Worse, they killed off one of the best and longest running games franchises ever. Flight Sim X was a disaster, but canning it was a worse mistake - all that development talent scattered....and that's after trying to milk it. FS2004 had a kiosk mode for use in museums and displays. FSX removed it and had a license that didn't allow such use. Says a lot about what's been happening in Microsoft.
My background is that I have a PhD. Are you saying that if you read the comments in this discussion and take it all with a grain of salt, then that won't be helpful information if you are looking to get a PhD?
I'm saying someone not interested enough to read research papers and who after at least a 3 year undergrad still has no idea how to find something interesting to work on has little hope of completing a PhD. But what do I know? I only have a Masters, so you outrank me.
It bodes perfectly well. Undertaking PhD studies is about learning how to do research, it's not about already knowing how to do everything the right way and then just doing that for three years. If you look at the responses that are coming in this thread, asking Slashdot was the best possible thing he could do and it'll have helped every other person looking to get into a PhD program who comes here from Google in future as well.
I have no idea what your education background is like but if you really think asking here is a good idea, I don't know what to say. I did a masters and while it was about learning how to do research you were expected to get off your backside and make contacts and read papers. And you weren't expected to take 3 years learning to do it.
Journal articles, a library, and your professors
on
Finding a Research Mentor?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
At Ph.D. prep level you should be reading research papers/journal articles to work out who's doing interesting work. You should also have networked in your undergrad and formed connections to people who can provide you with interesting opportunities in exchange for your hard work.
You certainly should not be dreaming of searchable dataases, trawling university web sites or posting to ask slashdot. That you are doing this does not bode well for your ability to complete a Ph.D.
By the way, I have no idea about psychology but preprint articles in Physics and Astronomy can be found on the net at arxiv.org. Since the journals tend to try to restrict publication for their own profits these days (espeically in medical sciences), you may need to find a library or University that you can access that has research papers for your own field. Either way if you're not interested enough to read current research articles to determine who's doing interesting work, perhaps you should be thinking about something other than a doctorate.
Reinforcing the cockpit door wasn't a bad move either.
Really? I thought that was a uniquely bad move. Once the terrorists get in they can barrackade themselves in there more easily. One slip up on the part of the air crew and it's all over. They don't need to shoot or knive terrorists or make them comply. The passengers can't do a thing to them except perhaps bring down the plane themselves.
Damnit, it's his watch that he paid for with his money, he can do whatever he wants with it since he owns it! So what if he wants to dual boot linux on his watch and run Apache from it while torrenting the latest American Idol, it's his right!
Yes but he'd be more popular if he skipped idol and just blew up the city block.
In the long term disney characters will finally be out of copyright and will no longer be popular. So we won't need helium to make those zany character voices. Better to use it now while the characters are still popular. That is the only use for helium right? Science? Pah, what's that!?
I disagree. Even the most demanding careers usually allow people to have children. You shouldn't get a bonus or a pat on the back for not having to parent.
But to repeat my actual point, that burden shouldn't rest on your employer. Personally, I would like to see some sort of first child government-paid (and yes, I realize that means we-the-people end up paying for it via taxes - Might as well put them to some good use) maternity leave where the mother (or father, but let's keep this realistic) can take five years off (until the kid hits kindergarten) and receive something like UI-level benefits just to raise the kid properly.
Where do you think that government tax money comes from? The same companies and citizens you're saying shouldn't bear the burden.
A company should be prepared to, as part of it's contract with society, contribute towards the raising of the children that company eventually relies on.
But of course, realistically I know that will happen around the same time that our problems in the Middle East go away (ie, never).
It's not just the middle east. The whole world has problems that are intractible due to historical and other reasons. We still have to try though...
Spoken like someone who does not have children. Until you do, you have no idea what it takes, especially if it's not smooth sailing. But put bluntly - Everything you say does not equal you employer's problem, nor does it describe the norm (which the GP nailed). If SOMEONE, of either gender, has less reliability due to having a kid, guess who doesn't get the promotions?
Spoken like an idiot that doesn't understand the value of community. When people raise their kids properly ALL of society benefits. Not just the parent. Without people having kids who the fuck is your company going to sell their precious products to? Without parents raising them properly who the fuck is going to pay for the welfare and prisons required to house and feed dangerous individuals.
It takes the village to raise the child. It always will. Whether it's your child or not. You do not want a society where you punish parents for choosing to raise their children. It is not good for you. It is not good for an employer. It is not good for anyone.
