Except that big manufacturers don't sell all of their products in all markets and I find it highly unlikely that manufactures would put EU energy efficiency labels on products sold in the US since there would be no incentive for them to do so.
They will happily sell products in the US that don't meet EU standards and products in Thailand that don't meet US standards.
And yes, I am one of those people that considers Energy Star ratings when I make a purchase. What you'll generally find is that products with better Energy Star ratings are also of better quality than similar products with lower ratings. They're not just more energy efficient.
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Where did I say that? What I did say is that if it were a FOX reporter that had done that hacking, it would be different. I still have some moral issues with breaking into systems and exposing private communications.
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.
The problem I see with your argument is that you're assuming that the Republicans can't or haven't been compromised.
So it's OK with you that a foreign power hacked the systems of one of our political parties for the express purpose of swaying the election towards a candidate of their liking?
If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it, but it wasn't. My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties. Democracy doesn't exist without free and fair elections.
Regardless of whether the actions of the Russians actually made any actual difference in the outcome, what has happened is that it has sown distrust in the validity of our election process. That is a big problem, not a good thing.
What you're talking about is giving people some menial tasks in exchange for shelter, food, clothing, etc. Who distributes this food, shelter, clothing, etc? Is it the government? How does the government obtain it? Do they buy it? From who? How does the government get the money to purchase it?
The way it works now is that the government gets its money from tax payers who get it mostly through employment.
But what happens when the government doesn't receive enough in taxes to keep operating let alone do what you're suggesting? This is the future we're facing. Not only is there risk to those who can't find work, but the smaller workforce ends up defunding the governments that are supposed to provide the safety net and other services. That's why some have suggested taxing robots as well since they will becoming a major part of the labor pool.
To the extent that capitalism functions, it depend on the value of peoples' work at least meeting their living expenses. What's happening is that automation is severely cutting the value of the average worker. We are fast approaching a time where a large percentage of the workforce can't earn their keep because automation can do it cheaper.
Nuts don't grow in a vacuum. I have no idea how much (if any) impact Trump had on this guy. I would guess though that he had plenty of contact with like minded people who at least talked about wanting to do this kind of thing. Trump's policies and penchant for "alternative" facts helps fuel the misguided hatred that feeds this stuff.
Entire societies have been complicit in unspeakable crimes including genocide. Where they nuts? No. They were surrounded by people and institutions that legitimized that kind of thinking. I don't believe Trump even knows how dangerous he his. It was never so important before to know the facts. It was never so important to be careful about what one says. He's not qualified either in experience or temperament for this job.
I would guess that the same people concerned about this event are also largely the same people advocating for stricter gun controls. So it would seem that they are indeed concerned about those other shootings.
What is more interesting is that Trump is pushing his travel ban while far more people are killed by fellow Americans using guns than are killed by terrorists. Over 150,000 gun related homicides since 2001 vs 3,046 killed by terrorists. While 3,046 is indeed a large number, 2,996 of those happened on 9/11. None of those perpetrators were from the seven countries on Trump's list. The bulk of them were from Saudi Arabia, where Trump has significant business interests.
All that being said, I don't think gun control is THE answer to gun related homicides. There are deeper problems that need to be addressed. A travel ban is an order of magnitude worse solution to a much smaller problem. It serves to aggravate anti-US sentiment and makes recruiting people of any nationality an even easier task for terrorists. It makes enemies out of people who might otherwise be allies and promotes an environment where hatred and fear of "outsiders" is encouraged.
The US is part of a larger world. Like it or not, what happens elsewhere matters, and matters to us. We can build walls, shut doors, or whatever we like. But the 7+ billion other people will still be out there. Fighting with each other sure, but also cooperating with each other, learning from each other, etc.
Withdrawing from the world allows others to set the agenda, to form partnerships that may not favor us. I'm sure China and Russia will be happy to step in where we've walked away.
"Helping everyone else" is not just a morally decent thing to do, it also helps us in the long run.
Giuliani is a lawyer and was a mayor of a very large city. Probably not an idiot but has very little geopolitical or security experience. There are probably a hundred people more qualified to do this job who can also lead teams and get things done.
