I don't know if we're going to see a major breakthrough in battery technology in the near future, but it looks to me that things are improving enough with the current technology both in terms of capacity and cost that EVs will become practical, -especially when more economies of scale kick in.
I'm not sure what metric of sustainability EVs don't compete on currently but realize that coal fired power generation is on the way out and it has been for awhile. Even non-renewable sources like natural gas are much cleaner than coal or continuing to use petroleum for transportation needs.
By picking a winner, are you talking about EVs in general or Tesla? I think Tesla has done some remarkable things and has accomplished a major feat by producing EVs that are desirable for their performance and luxury rather just for being green. They've demonstrated that EVs can provide a superior experience. It will probably be a more traditional auto maker than ends up bringing EV to the masses. If you're not somebody that insists on a brand new car, EVs are a bargain on the used market. Granted, it's because their long term operating costs are still an unknown, but I'm pretty optimistic that pure EVs will ultimately be low maintenance vehicles. Especially once someone figures out how to market replacement batteries that are reasonably affordable, - and someone will.
Any serious hope to reduce greenhouse gases includes electrification of transportation, - so in that sense I think EVs are the winner in the long run. What infrastructure decisions are you worried about? Charging stations?
I live in a place that's colder than Quebec and have an EV. Actually a PHEV (Chevy Volt). The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.
A nice feature is that you can have the car "pre conditioned" before climbing inside and while it's still plugged in. So you get in a warm car and the car still has it's full range (though cold weather still impacts it). The same is true during hot weather when it comes to A/C.
The Volt is a plugin hybrid and the gas engine acts as an on-board generator for charging the battery. Chevy refers to the gas engine as the "range extender". The waste heat from that can be used to heat the cabin just like a regular car.
In the article that you linked to, it also says that most independents have a partisan leaning. When taking that into account, 48% of the public at least leans towards the Democrats while only 39% leans Republican. Independents don't really have a disdain or indifference for both sides. Republican leaning Independents have less disdain for Democrats than people that identify as Republicans. The reverse is also true.
In many ways even though my political views haven't really changed, I see myself as being more of an Independent. There's too little honest and open dialog from the hard core members of either party.
Even as a lefty, I'm growing tired of the near constant coverage in the news media about Trump as if there is nothing else happening in the world. Further, I don't believe that the media portrays him in a balanced way. Nevertheless, I think he's just about the worst President we've had in recent memory and is clearly unqualified to hold that office. He's capitalized on the genuine dissatisfaction that the general population has had with recent government leadership, but he's done nothing to substantially to improve the the status of the blue collar workers that supported him and he won't. He sees the problem as excessive regulation and bad trade deals. That's not really it.
Programs and attitudes like "Outreachy" are literally barriers to white males getting jobs in tech.
*Removing* barriers from others should not include *raising* barriers for some.
If you ever find that there is a program that hires only white males, and raises a barrier to those who aren't white males, the answer isn't to create an ideologically opposite but equally discriminatory program, the answer is to remove the discrimination at its source.
Similarly, if the problem is that some HR reps have inherent barriers to non-whites and non-males, the answer isn't to create HR reps that have inherent barriers only to white males.
You need to remove the discrimination, not simply reverse its polarity.
I'm a white male and programs like "Outreachy" have no meaningful impact on my ability to contribute to open source projects or make a living in tech. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a qualified white male who could not get a job in tech because of Outreachy.
Something to think about. How does one remove discrimination? Make it illegal? Does that really remove it? Tell people to stop doing it? What is its source? Black people are still asked to pre-pay for food in restaurants that don't ask the same of whites. They are still stopped by police for no other reason than they are driving in a white neighborhood. And they get kicked out of starbucks for not ordering something while white people are allowed to stay. Women are still payed less for doing the same job. All this in spite of the fact that just about everyone recognizes that these practices are wrong.
Further, I don't see programs like Outreachy reversing the polarity of discrimination. All they are doing is making sure a few electrons flow in the other direction while the vast majority of electrons are still going the same direction they always have. I wouldn't advocate or stand for a process or program that drove white males out of the tech industry to the point that those that remained represented a small fraction of their portion the whole population. But for some reason a lot of us think its OK that there are relatively few women in tech fields and don't really care to figure out why or what could be done about it.