In fact, you pretty much make the case against sexism - You will (on avegerage) make less than your peers due to choosing family over work. You have less value to your employer than your coworkers without a newborn, simple as that.
Hey, wake up. You are speaking pure drivel. it is the NORM to have kids. MOST people have children. Most of my peers have children. I work in a workplace that prides itself on being family friendly. This is a good thing. A well rounded employee tends not to lose perspective as easily. They bring their parenting skills to the table. I can think of no better training for learning to keep your cool than having to deal with a medical emergency for your child.
What you are ACTUALLY saying is that you'd like not to pay for other people's kids. This is because you're a self centered and selfish and self indulgent pratt. User pays is a terrible idea for a lot of people if not most. Do you use public roads? Ever used a public hospital? Public transport? Public schools? Is any of it subsidised? Should we privatise and make all of that user pays too? Do you honestly think you're an island and you look after yourself?
I just quit my 15 year IT career to be an artist. As a bonus, all the medical conditions I had while in IT disappeared within 2 months of leaving it.
You made a good choice if your health is affected. Not everyone can handle high pressure jobs. That doesn't mean you'd have done better in any other high pressure job.
IT workers don't have unions to protect them like mechanics and doctors.
Have you seen the hours doctors are expected to work? As for stress do you REALLY think life and death decisions are less stressful than IT work?
Child-rearing really doesn't have very much to do with it at all, between school, day-care, a partner and parental leave..
Spoken like someone who does not have children. Until you do, you have no idea what it takes, especially if it's not smooth sailing.
By the way I'm male, in IT and on parental leave. 2 weeks is all I get per child. I have a newborn daughter, and a boy under 2. My wife's had 4 hours sleep tonight. That's a good night for her. 2 days ago she got an hour and the only thing that got her through is she has me and her parents to take over so she can sleep during the day. I dread what it is going to be like with me back at work and her parents gone. It does get better as they get older but you'll still have shitty days. Like the day my daughter came home but I couldn't go pick her up because my older boy had a fever and had a very rough night (temperate baths etc). I see what my wife goes through and I'm very glad she doesn't have to add work to the mix right now. As they get older the challenges change but if you think a little bit of parental leave and a partner helping makes it all smooth sailing, you're in for a shock if you ever have kids.
So, simply because they put some ban on some sites makes them oppressive regime???
No, not simply because they put a ban on some sites. This is just one of many things that they've done for me and others to label them an oppressive regime. YOU can do better than that.
Stop rambling and try being consistent yourself before accusing others of a lack of consistency. If you are honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a countries laws which you yourself have said are not optional, and a commercial vendor restricting the way there product is used, I don't know how I can help you.
I have no love of Steve Jobs. I don't buy Apple. The moment he starts murdering people or telling people what they must believe I'll label him exactly the same way (and no suicides in Chinese factories for companies that are contracted to build Apple product don't count, especially when they're at a lower rate than the general population.)
I see what you mean, but, legally speaking, you don't sound convincing.
I suspect you mean morally speaking but you've been so unclear that I can only guess. You see I do not hold a law degree in Pakistan, nor am i a judge or lawyer or police officer, nor am I a member of any legislative body. I can't speak legally, and I suspect nor can you.
Let me ask you, what is oppressive regime? How do you define it? And, which is more important, do you have a legal ground for its definition?
It's easy enough to define logically consistent definition of an oppressive regime. Plenty of work has been done there. You might want to check some of the founding documents for the United Nations. Or perhaps check with Amnesty International. Or perhaps look at the TED speech by Sam Harris which talks about moral landscapes and defining morality that relies on logic rather than religion. In any case the argument you're using is old and tired and doesn't hold much weight: It is just used as an excuse for oppressors to oppress, as much religion is.
Some consider Apple App Store as oppressive, other thinks Google Androids ToS is oppressive, in fact, anything could be named oppressive by one or another group, so, where is the thin red line?
Are you really trying to tell me you are unable to determine the difference between a commercial store that sells a product and has terms of service that some consider unfair and a government who will force laws on people that they do not want, and enforce those laws lethally? Having an app on the iPhone not be approved (especially when there are alternatives) isn't in the same league as being shot for watching soccer or kissing someone. It's a continuum not a thin red line or a slippery slope. But we're talking about opposite ends of it.
Anyway, all the Pakistan people did agree to live in their country, and obey their law, which is as binding and legal as.....every law is. Period.
