What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.
People pick their battles: they cannot fight all negative things in the world all the time. Maybe she quit teaching Brave New World and substituted some kind of different dystopian future novel, or some other work critical of the society in which we live.
It's also possible the curriculum changed, or that some other event occured of which you are not aware. To say that you lost all respect for ceasing to teach a particular novel seems unfair.
Perhaps you have not shared the whole story, and if that is the case then I apoligize for the above.
Well, one can't account for taste, and I could understand how someone would like the detail and in-jokes from the period: but overall, as another poster said, the book came off as too "cute". The worst part is that I think that, somewhere in Quicksilver, a winner exists -- perhaps it still wouldn't measure up to Cryptonomicon, but it could still be worth reading.
Although I could be wrong, I think the grandparent means that he read Quicksilver and isn't going to touch the rest of the Baroque cycle because Quicksilver is so bad.
Incidentally, I suspect my reaction is similar to his and many other posters: awe at Cryptonomicon, which is a fantastic work, followed by steadily building excitement for the release of Quicksilver, which disappoints so much that I will not be fooled again.
The capabilities of the competitors are all very interesting, but the paramount feature of a portable music player is size. I've seen Creative Zens, and they're simply bulky and hard to use compared to an iPod.
You've cited a number of quantifiable benefits, but your failure to take into account user interface and size except by dismissing them shows that you and the rest of the world value different things in portable music players. I just answered why the iPod is more successful; and you even did in your own response.
Note that this comes from someone who doesn't even own an iPod. But if I did want a portable music player, that would be my choice because I want the smallest device possible (so that I will actually use it and because it would be easier to run with).
There are many excellent points in this thread concerning screen quality, digital rights and other factors, and I see no need to repeat them here.
But I a few important factors haven't been covered, or have only implied.
1) E-books must be cheaper and more convenient than regular books. That means I can pay $18 for a hardcover (after discount from Amazon), or $8 for the E-book that offers similar functionality (i.e. I can loan it to a friend).
2) Major authors/publishing houses are willing to provide books, including non-technical books, in an e-book format. I've seen plenty of people peddling their "free" trash novels on the 'net (Cory Doctrow excluded from the this category), but the fact remains that publishers provide a valuable service to the reading public.
3) Perhaps most importantly, I think the cost of paper/distribution will have to rise considerably for e-books to really take off. That probably means some kind of economic disaster that I cannot totally forsee, such as war with China, sudden ecological change or a sudden, massive spike in oil costs. If the price of printing and distributing books rises high enough, it will drive people toward online distribution systems. And I imagine the trend will solidify for music and movies as well.
I think my third point would be the most likely to suddenly make e-books attractive, but I hope I never see that day come to pass.
It's hardly the same. A laptop is a general-purpose device that can be used for a wide variety of courses in a wide variety of settings. These days it's not impossible to get through four years of college without a computer, but having one makes life much, much more efficient in terms of papers, initial research, etc. A laptop lets one do everything you describe and much, much more.
Apple is probably giving Duke a discount, but then again I've already turned down an iPod for $69 (buy a laptop + iPod and get a $200 rebate +.edu discount) because I don't need an iPod.
So I do think it's weird, and a waste of money. See my previous comments here and here.
Now that that's out of your system, let me assure you that while many were attracted to the iPod's pop-culture cult status as a part of this project, the academic and educational uses were the primary discussion. The "ooh, pretty!" factor, as you call it, was taken into consideration so the students would actually want to use the device given to them. Imagine Duke giving every student a Palm Zire...which most students would promptly toss in their desk after a month of occasional use if their classes didn't require it--most still won't, btw. But an iPod...the students will love those and use them!
Good point. But if I were a Duke student, I would play with my iPod for a month and then leave it on my desk -- or simply sell it. Just as I would a PDA (I prefer a paper organizer). As for the Ipod, I have a laptop, as do most students at private colleges who I've met. The last thing I need, as I stated here, is another toy.
Any time I wish to listen to audio lectures, I can simply fire up my browser -- or simply save it to my hard drive.
It's not that I'm anti-iPod, but I think I would seldom or never use it. I jog, but usually with friends; when I drive, I have a six-disc changer in the back of the car already. Plus the iPod doesn't support my preferred audio format (although that has been discussed to death already). I have the means, motive and opportunity to get one: I just ordered a Powerbook, but I still don't want an iPod.
As an offtopic note, does anyone know of colleges/universities that already offer audio lectures to non-students over the net?
