may now choose to pull their students from that school and send them to another one, and the failing school will pay for transportation. I'm not sure how it works out in small, rural districts where a given high school is the only one in the district.
Once a school fails in AYP, kids start getting pulled. The kids who get pulled are the ones who have parents who care about education; that usually translates to the kids who do well in a school being pulled from it. You can see how much this would impact a school.
If a school fails to meet AYP for five years in a row, a radical restructuring is due; this generally means that large amounts of the staff need to be fired, or the school should be converted to a charter school or something similar. In practice, though, the actual actions at this stage usually aren't as substantial.
With the background out of the way, it's fairly easy to see why geniuses don't matter: they'll pass the test. Five or ten ESL students (or low-income, or at-risk, or whatever) can make or break a school of 3000. With the way the NCLB program has structured AYP, it should be obvious where a principal/district would focus resources.
I'm not arguing that schools don't need monitoring; they do, no doubt. But if this system sounds ridiculous to you, please do all of us a favor and let your elected officials know.
Patent disputes are settled in Federal court. Although there are a few situations where a state court might end up addressing a patent, any case that may not have been settled correctly will ultimately end up in Federal court on appeal (specifically the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).
Federal judges are appointed, not elected. I'm blanking on if Federal Circuit judges undergo Senate confirmation; I think D.C. circuit judges are the only ones in the appellate courts who avoid it, but I can't remember for sure. So in addition to being appointed and not elected, those judges have to face scrutiny by at least some Senators who are not at all fond of the president who appointed the judge.
Once appointed, they can't be removed unless impeached, and their pay can't be reduced. They have no mandatory age for retirement. They can, in short, operate with complete autonomy, and every step of their career ladder is designed to isolate them from "corporate masters" and the fickle desires of the public.
I'm not really certain where the systemic corruption would come from. I suppose a judge could be bribed, but that would ignore the fact that by taking a federal position, judges have already acknowledged that money isn't an issue. Federal judges get a good but not great salary; it's a position for succesful attorneys who have already made their fortune (or at least the fortune they're happy with). Federal judge positions are about the power and the prestige; any federal judge who wants money needn't hassle with bribes because there are plenty of firms who would triple or quadruple that judges salary if he or she went back to the private sector. This is in addition to the fact that they face no political pressure regarding their employment.
Yeah, I'd take the judge over the jury any day of the week.
I know you're partially joking, but yes, they do still use floppies. The district provides them space on a file server that's accessible from any school in the district. I've tried explaining the idea of emailing something home for the non-techies and I advocate getting a $10 USB flash drive at the beginning of the school year, but they still insist on bringing floppies.
On the plus side, I'm never hurting for disks for BIOS flashes; at the end of any year, I will have a stack of 20 or so floppies that the kids left behind.
That should be I would feel no less confident in a Computer Applications teacher who didn't recognize a SQL query than I would in one who couldn't mix in Audacity, texture in 3DS Max, or create an elevation drawing in a CAD program.
Whoops! Use the preview!
I wouldn't deny that the geeks know more about particular computing topics than than a random Computer Lit. or equivalent teacher.
I wouldn't hold any teacher of an Applications-focused class in contempt for not recognizing a SQL query - it has no bounds on their job whatsoever. Nor would I find it "wrong" if a student in the class could explain recursion and the teacher couldn't. Most courses that function as Computer Literacy or similar have as their focus 1) teach about the basics of computer hardware and the internet, 2) teach about the basics of OS usage/file management, and 3) teach how to perform common tasks that most computer users have a use for.
Every unit I work through asks kids to do something that they might legitimately do in school or life as an average person. My spreadsheet unit culminates in them producing a household budget based on jobs they "draw" at the beginning of class. My word processing unit quickly covers the basics and then focuses on advanced ideas such as macros/autoComplete/mail merges that are actually of use to a lot of people.
Databases just don't have a place for the average person. Sure, I can contrive an example problem like, say, a wedding guest list, but it would be a contrived example. It's less a Spanish teacher not speaking the language than it is a History teacher who isn't as big of a Civil War nerd as a given student.
I encourage the budding geeks to take computer science in my school because I know they have very little to learn from my class and bored kids are a bad idea all around. That said, I would feel less confident in a Computer Applications teacher who didn't recognize a SQL query than I would in one who couldn't mix in Audacity, texture in 3DS Max, or create an elevation drawing in a CAD program.