Something else to think about, even if you could "remove discrimination at its source", removing the cause doesn't necessarily fix the damage. Simple example. Let's say the brakes fail on my car causing me to smash into my neighbor's fence. Does fixing the brakes (the cause) also repair the busted radiator, the lights, or my neighbor's fence? Of course not. Let's take it a step further and say that I've already been fighting with my neighbor because he lets his dog pee in my yard. He thinks my running into his fence was retaliation when it was a complete accident. He's seeing malice where there was none. Just like today sometimes people see discrimination when the real explanation is something else. But that's because there's been a history of discrimination that led them to believe that.
To summarize, fixing the cause isn't enough on it's own to repair the damage. Sometimes that requires deliberate action.
Anyway, this is a very complex subject. I don't see the lack of women in tech as solely the result of discrimination. That's another reason why I don't see removing the discrimination on its own will fix the problem.
I realize that somebody changed my words and is making a false equivalence.
On what fucking planet is 'it makes sense to exclude [race] [gender]' not racist and sexist?
I'm terribly sorry, I thought I was in a conversation with someone with basic reading comprehension.
I understand that people will disagree with me on lots of topics. Hopefully they can do so (or not) while considering what I actually wrote in its entirety.
I did, but what you wrote in its entirety is predicated on accepting your repugnant suggestion that racism and sexism are acceptable. They're not.
Is it sexist and repugnant for me to insist that the person I marry not be a male? If that is "sexist", then I'd suggest that sometimes it's OK to be sexist. If you don't consider that to be sexist, then why not?
Are you suggesting that I'm a racist and a sexist because I'm OK with there being services targeted at those that have suffered from racism and sexism? Interesting.
I'm not arguing that a white male can't be a target of real racism or sexism, but they generally are not when it comes to getting tech jobs.
Let's start where we probably agree: It's wrong to not hire a person for a tech job because they're black. That would be racist. Now, let's say I want to help that black guy and others like him get jobs in tech because for lots of reason including racism, there's not a lot of black guys in tech jobs. I don't dislike white guys but since the fact that they're white and male already gives them a leg up in getting tech jobs, I don't want to spend my resources to help them because they don't need the kind of help I'm providing. Is that racist? If so, then I'm OK with it in this instance.
It would seem to make sense to [be racist and sexist]
Hopefully you can understand why some people might disagree.
I realize that somebody changed my words and is making a false equivalence.
I understand that people will disagree with me on lots of topics. Hopefully they can do so (or not) while considering what I actually wrote in its entirety.
I don't "disfavor" white males, especially since I am one, nor do I advocate for discrimination based on groups one likes or dislikes. In this case, since being a while male is not a barrier to getting a job in tech but not being one can be, I have no problem with an organization providing services specifically to help those who are not white males get jobs in tech.
Also from their website:
"Outreachy is a paid, remote internship program that helps people traditionally underrepresented in tech make their first contributions to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities."
It would seem to make sense to exclude white males since they are not traditionally underrepresented in tech. Would it not? Just like it would make sense to exclude boys from GEMs club.
There's a shortage of talent in tech, so we need to figure out how to get more skilled people into the field. Women are severely under-represented and no, it's not because they're just not as good at it. The number of female CS graduates has been dropping since the 80s when I graduated. Why? Are the women of today genetically less capable of grasping code than the women of 30 years ago? Nonsense.
It could be because it's not seen as a desirable vocation for a woman, and just maybe that's not something inherent to coding itself. And maybe just getting more women into coding will encourage other women to make that choice.
The industrial revolution wasn't kind to the average worker in the early years. Long hours, dangerous working conditions, and low pay. But over time it got to a point where a high school education (or even less) and a factory job was all that was needed for entry into the middle class. But that didn't just happen. It took a ton of regulation and unionization, - both of which have fallen out of fashion. At the same time, public education was greatly expanded.
In today's world automation does create some high paying jobs, - for the ones doing the automating. There are other well paying jobs, but they typically require a college education. Rather than making the necessary education free, like what was done in the past, college costs are skyrocketing. Many (most?) start their careers in significant debt. And will that education be sufficient to keep them in well paying jobs for 3 or 4 decades while they save for their retirement? Probably not. Technology is advancing fast enough that they'll need to change jobs several times, maybe requiring more time consuming and expensive education to stay ahead.