Part of good security is following best practices and keeping the software up to date regardless of the value of the information on the server itself. Not doing so allows the potential for the server to be used for nefarious purposes. No one expects Giuliani to keep the server updated himself, but if he understood and paid any real attention to cyber security, he'd make sure that someone did manage his Internet presence responsibly.
I'm not sure I agree. I learned a lot more about photography after starting to shoot film. With digital there is a tendency to shoot a hundred photos and let the camera do everything. You have no idea why some photos turn out and others don't. There's no reason you can't learn everything you need to with a digital camera, there's just little incentive to.
With a film camera on the other hand, now each shot matters and you want to make sure you get it right most of the time. So you learn about iso, aperture, and shutter speed. You learn what is meant by the term "fast lens". My digital photos have gotten much better since I started shooting film. I've gotten shots in tricky light that I never knew enough to get right before.
Here's what I meant. I picked up a Canon AE-1 Program with a 50mm F/1.4 FD lens for free. The equivalent modern lens will cost over $300. Now there are digital cameras you can use that old lens with if you have the proper adaptor. However a Canon DSLR isn't one of them. I'm not saying it's impossible to use on a Canon DSLR but the results won't be good. There's plenty of info on the Internet that explains why. Canon couldn't get autofocus to work well with their old FD lenses so they went with a whole different system, - which effectively made a ton of excellent lenses obsolete, - unless you use an old camera.
I also bought an old Canon rangefinder for $10. This one has the 40mm F1.7 lens. This camera and lens combo is so good, it's often been called the poor man's Leica. I'm afraid with this lens you are stuck with a film camera because it's permanently attached.
Finally, I got a Canon Elan II/e for $15. This came with a pretty nice EF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 USM lens. It's one of the best, if not the best kit zoom lenses Canon ever made. Now, it is still a kit lens and not exactly top of the line, but people will still spend over $100 on them on eBay and it will work just fine with any modern Canon camera. However, because it was attached to a film camera, the quality of the lens went unnoticed and I got it for a song.
I always thought that developing color film was a difficult process that you couldn't do at home without specialized equipment. Not so. I hadn't development my own film since a middle school photography class decades ago but this year I got back into film and have been pleasantly surprised. For C41 color film you can get all the chemicals you need in a kit for less than $30 shipped and it's good for many rolls.
Being a geek I used a raspberry pi, a temp sensor, and a relay to shut a thrift store roaster oven filled with water on and off to maintain the proper temp. But people get good results just filling a cooler with water and adjusting the temp by adding hot or cold water.
No one will confuse me with a hipster. So why do I shoot film? I'm not going to say it's better than digital. After all, I end up scanning the negatives anyway. It does have a different quality that you may or may not prefer. The longer process does make you think about your shots more, and learning about film has given me a much better understanding of photography in general. Even with digital cameras I've been able to get results that I never could have before.
Another benefit is that excellent film cameras and lenses (that are still great by today's standards) are available for next to nothing.
On a different forum that I participate in that's almost totally unrelated to music, a guy started a topic about George Michael dying. Now, it was in a section devoted to off-topic subjects so there was nothing particularly unusual about the fact that he did that. But it got a little weird.
I posted a brief reply to which he responded, first thanking me for my thoughts and then going on this long diatribe about how no one else had engaged in the thread. He referred to the other regulars as people without a pulse and as being soul-less. It was the sort of reaction that Dr. Watkins was referring to. As far as I knew this guy didn't have any kind of personal relationship with George Michael. He was just a ardent fan.
But here is the thing that Dr Watkins is missing or perhaps he understands but laments it anyway. Those 745 people that died in Chicago this year undoubtedly had people that loved them and grieved for them, but the cold reality is that to the rest of us, 745 is just a number. We have no personal connection to them, therefore it has little emotional impact on us. There is lots of evidence that personal stories have far more effect on people than statistics. We will believe the heartfelt personal story. We will deny any statistic that doesn't fit our world view.