You're an idiot. Period. People don't choose where they are born. Not every person agrees with the law in their country. Saying something that is not true is and adding the word period just makes you look like an immature fool. You might be happy to live under an oppressive regime (at least until you do something they decide you should be killed for) but others aren't. Thank goodness for that.
Where's accountability when 5 million gets spent and nobody can even make something as simple as a SPREADSHEET?
Clearly you don't work in or understand IT. First there have to be meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. First at management level to initiate the project. Then detailed meetings to set up staffing and outline goals. Then middle management needs to be appointed (more meetings) so that they can flesh out those goals in more detail (more meetings). Of course this is after HR recruits the middle management. The middle management goes through the same process to recruit actual staff. Then management meets with staff that provide feedback on those tasks "No I'm sorry you can't magically walk around with a laptop and scanner and have it absorb names off the gravestones. No there's no technology to do that on the horizon". Then middle management needs to report back to senior management (did I mention meetings?) and senior management needs to meet separately to decide what it means to the project. At this point all those discussions will get confusing so will need to be summarised and corrected. Only now can we start to see a plan coming into being (drafted by middle management, approved by senior management. You guessed it more meetings). At this point work may commence but if it is it will typically be halted by a new priority/requirement being pulled out of senior management's rectum^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ahem I mean coming to light. This will totally screw up every agreement made about the direction and even nature of the work, which will require more meetings at all levels to sort out.
Oh and don't be fooled this happens in industry as well as government. Privitising just adds another layer to all this mess and provides another opportunity for waste each time someone changes their mind or adds an unreasonable or ill thought through requirement.
$5 million is nothing. The fact that an intelligent 6th grader could do better is by the by. it's not how the world works.
Let me remind you that Pakistan people also agreed to their religious ToS...
That's a very interesting take on things. You're suggesting that anyone living under an oppressive regime agrees to it's terms. Well that excuses ANY and ALL oppressive behaviour and atrocities. You're basically endorsing every oppressive regime that ever existed. Is that really what you intended to say?
Imagine if these companies sought to block Pakistan or any other Islamic country. There would be uproar and claims of racism, anti-religious behaviour etc. etc. Yet when these same governments block sites for religious purposes it's considered some sort of right to choose (nevermind that it's on behalf of so many whose rights are stomped). I don't have an issue with people blocking their own access out of stupidity, but this idea that they can choose on behalf of others is a reminder of why religious rather than rational reasoning is so dangerous and has no place in politics.
The child can get access to a computer when it is needed by going to the public library or most likely the school library.
Horse shit. That's like saying that you shouldn't bother buying books for kids because when they need them they can go to the library. You can send your kids back to the dark ages if you like. I won't be doing that with mine.
Exposure to the library isn't going to be more than a few hours a week and only that much if the parents have time to take the child and make a concerted effort.
If you're unable to see how the internet can be used to help a child learn all sorts of things, YOU lack imagination. I am over 35 and I'm STILL learning. The other day I was wondering something about rainbows (I had just seen one) and looked it up in Wikipedia on my train ride. Learnt a lot more than I thought I would about internal reflection of water droplets, types of rainbow etc. If I had to wait till I got to a library it'd never have happened.
Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.
and to which Christian fundamentalists want to drag us back.
Arguing over which religion is best or worst is somewhat like arguing which turd is best or worst on your biscuit. There's no such thing as a good religion.
Desktops are magnitudes more powerful than what most people require from their computer these days. Probably more likely, the 'desktop' will morph into a server to manage all our files and wireless devices. I'm not about to surrender to 'cloud' just yet.
If I couldn't store my own data locally I'd almost not bother with computers. What's made them good for me - particularly as an amateur photographer, occassional game player etc. is the terrabytes of storage. I have approaching a terrabyte of photos and they sure as fuck aren't going to be handed over to some random company's "cloud" any time soon. Multiple copies and off site backup are the way to go.
I wish the luddities would stop trying to blame the technology. It's here to stay. Get over it. If you're seriously telling me a 16 year old without exposure to computers is better off in the modern world, I'll ask you to please dispose of the drugs.
If you have a 10-14 year old who suddenly gets access to a computer and all the distractions that come with it - games, (and shock horror porn if they can get to it0 etc. - you can expect a dip while the child adjusts. If the same kid had grown up with these things it'd be no big deal. I don't doubt that cable TV would have the same effect. All these things require some supervision in their use. But then so does a soccer or basket ball. Kids can find that distracting too.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse, they killed off one of the best and longest running games franchises ever. Flight Sim X was a disaster, but canning it was a worse mistake - all that development talent scattered....and that's after trying to milk it. FS2004 had a kiosk mode for use in museums and displays. FSX removed it and had a license that didn't allow such use. Says a lot about what's been happening in Microsoft.