I'm sorry, this situation is different. We are not prepared. I suppose they weren't then either, but this is going to require some serious rethinking of what society owes people, what people owe society, and how they should be contributing.
"If Apple were serious about battery life, they'd market battery replacements," Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org, told me in an email. "Apple clearly has a big financial benefit when people decide their phones are too slow and head to the Apple Store for a new phone."
Apple offers battery replacement as part of their services. Cost is $79 which is not cheap but certainly much cheaper than a new phone.
A modern cell phone takes better pictures than a top-of-the-line DSLR from ~10 years ago. Those DSLR photos were touted as being great quality.
Not even close. A top-of-the-line DSLR from 10 years ago would be a Canon 1Ds Mk III. With a full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, it wipes the floor with most smartphone cameras even if you don't factor in things like oh, I don't know, zoom lenses....
A modern cell phone takes great quality photos that are good enough for well over 95% of the population in over 95% of circumstances.
That would be the 95% of the population who have never used an actual camera, of course....
So my daughter takes from 12-20 pictures (most of which are selfies) on her way to school each day to post on snap-chat and instagram. Do you think she'd get better quality pictures from a 10 year old full frame dslr than her smart phone? I think she'd get some super high resolution photographs of her ear lobe, her left elbow, the backseat of the car, etc. The bulk of the camera, the relatively tiny 3" rear facing LCD, and lack of any sort of Internet connectivity would make the Canon an extremely poor choice.
Yes, that camera could be used to produce some really large prints that would look like crap from a phone camera. It's also better suited to dealing with challenging light or photographing things from a distance, but at a very high price, both in terms of cost and convenience. What did that camera cost when released, about $8,000? That's 10 times the price of even a very expensive smart phone. And that's just for the camera body. Lenses that make a camera like that even worthwhile are also going to cost a small fortune and would be quite bulky. And how many fps was the Canon capable of? 5? Compare that to the burst mode of a modern smartphone. Could a 5D even shoot video?
For the photos most people shoot the vast majority of the time, using a full-frame DSLR is like using a dump truck to pick up groceries. Whatever added benefits there might be are far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience.
Now don't get me wrong. I own a decent DSLR, a classic SLR (actually 3 at the moment), a Range Finder, and a medium format film camera. I have a really nice film scanner and some good quality glass. I appreciate what a good DSLR and other high end equipment can do. But they are overkill for most of what people take pictures for.
There is legal responsibility and then there is moral responsibility. And then there is history. Burning and shooting up Black churches were crimes committed by individuals that share the same ideology. The ideology attracts people who do this sort of thing. Charlottesville wasn't a linux convention where one redhat guy went nuts and ran over a bunch of ubuntu users.
These are people that talk about committing acts of violence all the time. Many of them went to Charlottesville expecting violence and I will go as far to say as wanting violence. So when it happens, they just throw up their hands and say: "It wasn't us" ?
I'm sorry, people who promote violent and hateful ideologies bear a moral responsibility for the violent and hateful acts that result even if they weren't the actual people committing those acts.
Whilst it's 100% true that having a better camera wont make you a better photographer, the reverse isn't true. No amount of talent in the world can get good shots out of bad cameras. As the old saying goes, a poor craftsman blames his tools but the corollary is a good craftsman buys better tools. Things have gone back to the way they were, DSLR's are the domain of professionals, P&S are the domain of amateurs, phones are good for non photographers or when you dont have a camera handy.
Photography is a hobby of mine. I have a DSLR, two SLRs with some great lenses, a Rangefinder, and a Yashica medium format camera. What I consider to be my best photograph ever was taken with a VGA resolution digital camera from 90's.
I frequent a photography forum that has a portion of it dedicated to photos taken with phones. Photographers of all sorts post photos there and it contains some fantastic pictures. A DSLR has some specific advantages that very often aren't required.
Further, too many people have this mistaken notion that SLRs and now DLSRs represent the ultimate in professional quality cameras. They do not. They are themselves a compromise for the sake of affordability and convenience just as phone cameras are. Just like phone cameras, as technology has improved you give up a lot less by choosing a DSLR over a medium or large format camera than you used to.
Nonsense.
Nothing more annoying than having a half-blurry photo.