You can argue that other than small fraction of people, those that mourn the loss of George Michael or any celebrity didn't really know them either. Nevertheless, they had an impact on our lives. They are connected with strong memories for some of us.
So while arguably we should feel a lot worse about 745 people dying than we do about the death of a single celebrity, that's not how emotions work.
Yes, that's right. I had the unfortunate experience of working for a startup about 15 years ago that ran into financial difficulty. Survival depended on finding a buyer but that buyer didn't want everything, only those parts of the business that they thought had some benefit for them.
In the end, the buyer backed out and the startup folded, leaving customers without service, employees that were suddenly out of work and hadn't been paid in several weeks, and all kinds of vendors that were owed money.
What happened with the Pebble/FitBit deal sucks, but it's far better. It sounds like there will be refunds issued (eventually) and some employees will still have jobs with Fitbit.
I run a small IT department but spent most of my years as a programmer. We have two major development projects in progress right now. Believe it or not, one is a mostly agile project and another is mostly waterfall. The agile project is targeted to be completed at the beginning of the year and the waterfall by end of 1st quarter.
Right now, I expect that both will be successful. Oh, and the agile project is adding significant new functionality for an organization we are merging with. It's being built on an 8 year old codebase that started its life as an agile project and has always been run that way. The business function it supports is constantly changing and evolving. Using the waterfall method to build that software simply wouldn't have worked. We were launching a brand new service. The users were as brand new to the service as we were. We worked with them closely. They certainly had ideas about what the software should do and how it should support them. But they were ideas that needed to be validated.
The system that resulted has supported the business well, but yes parts have needed to be redesigned. Not sure that could have been avoided with the waterfall method.
Good practice is good practice and no methodology should be used as an excuse to avoid doing them. That's where things go wrong. "Agile" doesn't mean there's no design, and "waterfall" doesn't mean you disappear for two years while you build the software.
My personal belief is that certain projects and teams lend themselves more to one approach than the other. "Agile" is only hype in the sense that it's sometimes used where it's not a good fit. But to deny that lots of organizations have had success with it is just sticking your head in the sand.
And I suspect that this is how it will go with the more recent immigrant populations. The kids (and grand-kids to a lessor extent) may retain some of the cultural traditions but will be products of the larger society and for the most part will have adopted its values. However, some may be more determined to maintain their cultural heritage and language than others. It's nothing new and it's been part of the American landscape since the beginning.
When I retire I haven't ruled out becoming an expat and moving somewhere in Central America. Now, that's not quite the same as moving someplace as a young person with the intent of having my decendents grow up there. I will likely go to a region where there a plenty of other non-natives around. I think that's just the natural thing to do. I'd probably be able to get by just fine without ever learning the local language. I'd probably always consider myself an American more than belonging to wherever I end up. I think the older you are, the harder it is to change your identity,...so to speak. But I will contribute to that society. I will hopefully at least make an effort to learn the language, because I think I will have a better experience if I do.
Personally, I don't expect immigrants to "assimilate". I expect them to obey the laws, -which may mean that the have to abandon some practices that were common in their countries. I expect them to pay taxes. I feel blessed if I can enjoy their food and music.
I'll take it one step further and suggest that "assimilation" is an anti-American concept. Though in reality we have a checkered history when it comes to this, we regard "religious freedom" as an American tenet. People established colonies here precisely because they didn't want to be assimilated into the cultures of where they came from. We are also one of the few countries that does not have an official language. That's not an oversight.
Given that religious values and language are intimately tied to culture, it's not at all a stretch to say that a diversity of cultures is baked into the fabric of America. What you've described as some new phenomena is what's being going on since the beginning.
Even among whites in the US there are regional dialects and cultural traditions that can be traced back to other countries, - Louisiana Creole for example. Then there's perhaps the best example, the Amish, who've doggedly resisted any sort of assimilation.
You can make the argument that the Amish should take on the values of the larger society but my point is that not "assimilating" is nothing new. And to the extent that melting does occur, it can take generations and is never really complete or uniform.
I find it ironic that some people want to turn the US into the kind of countries that our ancestors deliberately left.