In addition to a 3DS Max course, I teach computer applications at the high school level. It, along with a few other courses (one called Business Computer Information Systems, Computer Science, and some specialized graphics courses) satisfy the state requirement for one year of computer credits. Those state level requirements are prescribed by the state, and are based on teaching certain concepts within a given type of program. Thus, we aren't told to "teach Word;" rather, we're told that any child passing our class should be able to do functions X, Y, and Z in a word processor. My course spends one semester on computer hardware and MS Office, and the subsequent semester on web design using HTML code and WYSIWYG editors, photo editing in Photoshop, and some simple animation in Flash. For an assortment of reasons, some which I support and some which I don't, nearly all of our software is closed-source. I say this only to provide a standard to analyze your statement:
The vast majority kids are not "computer literate" in any functional sense of the word. Honestly, this makes them much like the vast majority of adults, so it's no real surprise. When children (14-18) enter my class, they understand the mere basics of certain programs - thy understand how to instant message, but not necessarily how to uninstall an IM program. They know that some web-based proxy sites can't get around the myspace filter, but they don't understand what's going on or why it would be easier to type in a proxy server address for their browser. They don't understand the first thing about basic file management, or why naming files with descriptive names is a good idea, or why their Powerpoint presentation that's laden with images and sound won't fit on a floppy disk. And they really, really don't understand that a spreadsheet has uses beyond making tables of stuff, that the word "memory" can have different meanings, why their computer is "running slow", or that the concept of mail merge even exists.
In short, they are exactly like most non-techies that you probably interact with on a daily basis. To say that the people teaching the classes don't know anymore is pretty absurd; I'll grant that there are bad teachers, but it honestly isn't that hard to know more than the average person. In my experience, the people who teach these courses (at least the ones I've met) seem intelligent and experienced enough that they certainly have plenty to teach. They may not be "running apache under Gentoo on their toaster" geeks, but they're educated and intelligent, and (most importantly) they know their material.
At my school, the 10% who are geeks or gunning for extra GPA take our Computer Science AP course. The rest end up in my course or one of the similar ones. I assure you: most kids are not computer literate, and I truly believe they do benefit from some useful computer education.
The author of this review asks, "What if you just want to convert an old (non-working, I hope) cabinet into a MAME arcade cabinet? Lots of information is out there, but where do you start?" Based on the review, the book seems to focus a lot on making your own replica cabinet from scratch.
If you want to build a cabinet from scratch, it sounds like this would be a fine book. If you want to convert an old cabinet, there are much easier solutions. Ultimarc, for example, produces several products that convert standard JAMMA interfaces to PC keyboard and video connections. JAMMA is the standard that arose to allow for easily changing games out in arcade cabinets.
I ultimately ended up with a HotRodSE connected to a home theater computer because I didn't have the space for a dedicated cabinet. Ultimarc's products, though, appear to allow for the joystick and buttons on a JAMMA cabinet to connect to a PS/2 interface and for the video connector to hook to VGA (refresh and resolutions on arcade machines are different from standard computer modes). They even sell an AGP or PCIe video card that appears to have a special RAMDAC so that you don't have to screw around with getting the weird video modes working.
I've never used Ultimarc's stuff, so I have no idea how well it would work. Assuming it's decent, the formula would be pretty simple: find an older Street Fighter cabinet in decent shape (functioning buttons and non-burned screen). They have six-button configs, which seems to be the most buttons used for the majority of games, thus saving you from having to cut holes for new buttons. Street Fighter was also ridiculously common but is old enough that you should be able to get the cabinet for a few hundred dollars if you're in/near a big city. Pull the board, plop in a computer, wire a couple of adapters, spend some time on a nice front end, and it shouldn't be too much work to have a functional MAME cabinet.
But this is for the whole US, and buying power varies greatly. $170K in Kansas and $170K in NYC are very, very different. Especially when you start considering that progressive taxes further reduce the $170K vs. $55K, and that higher cost of living areas (NYC, SoCal, Chicago, etc.) often have higher taxes to go along with the higher cost of living.
The problem is that grouping the whole US ignores the cost of living in each area.
For comparison: In Houston, teachers make about $42K to start in most of the districts. A 2000 sq. ft. starter home in the 'burbs runs about $130K. Last time I checked, several California districts were paying $70K to start, but the median home in CA is $550K. This is on top of the higher total cost of living (food, gasoline, taxes, etc.) It is no trouble to get on the property ladder with $55K in some parts of the country, and virtually impossible in others. $170K might seem to be pushing the definition, but it would definitely fall squarely in the middle class in some places.