If the object really is the only thing interesting in the photo, why not cut it out and paste it on a black background instead?
And if that fails, have some neon-colored text in comic-sans "This is important" with an arrow pointed to the object.
Honestly I think most people are just overcomplicating things needlessly.
Or you could just take a picture of something in "portrait" mode and be done with it. No cutting. No pasting. No Arrows. Who is overcomplicating here?
You have to remember that a 2D photo in and of itself is a distortion of the real world. The real world is in motion and is 3 dimensional. Blur provides cues as to what is going on in that picture. Imagine a fabulous shot of a car going 200 mph. The details of the car are clear while everything it's moving past is blurred. If everything were in focus, the car could be parked for all you'd know.
And yes, blur or "bokeh" can be used for artistic effect. Better lenses/apertures blur in a more pleasing way. You may or may not appreciate that but lots of people do. Photography is an art form and Apple likes to appeal to the artistic/creative types or wannabes.
Studies I've seen wouldn't disagree with that statement entirely but would qualify it. Conservative people tend to focus more on perceived threats and also tend to see things more in black and white vs shades of grey.
This is exactly what you want in a decision maker who is a bonafide threatening situation. They will deal with it quickly. And that may indeed make them seem more "capable" or a least "decisive". There are any number of instances where one can't afford to dawdle, ponder the nuances, or worry about everyone's reaction when it comes to making a decision.
But there are other situations where not rushing to judgement, and understanding all the nuances and ramifications of a decision are critical.
Are the British Isles moving because of Brexit?;-)
Pretty sure the UK will still be part of Europe whether they're in the European Union or not.
Anyway I just received my 2nd Pi Zero W (built in wifi) this week. The first one was faulty. It could only see Access Points that were very close. Apparently it's not been an isolated problem. The 2nd one works great and the range is pretty impressive considering the lack of an external antenna. Incredibly versatile, fun, and inexpensive device. So congratulations to them.
The problem is that these are individual job losses that you are linking to the clean air act. It certainly matters to those individuals, but to suggest that the standard of living of society as a whole suffered would be hard to demonstrate, and in fact the opposite is true.
Further I'd argue that there are very few job losses that can be tied to these regulations anyway since industries shutting down in the rust belt probably had a lot more to do with companies wanting to cut labor costs than it had to do with regulations. There is no doubt companies that love to complain about regulations and I'll agree that there are some that are more onerous than they are worth. But massive layoffs have far more to do with reducing labor costs that it does with pollution controls.
In what meaningful ways has the clean air act of 1970 or 1990 (for example) reduced our standard of living? Consider that estimates have them saving hundreds of thousands of lives:
http://thenationshealth.aphapu...
What would not having those regulations mean for health care costs? I'm sorry, a polluted environment does have a negative effect on ones standard of living.
Back in the 60's there were rivers so polluted that they'd literally catch on fire. People in Beijing walk around wearing air masks. That's what it would be like in many of our cities without the regulations. That does not sound like a great standard of living to me.
You really think so? How much or how little money do you suppose I have? Because my experience has been the opposite. I've cared the most about money when it was in short supply.
I will grant you that there are plenty of people whose major motive in life is to make more and more money. And maybe it is a viscous cycle of sorts. The more they have, the more they want. Doesn't sound like somebody worth envying though.
Can they? Do the skills transfer that easily? Are there sufficient clean energy projects in the areas where coal minors are located? Do these jobs pay as well, given that at least some coal minors have union jobs?
I'm not a Republican but I do agree that progressives have not adequately addressed the problems these workers face. I don't think the Democrats wanted to admit that there are losers in the transition to clean energy other than big bad fossil fuel companies.
Nor do a I believe that Trump has any real solutions for the majority of blue color workers. In fact I see very little hope for that group of people, - not because of clean energy, immigration, or manufacturing leaving the states, but because automation will eliminate those kinds of jobs and lots of others.
We need a radically different approach that I haven't heard a single politician in the states talk seriously about.
Maybe because he feels that Pepe has become a symbol of a collection of people whose beliefs he finds disturbing and he'd rather not profit by catering to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if we're going to see a major breakthrough in battery technology in the near future, but it looks to me that things are improving enough with the current technology both in terms of capacity and cost that EVs will become practical, -especially when more economies of scale kick in.