Or the introduction of a free toy indicates to me that the University doesn't value my money and pisses it away on utterly frivolous portable music devices.
Laptops, at least, I can understand, even if they don't come with my OS of choice. But to pay for an expensive toy with my money would piss me off. [/grumpy young man]
Even spread across four years, with an interest rate you're unlikely to see in the forseeable future -- and certainly not without inflation -- you're looking at closer to $150,000.
Of course, if you take that same calculation out to 30 years, then we're talking about real money.
But I suspect that the downsides of Napster will quickly become apparent. The service will be practically useless at home, on airplanes or during travel, and it will also not be transferrable to portable music players, particularly the most popular portable player.
In addition, I think a fair number of students use p2p applications to find songs they can't find elsewhere -- live cuts, unknown bands and other miscellaneous tracks they can't find anywhere else. The GWU officials may misunderstand the very demographic they try to serve.
Then there's the problem of alternative platforms. From the Napster website: "PC only, Windows XP/2000, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.1 or higher, Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher..." No thanks. I'll take my Powerbook and find music elsewhere.
Add to that the lack of ability to burn songs to CD and the ease of most p2p networks, as well as simply ripping CDs, and I think that GWU is burning its money.
Others have pointed to the availability of stream ripping software, and I suspect that such software will quickly become widespread and popular. I'm sure students, particularly the Comp Sci ones, will find ways around the system.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Exactly. Some of the replies make comments about how easy it is to save 10% on 250K; that is true. But it's also easy to save 10% on almost any amount above $20,000 a year. However, what separates the wealthy is their ability to save relative to their income.
If you read The Millionaire Next Door, you'll see guys who study wealth have discovered that most millionaires look remarkably like everyone else. They may act like everyone else too, except that they consume much less than they earn.
Savings and investments are the "secrets" to wealth (which many people confuse with income -- these two concepts are not the same).
Of course, the secret to the "secrets" is that there is nothing glamorous or sexy about them. One can become a millionaire through hard work, thrift, and patience, even on a modest income. Facts like that get less play than "BRITNEY MAKEOVER REVEALED" and such.
With apologies to Woody Allen, if you want to learn how to spell "Connecticut," you're free to do so. No one can ruin the experience of reading without your own willing participation.
Reading skills involve the ability to parse, understand and digest written text. More advanced reading skills involve the ability to respond to the text, critque its underlying assumptions, understand its rhetoric, style, and other factors. For fiction, a reading skill may also involve being able to enjoy the story.
Good fiction (of which there's strikingly little and it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between the good and the bad without plowing through it all) makes the details important.
If you think there is so little "good" fiction, I pity you. You can make the argument that good fiction is hard to find, which I vehemently disgaree with -- hell, look some of the Slashdot articles on books and book recommendations and you'll see great stuff all over the place -- but to deny that there's a lifetime of good fiction is wrong. Of course, the best and easiest way to find good fiction is to find someone, preferrably older than 30, who has tastes similar to your own and can guide you towards the best stuff. As a voracious consummer of books, I act as a guide for half a dozen friends who lack the time or inclination to find what they wish to read on their own.
Yes, seeing an elephant's shadow is not the same as seeing an elephant, but reading is usually like looking at an elephant and then looking at it again with a microscope. Sure, I get more detail out of looking at it with the microscope. I might see the grass stuck between its toes and the snot hanging off its trunk. But the important part is generally the elephant.
This is such a terrible metaphor that I'm not going to address it.
Sure, book prices are much higher than the once were, but adjusted for inflation and compared to other forms of entertainment, they aren't that expensive. Consider the time one may enjoy a $20 book compared to, say a $9 movie ticket: the latter might satisfy for one and a half to three hours, while the former might satisfy for nine or more. Some people, of course, view this as a bug not a feature. And computer games might offer the cheapest hour/dollar ratio, but books offer other benefits like portability and more intellectual stimulation.
Then there's Amazon, which regularly knocks 10 - 40% off cover prices. As if that isn't enough, used bookstores offer easy access to a wide selection. There's your $4 papaerback and $12 hardcover.
And then there are libraries.
Finally, consider that the hardback book I buy today I will still be able to read in 40 years. Some of my Dad's books, which he bought as a teenager and young adult, I still read and enjoy. Robert Heinlein, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway are still every bit as enjoyable as they were when purchased.
I'd like to see cheaper books too, but they're already here if you know where to look.
You might not consciously improve your spelling and grammar, but part of reading is imbibing rules and conventions. Readers also naturally expand their vocabulary through their exposure to new words.