Argh, you're right. The specifications also apparently have thermal requirements as part of the classifications.
I have read several places that the iMac card is physically the correct size (specifically, it's a Type II card); it won't work for the exact reason I specified: the boot ROM for every MXM card I know of is built for a machine with a BIOS, not EFI. It's the same reason an AGP GeForce 2 didn't work in old G4 Macs - the initial steps at boot are different. In those cases, some of the cards could actually be flashed with a different boot ROM image and work perfectly well. If one of the third party CPU companies - the ones that sell G4 upgrade cards - wanted to, they could pretty easily whip up an MXM module for the iMac, because the physical constraints are not the issue. It's just a software problem at this point (and the not-so-minor fact that the current iMac's MXM module is innacessible.
Possibly. The current 24" iMac uses an optional NVidia 7600GT MXM card (I'm not sure if the base-model 7300GT is also an MXM unit). MXM is NVidia's Portable PCI-Express video card system which is designed to be user-upgradeable. All MXM cards should fit in all MXM systems. Drivers could be an issue depending on how "universal" NVidia's OS X drivers are, and for now, the lack of EFI in the PC laptop world means that NVidia themselves or one of the old third-party Apple hardware companies would have to produce the unit. It is a step in the right direction, though. Apple did explicitly add MXM support for that iMac, and thus they have allowed for some video upgradeability in the future on 24" iMacs.
Given that even the 17" iMac will still likely offer as much if not more space than a 17" notebook, the use of an MXM module (or ATI's comparable product) in the future seems quite possible, especially when you consider that the 24" iMac didn't show up until well after the 17" and 20" models, which may have allowed Apple the extra time to go back and add some additional features..
Fun Fact: There is actually a nudity-free version of Playboy that universities and major libraries often subscribe to and keep in their periodical archives. Although you're obviously making a commentary on the artificial models, you really can read it "just for the articles."
Not only that, but they aren't direct competitors, at least not in an abstract sense. Gates and Jobs both touch on this idea during part 2 of the interview, but they both hesitate to come out and say it.
Apple sells to consumers; Microsoft sells to businesses. I don't mean this in the sense that Microsoft products are in use at more businesses, but rather in the sense that MS sells to HP, Dell, Toshiba, etc.
Think about it. The largest purchasers of Windows and Office (to a lesser extent) are the big OEMs. Now, granted, HP needs Windows because HP's customers want it. Dell needs Office licenses because its customers want it. Microsoft has succeeded in producing a product that they can more effectively market to what are, in essence, resellers. It gets even more extreme when Bill talks about the number of Windows Mobile devices (140-some) and the robotics field, where the demand for the software starts to take on even less importance than the actual product being sold. Does Windows Mobile have some features that Symbian or something similar doesn't? Honestly, I don't know; I'd wager that a lot of people look even more at the features on those less entrenched interfaces than the desktop OS, where the end user demands the interface they "know." Microsoft is trying to sell Windows Mobile to BMW for their Nav/audio/phone interface, not to the BMW driver who might be interested in those products.
In essence, although those fields are still only a small slice of the pie, they are building more and more toward the direction that originally brought MS success in the PC market - a commodity interface that cold be adapted to a large subset of products. While it may not be their actual goal with this strategy, MS has diversified to the point that if the thin-client/dumb terminal/web apps world ever arrives, they do have a wide variety of products that do not require the use of an x86 processor to be successful.
By contrast, Apple sells their products to the consumer. Apple is not out developing custom version of OS X to run on anyone's PDA - they just drop their own PDA/phone hybrid with what they think the customer wants. Apple isn't developing a DRM/music sales/audio player interface platform, they're selling us a variety of iPods and the accompanying software based on what they think we want. Apple isn't trying to produce a TV-interface targetted OS that can be deployed on a wide variety of hardware, they're selling their own, homebaked product with what they think the end user wants. And consistently, Apple has shown the world that they know what we want better than most of us know what we want.
Although they may seem like direct competitors now (and they definitely are), their paths are diverging. If the PC world continues the way it has, Microsoft will continue to make the bulk of their sales to OEMs, using an OS that's acceptable if not spectacular, that does what we want without too much hassle, at a price that's cheap enough in most cases to keep them on top. Apple will continue selling the tightly integrated software with features that soon become standard requirements, making their profit off of hardware sales. Microsoft will continue to power the bulk of the desktop/laptop world with a product that works well enough, and Apple will continue to grow by making new realms of technology useable enough to the average person that they dominate markets created by smaller and less-funded companies.