I'm not sure what metric of sustainability EVs don't compete on currently but realize that coal fired power generation is on the way out and it has been for awhile. Even non-renewable sources like natural gas are much cleaner than coal or continuing to use petroleum for transportation needs.
By picking a winner, are you talking about EVs in general or Tesla? I think Tesla has done some remarkable things and has accomplished a major feat by producing EVs that are desirable for their performance and luxury rather just for being green. They've demonstrated that EVs can provide a superior experience. It will probably be a more traditional auto maker than ends up bringing EV to the masses. If you're not somebody that insists on a brand new car, EVs are a bargain on the used market. Granted, it's because their long term operating costs are still an unknown, but I'm pretty optimistic that pure EVs will ultimately be low maintenance vehicles. Especially once someone figures out how to market replacement batteries that are reasonably affordable, - and someone will.
Any serious hope to reduce greenhouse gases includes electrification of transportation, - so in that sense I think EVs are the winner in the long run. What infrastructure decisions are you worried about? Charging stations?
I live in a place that's colder than Quebec and have an EV. Actually a PHEV (Chevy Volt). The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.
A nice feature is that you can have the car "pre conditioned" before climbing inside and while it's still plugged in. So you get in a warm car and the car still has it's full range (though cold weather still impacts it). The same is true during hot weather when it comes to A/C.
The Volt is a plugin hybrid and the gas engine acts as an on-board generator for charging the battery. Chevy refers to the gas engine as the "range extender". The waste heat from that can be used to heat the cabin just like a regular car.
In the article that you linked to, it also says that most independents have a partisan leaning. When taking that into account, 48% of the public at least leans towards the Democrats while only 39% leans Republican. Independents don't really have a disdain or indifference for both sides. Republican leaning Independents have less disdain for Democrats than people that identify as Republicans. The reverse is also true.
In many ways even though my political views haven't really changed, I see myself as being more of an Independent. There's too little honest and open dialog from the hard core members of either party.
Even as a lefty, I'm growing tired of the near constant coverage in the news media about Trump as if there is nothing else happening in the world. Further, I don't believe that the media portrays him in a balanced way. Nevertheless, I think he's just about the worst President we've had in recent memory and is clearly unqualified to hold that office. He's capitalized on the genuine dissatisfaction that the general population has had with recent government leadership, but he's done nothing to substantially to improve the the status of the blue collar workers that supported him and he won't. He sees the problem as excessive regulation and bad trade deals. That's not really it.
Programs and attitudes like "Outreachy" are literally barriers to white males getting jobs in tech.
*Removing* barriers from others should not include *raising* barriers for some.
If you ever find that there is a program that hires only white males, and raises a barrier to those who aren't white males, the answer isn't to create an ideologically opposite but equally discriminatory program, the answer is to remove the discrimination at its source.
Similarly, if the problem is that some HR reps have inherent barriers to non-whites and non-males, the answer isn't to create HR reps that have inherent barriers only to white males.
You need to remove the discrimination, not simply reverse its polarity.
I'm a white male and programs like "Outreachy" have no meaningful impact on my ability to contribute to open source projects or make a living in tech. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a qualified white male who could not get a job in tech because of Outreachy.
Something to think about. How does one remove discrimination? Make it illegal? Does that really remove it? Tell people to stop doing it? What is its source? Black people are still asked to pre-pay for food in restaurants that don't ask the same of whites. They are still stopped by police for no other reason than they are driving in a white neighborhood. And they get kicked out of starbucks for not ordering something while white people are allowed to stay. Women are still payed less for doing the same job. All this in spite of the fact that just about everyone recognizes that these practices are wrong.
Further, I don't see programs like Outreachy reversing the polarity of discrimination. All they are doing is making sure a few electrons flow in the other direction while the vast majority of electrons are still going the same direction they always have. I wouldn't advocate or stand for a process or program that drove white males out of the tech industry to the point that those that remained represented a small fraction of their portion the whole population. But for some reason a lot of us think its OK that there are relatively few women in tech fields and don't really care to figure out why or what could be done about it.