One the one hand, I'm tempted to decry the state of American literacy; but on the other hand, I realize that if fewer Americans read books, that probably means fewer can construct conherent sentences and organize their thoughts. My potential competitors are at a disadvantage.
Still, on a more serious note, one has to wonder what that means over the long term. One needs the ability to read and read effectively to digest technical material like Comp Sci, or to communicate with others. If fewer Americans read fiction, the foundation upon which most comprehension is built, I can perceive negative consequences over the long term. A less informed, less scientifically-inclined population could lead to eventual structural deficiencies in society.
Then again, maybe the problem also lies in the school system itself. As Paul Graham points out, most English teachers have an extraordinary ability to deaden material. The novel Election by Tom Perrotta goes into this high school malaise, albeit in a subtle way.
Absolutely. No doubt about it. Still, there is no perfect way to measure browser usage. As I understand it, Google's Zeitgeist says "Web Browsers Used to Access Google March 2001 - May 2004" and such. Therefore, so far as I can tell they simply measure how many times a particular browser hits any part of their site and then they graph it.
I'm guessing that, because of Google's massive size and broad user base, the Zeigeist gives ballpark estimates. And even if their statistics aren't perfect, I don't think they change their gathering method from month to month, so one can see trends.
I'm a Mac switcher of 2 years who has no intention of going back. And I've met SO many people in that time who've never seen a Mac up close before and have left, lusting after mine when they see up close and personal just how good it is. But they're always put off by the perceived high price. I know that you get so much more for your money with a Mac, but it seems difficult for people to relate to that (don't ask me why).
It's perceived to be a lot of money because it is. I think that's part of the reason iBooks sell so well: they're an extremely strong value compared to what one finds in PC notebooks. Likewise, for the past year or so iMacs have been a terrible value, and their starting pricepoint is too high. I hope Apple sells a headless G5 iMac for $899 in September. I'd buy one in a second.
There is nothing to be gained by jumping on the open source bandwagon, there is much money to be made in licensing content distribution methods.
There is much to be gained by using open source when it makes sense: like the Mach kernel that underlies OS X and GCC, which is the primary compiler Apple uses.
Indeed, Apple would be foolish not to utilize the millions and millions of dollars and many man years that go into open source software.
Hell, I don't even need to go on: simply see the list here.
And Apple, as a maker of computer operating systems, is by defition a competitor of Microsoft. A small and insignificant one, but competitor nonetheless. Apple only challenges Sony, for the moment, in the portable music market, and to some degree in the music distribution market, as well as in the computer market to some degree. Sony's market cap: almost 35B. Apple's? 11.4B.
Still, I think you're dead-on with other comments, like this one: "Jobs is smarter than McNealy. He won't push Apple marketshare by basing Microsft security, and he knows it. He will do it by expanding what Apple's are. By going heavily into the portable computing space, making ergonomically pleasing Apple appliances, under the iBook, iPod and other product iMonikers."
Those are good points. Most basketball players, or professional athletes in general, are wary of mocking their opposition before big games. They would rather not egg on the competition to greater heights by needling the enemy.
Likewise, Apple is better off not painting a huge red and white target on their OS by bragging about immunity to viruses and other malware. They are better served by letting others, like Slashdot readers, do the job for them, just as athletes often leave speculation to journalists and fans*.
For one thing, any competant programmer could write malware for OS X, and perhaps some already have; it's just such software may be harder to distribute. The there's the marketshare argument, which has been discussed in great depth elsewhere and does not need to be repeated here.
Slashdot Mirror
People pick their battles: they cannot fight all negative things in the world all the time. Maybe she quit teaching Brave New World and substituted some kind of different dystopian future novel, or some other work critical of the society in which we live.
It's also possible the curriculum changed, or that some other event occured of which you are not aware. To say that you lost all respect for ceasing to teach a particular novel seems unfair.
Perhaps you have not shared the whole story, and if that is the case then I apoligize for the above.
Yeah, when it was published the article cauesd a riot.
In America we do the same thing, throw it on Pay-Per-View and charge $49.99 a pop.
Well, one can't account for taste, and I could understand how someone would like the detail and in-jokes from the period: but overall, as another poster said, the book came off as too "cute". The worst part is that I think that, somewhere in Quicksilver, a winner exists -- perhaps it still wouldn't measure up to Cryptonomicon, but it could still be worth reading.