And if the PC world doesn't continue as it is? The paths will just diverge that much more. If the thin client world comes to pass, you may see Microsoft much less dominant in the OS world, and much more like the Suns and Oracles of the world that trigger more ready recognition among CIOs and admins than the average consumer. MS will power a lot of the thin clients, sure, but they'll also push further into the embeeded markets as cost of hardware becomes outweighed more and more by cost of development/maintenance and Windows Mobile (or whatever they call it then) becomes a more acceptable competitor in the embedded realm. And Apple will be there too, of course, selling the consumer the thin client he wants, even if he never knew he wanted a thin client that looked and acted this way.
For the price of some of those ridiculous I.C.E. systems, you can just throw in an Alpine Full-Speed compatible deck. The cheapest deck with iPod control capability runs about $120, and the iPod cable is $30. You get direct control over the ipod from the deck - the volume knob acts like the scroll wheel to move through menus and songs. The interface isn't exactly "iPod screen in your dash," but it's pretty decent on its own. Plus, it interfaces through the dock connector and powers/charges your iPod while it's connected. On top of that, even the cheap Alpine deck probably has much better internal components than your factory deck, so it might sound a little better (although that's going to be hindered by the crappy paper speakers your car came with).
The only situation where it doesn't work well is if you have steering wheel audio controls or a navigation system with audio interface, but otherwise, I've been very happy with my Alpine setup.
Not at all. If HR departments decide that they want to hire a woman for a particular job, though, then they've already selected a smaller applicant pool.
On the other hand, I would think the same extra perks that would attract women to a job are also likely to attract a man to that same job.
Of course they are. I simply read this article as less of a "How to recruit a good IT worker" and more of a "How to recruit a good female IT worker." If HR is looking for a worker of indeterminate gender, then it makes logical sense to choose the one who will do the best job for the least amount of money. If HR is looking to hire a woman, then we're already dealing with a smaller labor pool, and HR is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as the rest of us. If your stated goal is to hire a woman to fill a position, as this article seems to assume, then you need to be aware of a what women as a whole do and don't value in a job. While your particular applicant might not fit that bill, it's better to go off of data that suggests what she may want rather than flying blind in the situation. According to this particular study, it's a really mixed bag in terms of what women are looking for in IT careers, so I guess it would be best to save the "Things we offer" section for after you've ascertained what an applicant is looking for.
While I'd certainly grant you that sexual stereotyping has a little to do with some of the jobs (police officers, for example), I'm going to have to ask that you seriously rethink your standing here. You are making the 1960's GI Joe vs. Barbie argument all over again, and it's one that's been repeatedly disproven.
If there's anything wrong with my argument regarding dangerous jobs, it's related to the fact that many of those jobs (construction, commercial fishing) are physically demanding enough that they do bias themselves toward men. The time spent in work, though, bears out the record. As a section of the work force, full-time employed men spend more time at work than women; about 8 hours more per week depending on the study criteria. Socially, women are still expected to do more of the work at home, and they are thus more likely to seek out jobs that allow them to do so.
Wide-sweeping generalizations work in this situation because they are wide-sweeping. We're talking about entire sections of the population here, not your sister, neighbor, friend, or self (if you're a woman). My wife works more hours per week than I do, but the demographics bear out exactly what I'm saying. Women are more likely to spend more time at home than men; they are also more likely to seek out jobs that enable them to do so. Couple that with the lack of a stigma for working fewer hours, and you've set up a sweeping generalization that works because *gasp* it's backed up by numbers. It's not a negative "women are lazy" statement by any stretch - their efforts are just focused in other areas. Again, before you start claiming that these are bullshit reasons or stereotyping, please go take a cursory glance at any sociology textbook or labor study.
When we speak about the genders as a whole, men and women communicate in entirely different ways, they crave different things from certain situations, they assert control in different ways, and they manage conflicts in different ways. Men and women are different in ways other than the obvious external characteristics. Is it really that hard to fathom that they desire different things out of their respective careers?
The US DoL has also found in several studies that, when analyzed properly, that pay gap does not exist. That is, women do get paid less, on the whole, than men. Women are more likely to take part-time jobs, more likely to work shorter hours, more likely to leave the workforce for an extended period of time, and less likely to correctly gauge their own value when asking for initial salaries or raises. On top of that, the jobs traditionally held by women (teacher, nurse) are only now starting to have pay levels that are commensurate with the education level. When analyzing a man and a woman who do an identical job, though, the pay is equal.