Something else to think about, even if you could "remove discrimination at its source", removing the cause doesn't necessarily fix the damage. Simple example. Let's say the brakes fail on my car causing me to smash into my neighbor's fence. Does fixing the brakes (the cause) also repair the busted radiator, the lights, or my neighbor's fence? Of course not. Let's take it a step further and say that I've already been fighting with my neighbor because he lets his dog pee in my yard. He thinks my running into his fence was retaliation when it was a complete accident. He's seeing malice where there was none. Just like today sometimes people see discrimination when the real explanation is something else. But that's because there's been a history of discrimination that led them to believe that.
To summarize, fixing the cause isn't enough on it's own to repair the damage. Sometimes that requires deliberate action.
Anyway, this is a very complex subject. I don't see the lack of women in tech as solely the result of discrimination. That's another reason why I don't see removing the discrimination on its own will fix the problem.
There's a shortage of talent in nursing, so we need to figure out how to get more skilled men into the field.
Right? We need to have nursing programs that EXCLUDE women? 'No Women need apply'???
Is that right?
You WANT to exclude women from nursing programs, so we have 'balance'?
http://www.aamn.org/
There are actually lots of initiatives to get more men into nursing including scholarships for nursing programs available only to men.
I realize that somebody changed my words and is making a false equivalence.
On what fucking planet is 'it makes sense to exclude [race] [gender]' not racist and sexist?
I'm terribly sorry, I thought I was in a conversation with someone with basic reading comprehension.
I understand that people will disagree with me on lots of topics. Hopefully they can do so (or not) while considering what I actually wrote in its entirety.
I did, but what you wrote in its entirety is predicated on accepting your repugnant suggestion that racism and sexism are acceptable. They're not.
Is it sexist and repugnant for me to insist that the person I marry not be a male? If that is "sexist", then I'd suggest that sometimes it's OK to be sexist. If you don't consider that to be sexist, then why not?
Are you suggesting that I'm a racist and a sexist because I'm OK with there being services targeted at those that have suffered from racism and sexism? Interesting.
I'm not arguing that a white male can't be a target of real racism or sexism, but they generally are not when it comes to getting tech jobs.
Let's start where we probably agree: It's wrong to not hire a person for a tech job because they're black. That would be racist. Now, let's say I want to help that black guy and others like him get jobs in tech because for lots of reason including racism, there's not a lot of black guys in tech jobs. I don't dislike white guys but since the fact that they're white and male already gives them a leg up in getting tech jobs, I don't want to spend my resources to help them because they don't need the kind of help I'm providing. Is that racist? If so, then I'm OK with it in this instance.
You do realise that you just wrote
It would seem to make sense to [be racist and sexist]
Hopefully you can understand why some people might disagree.
I realize that somebody changed my words and is making a false equivalence.
I understand that people will disagree with me on lots of topics. Hopefully they can do so (or not) while considering what I actually wrote in its entirety.
I don't "disfavor" white males, especially since I am one, nor do I advocate for discrimination based on groups one likes or dislikes. In this case, since being a while male is not a barrier to getting a job in tech but not being one can be, I have no problem with an organization providing services specifically to help those who are not white males get jobs in tech.
Also from their website: "Outreachy is a paid, remote internship program that helps people traditionally underrepresented in tech make their first contributions to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities."
It would seem to make sense to exclude white males since they are not traditionally underrepresented in tech. Would it not? Just like it would make sense to exclude boys from GEMs club.
There's a shortage of talent in tech, so we need to figure out how to get more skilled people into the field. Women are severely under-represented and no, it's not because they're just not as good at it. The number of female CS graduates has been dropping since the 80s when I graduated. Why? Are the women of today genetically less capable of grasping code than the women of 30 years ago? Nonsense.
It could be because it's not seen as a desirable vocation for a woman, and just maybe that's not something inherent to coding itself. And maybe just getting more women into coding will encourage other women to make that choice.
The industrial revolution wasn't kind to the average worker in the early years. Long hours, dangerous working conditions, and low pay. But over time it got to a point where a high school education (or even less) and a factory job was all that was needed for entry into the middle class. But that didn't just happen. It took a ton of regulation and unionization, - both of which have fallen out of fashion. At the same time, public education was greatly expanded.