Page removed?
My background is that I have a PhD. Are you saying that if you read the comments in this discussion and take it all with a grain of salt, then that won't be helpful information if you are looking to get a PhD?
I'm saying someone not interested enough to read research papers and who after at least a 3 year undergrad still has no idea how to find something interesting to work on has little hope of completing a PhD. But what do I know? I only have a Masters, so you outrank me.
It bodes perfectly well. Undertaking PhD studies is about learning how to do research, it's not about already knowing how to do everything the right way and then just doing that for three years. If you look at the responses that are coming in this thread, asking Slashdot was the best possible thing he could do and it'll have helped every other person looking to get into a PhD program who comes here from Google in future as well.
I have no idea what your education background is like but if you really think asking here is a good idea, I don't know what to say. I did a masters and while it was about learning how to do research you were expected to get off your backside and make contacts and read papers. And you weren't expected to take 3 years learning to do it.
At Ph.D. prep level you should be reading research papers/journal articles to work out who's doing interesting work. You should also have networked in your undergrad and formed connections to people who can provide you with interesting opportunities in exchange for your hard work.
You certainly should not be dreaming of searchable dataases, trawling university web sites or posting to ask slashdot. That you are doing this does not bode well for your ability to complete a Ph.D.
By the way, I have no idea about psychology but preprint articles in Physics and Astronomy can be found on the net at arxiv.org. Since the journals tend to try to restrict publication for their own profits these days (espeically in medical sciences), you may need to find a library or University that you can access that has research papers for your own field. Either way if you're not interested enough to read current research articles to determine who's doing interesting work, perhaps you should be thinking about something other than a doctorate.
-1: Moderator has no sense of humour
Reinforcing the cockpit door wasn't a bad move either.
Really? I thought that was a uniquely bad move. Once the terrorists get in they can barrackade themselves in there more easily. One slip up on the part of the air crew and it's all over. They don't need to shoot or knive terrorists or make them comply. The passengers can't do a thing to them except perhaps bring down the plane themselves.
Damnit, it's his watch that he paid for with his money, he can do whatever he wants with it since he owns it! So what if he wants to dual boot linux on his watch and run Apache from it while torrenting the latest American Idol, it's his right!
Yes but he'd be more popular if he skipped idol and just blew up the city block.
In the long term disney characters will finally be out of copyright and will no longer be popular. So we won't need helium to make those zany character voices. Better to use it now while the characters are still popular. That is the only use for helium right? Science? Pah, what's that!?
I disagree. Even the most demanding careers usually allow people to have children. You shouldn't get a bonus or a pat on the back for not having to parent.
But to repeat my actual
point, that burden shouldn't rest on your employer. Personally, I would like to see some sort of first child government-paid (and yes, I realize that means we-the-people end up
paying for it via taxes - Might as well put them to some good use) maternity leave where the mother (or father, but
let's keep this realistic) can take five years off (until the kid hits kindergarten) and receive something like UI-level
benefits just to raise the kid properly.
Where do you think that government tax money comes from? The same companies and citizens you're saying shouldn't bear the burden.
A company should be prepared to, as part of it's contract with society, contribute towards the raising of the children that company eventually relies on.
But of course, realistically I know that will happen around the same time that
our problems in the Middle East go away (ie, never).
It's not just the middle east. The whole world has problems that are intractible due to historical and other reasons. We still have to try though...
Spoken like someone who does not have children. Until you do, you have no idea what it takes, especially if it's not smooth sailing.
But put bluntly - Everything you say does not equal you employer's problem, nor does it describe the norm (which the GP nailed). If SOMEONE, of either gender,
has less reliability due to having a kid, guess who doesn't get the promotions?
Spoken like an idiot that doesn't understand the value of community. When people raise their kids properly ALL of society benefits. Not just the parent. Without people having kids who the fuck is your company going to sell their precious products to? Without parents raising them properly who the fuck is going to pay for the welfare and prisons required to house and feed dangerous individuals.
It takes the village to raise the child. It always will. Whether it's your child or not. You do not want a society where you punish parents for choosing to raise their children. It is not good for you. It is not good for an employer. It is not good for anyone.
In fact, you pretty much make the case against sexism - You will (on avegerage) make less than your peers due to choosing family over work. You have less
value to your employer than your coworkers without a newborn, simple as that.