You see those 20-30% claims pop up every few years because it makes for a good way to get a grant in research and a good headline for rights groups.
Warning! Dangerous generalizations lie ahead!
Unlike men, who apparently only have a single value and motivation for choosing their career.
While that's not quite true, it's far more accurate when describing a man than a woman. Socially, men are judged and measured by their occupation and potential as a provider. If a man works a laid-back, 25 hour a week part-time job because his spouse allows him to do so, he's a lazy bum; for a woman, it's a perfectly acceptable decision as far as society is concerned (although how an individual woman feels about it is up to her).
Far and above all other standards, men want a decent salary and job security, and they're willing to put up with a lot of crap to get it. According to Department of Labor statistics, for example, 90% of on-the-job deaths are men, and men work more hours both in fullt-ime and part-time jobs than women; Men will take the dangerous, filthy, and more time-intensive jobs because of the extra pay associated with them.
Women certainly value good pay and stability, and this study isn't questioning that. Rather, it is saying that opening a book and saying, "Look ladies, we have good pay and stability" isn't the deal maker that it is for men. Socially, women can afford (more than men) to demand additional perks from a job. We're all familiar with the list: flexible hours, jobs that focus more on interpersonal communication, etc. Again, a total generalization but true when looked at as a total generalization.
In essence: if you are an HR manager, part of your job is to bring in diverse employees. The reasons for that are certainly debatable, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be as big of a deal as some make it out to be. But if you are an HR manager, and if you are attempting to recruit more women, you should probably rethink your sales pitch.
And that pretty much sums it up. Other than the DRM issues, HDMI is a solid interface (which is, of course, like the old joke about "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?").
A combination of DVI plus audio was pretty much a foregone conclusion. DVI had taken over the computer world in the monitor interface department, and it's competitors are fewer and fewer these days. Allowing for easier connection of computers and computer-like media devices was becoming more and more important, and DVI was there and ready. The myriad of pins on the DVI connection make for a chunky connection, which is a bigger problem on TV gear than on a computer, so a shrinking of the interface is logical.
Other than a more secure attachment method (latch? Thumbscrews?), HDMI is a decent interface: 1080p (and beyond) capable, 48-bit color in the latest version, and enough bandwidth for the newer audio signals. Sure, there are problems past 50 or 60 ft. runs, but those honestly comprise such a tiny amount of installs that it shouldn't be a primary concern for any consumer video interface. 50 Ft. is more than enough for a pretty nice projector install; if you need more than that, cost likely isn't a huge factor and an inline repeater shouldn't be a big deal.
No, it's the DRM that causes issues with the handshake when switching signals. It's the DRM that will make us eventually change out a perfectly good videocard if we want the Hi-Def formats. It's the DRM that complicates what would be simple external switch boxes. It would have been nice to see HDMI evolve along with component as the high-end, easier hook-up alternative, but instead component is being dropped because of the "analog hole" problem that makes all but the industry big wigs laugh.
No, the cat's out of the bag - HDMI is here to stay, and other than the current DRM issues, it's a pretty decent interface. My wish for the future would be something similar to what firewire was supposed to be: every box with an "in" and an "out" interface, strung along in a SCSI-like chain from A to B to C to TV. Or some miracle 10gbps wireless that's reliable enough for this type of situation. Here's hoping.
You left out getting rid of the berry flesh and roasting the beans in your foraging process, but I'll assume it was part of the fun smarminess. Also, percolators have been around for a hell of a lot longer than your grandparents, at least in the western world.
Finally, having once tasted "coffee" made in that manner, I stand by my assertion - you can't make coffee using just a kettle (and I'm not a coffee snob at all; I'll usually just tolerate the stuff).
To close a two-day discussion on coffee, I'll wrap around to my original point: coffee is not intended to be served at 185 degrees, period. There is absolutely no logical reason to serve it at that temperature unless you just made it yourself and are running out the door with it in a travel cup. The GP doesn't understand why McDonald's got busted for it, and even defended serving 185F liquid in a flimsy-ass styrofoam cup. Simply put: Coffee is intended to be consumed somewhere around 140 degrees. Styrofoam is a good insulator, and will prevent that coffee from cooling effectively. Most of the mechanisms involved in *sigh* MODERN coffee production are designed to allow the boiling water that produces the flavor to cool before reaching your mouth. The case has been hashed out all over the internet and the vast majority completely agree with me: McDonald's had no business giving her coffee at that temperature, even if she was foolish enough to rest it in her crotch.