In today's world automation does create some high paying jobs, - for the ones doing the automating. There are other well paying jobs, but they typically require a college education. Rather than making the necessary education free, like what was done in the past, college costs are skyrocketing. Many (most?) start their careers in significant debt. And will that education be sufficient to keep them in well paying jobs for 3 or 4 decades while they save for their retirement? Probably not. Technology is advancing fast enough that they'll need to change jobs several times, maybe requiring more time consuming and expensive education to stay ahead.
I'm sorry, this situation is different. We are not prepared. I suppose they weren't then either, but this is going to require some serious rethinking of what society owes people, what people owe society, and how they should be contributing.
"If Apple were serious about battery life, they'd market battery replacements," Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org, told me in an email. "Apple clearly has a big financial benefit when people decide their phones are too slow and head to the Apple Store for a new phone."
Apple offers battery replacement as part of their services. Cost is $79 which is not cheap but certainly much cheaper than a new phone.
Not even close. A top-of-the-line DSLR from 10 years ago would be a Canon 1Ds Mk III. With a full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, it wipes the floor with most smartphone cameras even if you don't factor in things like oh, I don't know, zoom lenses....
That would be the 95% of the population who have never used an actual camera, of course....
So my daughter takes from 12-20 pictures (most of which are selfies) on her way to school each day to post on snap-chat and instagram. Do you think she'd get better quality pictures from a 10 year old full frame dslr than her smart phone? I think she'd get some super high resolution photographs of her ear lobe, her left elbow, the backseat of the car, etc. The bulk of the camera, the relatively tiny 3" rear facing LCD, and lack of any sort of Internet connectivity would make the Canon an extremely poor choice.
Yes, that camera could be used to produce some really large prints that would look like crap from a phone camera. It's also better suited to dealing with challenging light or photographing things from a distance, but at a very high price, both in terms of cost and convenience. What did that camera cost when released, about $8,000? That's 10 times the price of even a very expensive smart phone. And that's just for the camera body. Lenses that make a camera like that even worthwhile are also going to cost a small fortune and would be quite bulky. And how many fps was the Canon capable of? 5? Compare that to the burst mode of a modern smartphone. Could a 5D even shoot video?
For the photos most people shoot the vast majority of the time, using a full-frame DSLR is like using a dump truck to pick up groceries. Whatever added benefits there might be are far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience.
Now don't get me wrong. I own a decent DSLR, a classic SLR (actually 3 at the moment), a Range Finder, and a medium format film camera. I have a really nice film scanner and some good quality glass. I appreciate what a good DSLR and other high end equipment can do. But they are overkill for most of what people take pictures for.
There is legal responsibility and then there is moral responsibility. And then there is history. Burning and shooting up Black churches were crimes committed by individuals that share the same ideology. The ideology attracts people who do this sort of thing. Charlottesville wasn't a linux convention where one redhat guy went nuts and ran over a bunch of ubuntu users.
These are people that talk about committing acts of violence all the time. Many of them went to Charlottesville expecting violence and I will go as far to say as wanting violence. So when it happens, they just throw up their hands and say: "It wasn't us" ?
I'm sorry, people who promote violent and hateful ideologies bear a moral responsibility for the violent and hateful acts that result even if they weren't the actual people committing those acts.
Whilst it's 100% true that having a better camera wont make you a better photographer, the reverse isn't true. No amount of talent in the world can get good shots out of bad cameras. As the old saying goes, a poor craftsman blames his tools but the corollary is a good craftsman buys better tools. Things have gone back to the way they were, DSLR's are the domain of professionals, P&S are the domain of amateurs, phones are good for non photographers or when you dont have a camera handy.
Photography is a hobby of mine. I have a DSLR, two SLRs with some great lenses, a Rangefinder, and a Yashica medium format camera. What I consider to be my best photograph ever was taken with a VGA resolution digital camera from 90's.
I frequent a photography forum that has a portion of it dedicated to photos taken with phones. Photographers of all sorts post photos there and it contains some fantastic pictures. A DSLR has some specific advantages that very often aren't required.
Further, too many people have this mistaken notion that SLRs and now DLSRs represent the ultimate in professional quality cameras. They do not. They are themselves a compromise for the sake of affordability and convenience just as phone cameras are. Just like phone cameras, as technology has improved you give up a lot less by choosing a DSLR over a medium or large format camera than you used to.