Hey, wake up. You are speaking pure drivel. it is the NORM to have kids. MOST people have children. Most of my peers have children. I work in a workplace that prides itself on being family friendly. This is a good thing. A well rounded employee tends not to lose perspective as easily. They bring their parenting skills to the table. I can think of no better training for learning to keep your cool than having to deal with a medical emergency for your child.
What you are ACTUALLY saying is that you'd like not to pay for other people's kids. This is because you're a self centered and selfish and self indulgent pratt. User pays is a terrible idea for a lot of people if not most. Do you use public roads? Ever used a public hospital? Public transport? Public schools? Is any of it subsidised? Should we privatise and make all of that user pays too? Do you honestly think you're an island and you look after yourself?
I just quit my 15 year IT career to be an artist. As a bonus, all the medical conditions I had while in IT disappeared within 2 months of leaving it.
You made a good choice if your health is affected. Not everyone can handle high pressure jobs. That doesn't mean you'd have done better in any other high pressure job.
IT workers don't have unions to protect them like mechanics and doctors.
Have you seen the hours doctors are expected to work? As for stress do you REALLY think life and death decisions are less stressful than IT work?
Child-rearing really doesn't have very much to do with it at all, between school, day-care, a partner and parental leave. .
Spoken like someone who does not have children. Until you do, you have no idea what it takes, especially if it's not smooth sailing.
By the way I'm male, in IT and on parental leave. 2 weeks is all I get per child. I have a newborn daughter, and a boy under 2. My wife's had 4 hours sleep tonight. That's a good night for her. 2 days ago she got an hour and the only thing that got her through is she has me and her parents to take over so she can sleep during the day. I dread what it is going to be like with me back at work and her parents gone. It does get better as they get older but you'll still have shitty days. Like the day my daughter came home but I couldn't go pick her up because my older boy had a fever and had a very rough night (temperate baths etc). I see what my wife goes through and I'm very glad she doesn't have to add work to the mix right now. As they get older the challenges change but if you think a little bit of parental leave and a partner helping makes it all smooth sailing, you're in for a shock if you ever have kids.
So, simply because they put some ban on some sites makes them oppressive regime???
No, not simply because they put a ban on some sites. This is just one of many things that they've done for me and others to label them an oppressive regime. YOU can do better than that.
Stop rambling and try being consistent yourself before accusing others of a lack of consistency. If you are honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a countries laws which you yourself have said are not optional, and a commercial vendor restricting the way there product is used, I don't know how I can help you.
I have no love of Steve Jobs. I don't buy Apple. The moment he starts murdering people or telling people what they must believe I'll label him exactly the same way (and no suicides in Chinese factories for companies that are contracted to build Apple product don't count, especially when they're at a lower rate than the general population.)
I see what you mean, but, legally speaking, you don't sound convincing.
I suspect you mean morally speaking but you've been so unclear that I can only guess. You see I do not hold a law degree in Pakistan, nor am i a judge or lawyer or police officer, nor am I a member of any legislative body. I can't speak legally, and I suspect nor can you.
Let me ask you, what is oppressive regime? How do you define it? And, which is more important, do you have a legal ground for its definition?
It's easy enough to define logically consistent definition of an oppressive regime. Plenty of work has been done there. You might want to check some of the founding documents for the United Nations. Or perhaps check with Amnesty International. Or perhaps look at the TED speech by Sam Harris which talks about moral landscapes and defining morality that relies on logic rather than religion. In any case the argument you're using is old and tired and doesn't hold much weight: It is just used as an excuse for oppressors to oppress, as much religion is.
Some consider Apple App Store as oppressive, other thinks Google Androids ToS is oppressive, in fact, anything could be named oppressive by one or another group, so, where is the thin red line?
Are you really trying to tell me you are unable to determine the difference between a commercial store that sells a product and has terms of service that some consider unfair and a government who will force laws on people that they do not want, and enforce those laws lethally? Having an app on the iPhone not be approved (especially when there are alternatives) isn't in the same league as being shot for watching soccer or kissing someone. It's a continuum not a thin red line or a slippery slope. But we're talking about opposite ends of it.
Anyway, all the Pakistan people did agree to live in their country, and obey their law, which is as binding and legal as.....every law is. Period.
You're an idiot. Period. People don't choose where they are born. Not every person agrees with the law in their country. Saying something that is not true is and adding the word period just makes you look like an immature fool. You might be happy to live under an oppressive regime (at least until you do something they decide you should be killed for) but others aren't. Thank goodness for that.