Incidentally, I suspect my reaction is similar to his and many other posters: awe at Cryptonomicon, which is a fantastic work, followed by steadily building excitement for the release of Quicksilver, which disappoints so much that I will not be fooled again.
Translation: "Two chicks at the same time."
You've cited a number of quantifiable benefits, but your failure to take into account user interface and size except by dismissing them shows that you and the rest of the world value different things in portable music players. I just answered why the iPod is more successful; and you even did in your own response.
Note that this comes from someone who doesn't even own an iPod. But if I did want a portable music player, that would be my choice because I want the smallest device possible (so that I will actually use it and because it would be easier to run with).
But I a few important factors haven't been covered, or have only implied.
1) E-books must be cheaper and more convenient than regular books. That means I can pay $18 for a hardcover (after discount from Amazon), or $8 for the E-book that offers similar functionality (i.e. I can loan it to a friend).
2) Major authors/publishing houses are willing to provide books, including non-technical books, in an e-book format. I've seen plenty of people peddling their "free" trash novels on the 'net (Cory Doctrow excluded from the this category), but the fact remains that publishers provide a valuable service to the reading public.
3) Perhaps most importantly, I think the cost of paper/distribution will have to rise considerably for e-books to really take off. That probably means some kind of economic disaster that I cannot totally forsee, such as war with China, sudden ecological change or a sudden, massive spike in oil costs. If the price of printing and distributing books rises high enough, it will drive people toward online distribution systems. And I imagine the trend will solidify for music and movies as well.
I think my third point would be the most likely to suddenly make e-books attractive, but I hope I never see that day come to pass.
Also, multi-tasking with a large number of programs can tax the CPU or the RAM -- hence the penchant for duel processor pro machines.
Apple is probably giving Duke a discount, but then again I've already turned down an iPod for $69 (buy a laptop + iPod and get a $200 rebate + .edu discount) because I don't need an iPod.
So I do think it's weird, and a waste of money. See my previous comments here and here.
Good point. But if I were a Duke student, I would play with my iPod for a month and then leave it on my desk -- or simply sell it. Just as I would a PDA (I prefer a paper organizer). As for the Ipod, I have a laptop, as do most students at private colleges who I've met. The last thing I need, as I stated here, is another toy.
Any time I wish to listen to audio lectures, I can simply fire up my browser -- or simply save it to my hard drive.
It's not that I'm anti-iPod, but I think I would seldom or never use it. I jog, but usually with friends; when I drive, I have a six-disc changer in the back of the car already. Plus the iPod doesn't support my preferred audio format (although that has been discussed to death already). I have the means, motive and opportunity to get one: I just ordered a Powerbook, but I still don't want an iPod.
As an offtopic note, does anyone know of colleges/universities that already offer audio lectures to non-students over the net?
Laptops, at least, I can understand, even if they don't come with my OS of choice. But to pay for an expensive toy with my money would piss me off. [/grumpy young man]
30K * 10% = 33,000
33K * 10% = 36,300
36,300 * 10% = 39,930
39,930 * 10% = 43,923
Even spread across four years, with an interest rate you're unlikely to see in the forseeable future -- and certainly not without inflation -- you're looking at closer to $150,000.
Of course, if you take that same calculation out to 30 years, then we're talking about real money.
In addition, I think a fair number of students use p2p applications to find songs they can't find elsewhere -- live cuts, unknown bands and other miscellaneous tracks they can't find anywhere else. The GWU officials may misunderstand the very demographic they try to serve.
Then there's the problem of alternative platforms. From the Napster website: "PC only, Windows XP/2000, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.1 or higher, Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher..." No thanks. I'll take my Powerbook and find music elsewhere.
Add to that the lack of ability to burn songs to CD and the ease of most p2p networks, as well as simply ripping CDs, and I think that GWU is burning its money.
Others have pointed to the availability of stream ripping software, and I suspect that such software will quickly become widespread and popular. I'm sure students, particularly the Comp Sci ones, will find ways around the system.
If you read The Millionaire Next Door, you'll see guys who study wealth have discovered that most millionaires look remarkably like everyone else. They may act like everyone else too, except that they consume much less than they earn.
Savings and investments are the "secrets" to wealth (which many people confuse with income -- these two concepts are not the same).
Of course, the secret to the "secrets" is that there is nothing glamorous or sexy about them. One can become a millionaire through hard work, thrift, and patience, even on a modest income. Facts like that get less play than "BRITNEY MAKEOVER REVEALED" and such.
Consider this page, which yields that.
Any ideas why?