Nonsense. Nothing more annoying than having a half-blurry photo. If the object really is the only thing interesting in the photo, why not cut it out and paste it on a black background instead? And if that fails, have some neon-colored text in comic-sans "This is important" with an arrow pointed to the object. Honestly I think most people are just overcomplicating things needlessly.
Or you could just take a picture of something in "portrait" mode and be done with it. No cutting. No pasting. No Arrows. Who is overcomplicating here?
You have to remember that a 2D photo in and of itself is a distortion of the real world. The real world is in motion and is 3 dimensional. Blur provides cues as to what is going on in that picture. Imagine a fabulous shot of a car going 200 mph. The details of the car are clear while everything it's moving past is blurred. If everything were in focus, the car could be parked for all you'd know.
And yes, blur or "bokeh" can be used for artistic effect. Better lenses/apertures blur in a more pleasing way. You may or may not appreciate that but lots of people do. Photography is an art form and Apple likes to appeal to the artistic/creative types or wannabes.
Is that what the study really said?
Studies I've seen wouldn't disagree with that statement entirely but would qualify it. Conservative people tend to focus more on perceived threats and also tend to see things more in black and white vs shades of grey.
This is exactly what you want in a decision maker who is a bonafide threatening situation. They will deal with it quickly. And that may indeed make them seem more "capable" or a least "decisive". There are any number of instances where one can't afford to dawdle, ponder the nuances, or worry about everyone's reaction when it comes to making a decision.
But there are other situations where not rushing to judgement, and understanding all the nuances and ramifications of a decision are critical.
Are the British Isles moving because of Brexit? ;-)
Pretty sure the UK will still be part of Europe whether they're in the European Union or not.
Anyway I just received my 2nd Pi Zero W (built in wifi) this week. The first one was faulty. It could only see Access Points that were very close. Apparently it's not been an isolated problem. The 2nd one works great and the range is pretty impressive considering the lack of an external antenna. Incredibly versatile, fun, and inexpensive device. So congratulations to them.
The problem is that these are individual job losses that you are linking to the clean air act. It certainly matters to those individuals, but to suggest that the standard of living of society as a whole suffered would be hard to demonstrate, and in fact the opposite is true.
Further I'd argue that there are very few job losses that can be tied to these regulations anyway since industries shutting down in the rust belt probably had a lot more to do with companies wanting to cut labor costs than it had to do with regulations. There is no doubt companies that love to complain about regulations and I'll agree that there are some that are more onerous than they are worth. But massive layoffs have far more to do with reducing labor costs that it does with pollution controls.
In what meaningful ways has the clean air act of 1970 or 1990 (for example) reduced our standard of living? Consider that estimates have them saving hundreds of thousands of lives: http://thenationshealth.aphapu...
What would not having those regulations mean for health care costs? I'm sorry, a polluted environment does have a negative effect on ones standard of living.
Back in the 60's there were rivers so polluted that they'd literally catch on fire. People in Beijing walk around wearing air masks. That's what it would be like in many of our cities without the regulations. That does not sound like a great standard of living to me.
You really think so? How much or how little money do you suppose I have? Because my experience has been the opposite. I've cared the most about money when it was in short supply.
I will grant you that there are plenty of people whose major motive in life is to make more and more money. And maybe it is a viscous cycle of sorts. The more they have, the more they want. Doesn't sound like somebody worth envying though.
I had no idea either, but I've got no vested interested this frog. The cartoonist does.
Can they? Do the skills transfer that easily? Are there sufficient clean energy projects in the areas where coal minors are located? Do these jobs pay as well, given that at least some coal minors have union jobs?
I'm not a Republican but I do agree that progressives have not adequately addressed the problems these workers face. I don't think the Democrats wanted to admit that there are losers in the transition to clean energy other than big bad fossil fuel companies.
Nor do a I believe that Trump has any real solutions for the majority of blue color workers. In fact I see very little hope for that group of people, - not because of clean energy, immigration, or manufacturing leaving the states, but because automation will eliminate those kinds of jobs and lots of others.
We need a radically different approach that I haven't heard a single politician in the states talk seriously about.
If you're ripping off people you don't like, your emotions have already gotten in the way.
Maybe because he feels that Pepe has become a symbol of a collection of people whose beliefs he finds disturbing and he'd rather not profit by catering to them.
Money isn't everything.