They can't even remember who's in the tomb of the unknown soldier!
Corporal Tables, we call him.
-- Okay time for your morning pushups:
Drop Corporate Tables; -- drop!
Where's accountability when 5 million gets spent and nobody can even make something as simple as a SPREADSHEET?
Clearly you don't work in or understand IT. First there have to be meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. First at management level to initiate the project. Then detailed meetings to set up staffing and outline goals. Then middle management needs to be appointed (more meetings) so that they can flesh out those goals in more detail (more meetings). Of course this is after HR recruits the middle management. The middle management goes through the same process to recruit actual staff. Then management meets with staff that provide feedback on those tasks "No I'm sorry you can't magically walk around with a laptop and scanner and have it absorb names off the gravestones. No there's no technology to do that on the horizon". Then middle management needs to report back to senior management (did I mention meetings?) and senior management needs to meet separately to decide what it means to the project. At this point all those discussions will get confusing so will need to be summarised and corrected. Only now can we start to see a plan coming into being (drafted by middle management, approved by senior management. You guessed it more meetings). At this point work may commence but if it is it will typically be halted by a new priority/requirement being pulled out of senior management's rectum^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ahem I mean coming to light. This will totally screw up every agreement made about the direction and even nature of the work, which will require more meetings at all levels to sort out.
Oh and don't be fooled this happens in industry as well as government. Privitising just adds another layer to all this mess and provides another opportunity for waste each time someone changes their mind or adds an unreasonable or ill thought through requirement.
$5 million is nothing. The fact that an intelligent 6th grader could do better is by the by. it's not how the world works.
Let me remind you that Pakistan people also agreed to their religious ToS...
That's a very interesting take on things. You're suggesting that anyone living under an oppressive regime agrees to it's terms. Well that excuses ANY and ALL oppressive behaviour and atrocities. You're basically endorsing every oppressive regime that ever existed. Is that really what you intended to say?
Imagine if these companies sought to block Pakistan or any other Islamic country. There would be uproar and claims of racism, anti-religious behaviour etc. etc. Yet when these same governments block sites for religious purposes it's considered some sort of right to choose (nevermind that it's on behalf of so many whose rights are stomped). I don't have an issue with people blocking their own access out of stupidity, but this idea that they can choose on behalf of others is a reminder of why religious rather than rational reasoning is so dangerous and has no place in politics.
The child can get access to a computer when it is needed by going to the public library or most likely the school library.
Horse shit. That's like saying that you shouldn't bother buying books for kids because when they need them they can go to the library. You can send your kids back to the dark ages if you like. I won't be doing that with mine.
Exposure to the library isn't going to be more than a few hours a week and only that much if the parents have time to take the child and make a concerted effort.
If you're unable to see how the internet can be used to help a child learn all sorts of things, YOU lack imagination. I am over 35 and I'm STILL learning. The other day I was wondering something about rainbows (I had just seen one) and looked it up in Wikipedia on my train ride. Learnt a lot more than I thought I would about internal reflection of water droplets, types of rainbow etc. If I had to wait till I got to a library it'd never have happened.
Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.
and to which Christian fundamentalists want to drag us back.
Arguing over which religion is best or worst is somewhat like arguing which turd is best or worst on your biscuit. There's no such thing as a good religion.
Desktops are magnitudes more powerful than what most people require from their computer these days. Probably more likely, the 'desktop' will morph into a server to manage all our files and wireless devices. I'm not about to surrender to 'cloud' just yet.
If I couldn't store my own data locally I'd almost not bother with computers. What's made them good for me - particularly as an amateur photographer, occassional game player etc. is the terrabytes of storage. I have approaching a terrabyte of photos and they sure as fuck aren't going to be handed over to some random company's "cloud" any time soon. Multiple copies and off site backup are the way to go.
I wish the luddities would stop trying to blame the technology. It's here to stay. Get over it. If you're seriously telling me a 16 year old without exposure to computers is better off in the modern world, I'll ask you to please dispose of the drugs.
If you have a 10-14 year old who suddenly gets access to a computer and all the distractions that come with it - games, (and shock horror porn if they can get to it0 etc. - you can expect a dip while the child adjusts. If the same kid had grown up with these things it'd be no big deal. I don't doubt that cable TV would have the same effect. All these things require some supervision in their use. But then so does a soccer or basket ball. Kids can find that distracting too.
Is that some sort of euphemism for vaginal plastic surgery? They're having them extended nowadays?