With apologies to Woody Allen, if you want to learn how to spell "Connecticut," you're free to do so. No one can ruin the experience of reading without your own willing participation.
Good fiction (of which there's strikingly little and it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between the good and the bad without plowing through it all) makes the details important.
If you think there is so little "good" fiction, I pity you. You can make the argument that good fiction is hard to find, which I vehemently disgaree with -- hell, look some of the Slashdot articles on books and book recommendations and you'll see great stuff all over the place -- but to deny that there's a lifetime of good fiction is wrong. Of course, the best and easiest way to find good fiction is to find someone, preferrably older than 30, who has tastes similar to your own and can guide you towards the best stuff. As a voracious consummer of books, I act as a guide for half a dozen friends who lack the time or inclination to find what they wish to read on their own.
Yes, seeing an elephant's shadow is not the same as seeing an elephant, but reading is usually like looking at an elephant and then looking at it again with a microscope. Sure, I get more detail out of looking at it with the microscope. I might see the grass stuck between its toes and the snot hanging off its trunk. But the important part is generally the elephant.
This is such a terrible metaphor that I'm not going to address it.
Then there's Amazon, which regularly knocks 10 - 40% off cover prices. As if that isn't enough, used bookstores offer easy access to a wide selection. There's your $4 papaerback and $12 hardcover.
And then there are libraries.
Finally, consider that the hardback book I buy today I will still be able to read in 40 years. Some of my Dad's books, which he bought as a teenager and young adult, I still read and enjoy. Robert Heinlein, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway are still every bit as enjoyable as they were when purchased.
I'd like to see cheaper books too, but they're already here if you know where to look.
You might not consciously improve your spelling and grammar, but part of reading is imbibing rules and conventions. Readers also naturally expand their vocabulary through their exposure to new words.
Still, on a more serious note, one has to wonder what that means over the long term. One needs the ability to read and read effectively to digest technical material like Comp Sci, or to communicate with others. If fewer Americans read fiction, the foundation upon which most comprehension is built, I can perceive negative consequences over the long term. A less informed, less scientifically-inclined population could lead to eventual structural deficiencies in society.
Then again, maybe the problem also lies in the school system itself. As Paul Graham points out, most English teachers have an extraordinary ability to deaden material. The novel Election by Tom Perrotta goes into this high school malaise, albeit in a subtle way.
Absolutely. No doubt about it. Still, there is no perfect way to measure browser usage. As I understand it, Google's Zeitgeist says "Web Browsers Used to Access Google March 2001 - May 2004" and such. Therefore, so far as I can tell they simply measure how many times a particular browser hits any part of their site and then they graph it.
I'm guessing that, because of Google's massive size and broad user base, the Zeigeist gives ballpark estimates. And even if their statistics aren't perfect, I don't think they change their gathering method from month to month, so one can see trends.
It's perceived to be a lot of money because it is. I think that's part of the reason iBooks sell so well: they're an extremely strong value compared to what one finds in PC notebooks. Likewise, for the past year or so iMacs have been a terrible value, and their starting pricepoint is too high. I hope Apple sells a headless G5 iMac for $899 in September. I'd buy one in a second.
There is much to be gained by using open source when it makes sense: like the Mach kernel that underlies OS X and GCC, which is the primary compiler Apple uses.
Indeed, Apple would be foolish not to utilize the millions and millions of dollars and many man years that go into open source software.
Hell, I don't even need to go on: simply see the list here.
And Apple, as a maker of computer operating systems, is by defition a competitor of Microsoft. A small and insignificant one, but competitor nonetheless. Apple only challenges Sony, for the moment, in the portable music market, and to some degree in the music distribution market, as well as in the computer market to some degree. Sony's market cap: almost 35B. Apple's? 11.4B.
Still, I think you're dead-on with other comments, like this one: "Jobs is smarter than McNealy. He won't push Apple marketshare by basing Microsft security, and he knows it. He will do it by expanding what Apple's are. By going heavily into the portable computing space, making ergonomically pleasing Apple appliances, under the iBook, iPod and other product iMonikers."
Exactly.
Likewise, Apple is better off not painting a huge red and white target on their OS by bragging about immunity to viruses and other malware. They are better served by letting others, like Slashdot readers, do the job for them, just as athletes often leave speculation to journalists and fans*.
For one thing, any competant programmer could write malware for OS X, and perhaps some already have; it's just such software may be harder to distribute. The there's the marketshare argument, which has been discussed in great depth elsewhere and does not need to be repeated here.
*Of course, there are exceptions.