My grandfather still had a noticeable accent and identifying cultural traits over 100 years after his grand father moved to this country. He was white. They moved to a part of the US popular with people who came from the same place. Just like other immigrants tend to do. Over time, they adopted the language, dialects, and some of the traditions of other immigrant populations. There wasn't and isn't some base culture that they all assimilated into. The common cultural elements changed over time and there have always been sub cultures.
A melting pot doesn't mean that everything thrown in turns into what was already there.
Man, how did I ever end up being a director of an IT department after years of desktop support, software development, and managing networks? Clearly, I have no understanding of what a business IT environment should look like.;-)
Maybe it's partly because I had the foresight not to get too tied to any single vender, - hardware or software (Apple included). Our office is 80% Windows computers. Most, but not all of the developers use Macs and we have various servers running linux. But we're clearly a bunch of unprofessional hacks.
Anyway, there are universal docking stations, - including ones for USB-C if you are so inclined. Some people like docking stations and over the years I have bought and installed many. I have used a few myself. Never been that enamored with using them or troubleshooting them.
Years ago, when I purchased my first Mac laptop to use at work, my Network Manager was baffled by the fact that I didn't get a mouse to go with it. "You spent a couple grand on that thing, it's OK spend a few bucks on a mouse". He was convinced that I was punishing myself to try and prove some point.
What he didn't understand was that even back then, on a Mac laptop, the trackpad wasn't some 2nd class pointing device only to be used when lacking a suitable mousing surface. It was big, supported gestures, and I could work with my hands never far from the keyboard. But he didn't get it because he couldn't get passed his preconceived notions. Now trackpads like that are common on many laptops. Still, some people like mice and that's fine.
Not every business is the same and if you're trying to support 5,000 or 50,000 people, maybe uniformity becomes extremely important. But honestly, being labeled unprofessional (in certain contexts) is almost a compliment at this point in my career. It's served me well.
And there would be little to push peripheral makers to USB-C as long as all major laptop/computer venders continue to provide USB-A and HDMI ports along with USB-C.
People have really short memories. When the original iMac came out, people were freaked because it dropped floppy drives along traditional ADB (serial ports) and only provided USB ports.
You know what happened? People who needed floppy drives bought USB floppy drives. Lots of others realized they easily could do without. People who needed to connect their old serial devices bought adaptors. USB became massively popular far sooner than it otherwise would have. It was one of the most popular Mac models ever.
Lots of Apple products were predicted to be massive failures because they didn't have this or that feature that everything before had had.
On my desk right now is a 2015 Macbook Pro. Not a single USB device plugged in but I do use them now and then. In fact I have a 4 port USB hub sitting next to it, that I used to use but no longer do. Every morning I plug in my power cord, second display, and thunderbolt to ethernet adaptor (which has the ethernet cable plugged in the other end). If i had a new Macbook Pro, every morning I'd plug in my power cord, my 2nd display, and a $20 USB-C to gigabit ethernet/USB-A hub. That would give me everything I have today without any extra effort or dongles.
3 of our conference rooms have VGA connectors for the projector. One also has HDMI port. All of the rooms have spare dongles in them and I have my own. It is nice to be able to plug the HDMI cable directly into the computer when I use the conference room projector but that feature is hardly a deal breaker. Same with the SD card slot. It's nice but I rarely use it and have a USB multi-card reader sitting in my drawer if I really needed to.
We generally replace our computers every 3 years and by the time mine will be due, I'll get another Macbook pro without hesitation unless something else really compelling comes on the market by then. I'd be happy with a new pro now, but my current one is just fine.
Real professionals to the extent that they have a choice, choose tools that work best for them and don't worry about whether or not other professionals, whose needs may be different, deem said tools as worthy of the label "professional".
In other words, I've been hearing some variation of the phrase "Macs aren't suited for business" for decades while I've been happily using a Mac for business most of that time.
I have a relatively new Macbook Pro right now and by the time I get another one, this latest flap over ports will have faded into history as the rest of the world moves to USB-C too.
Lots of businesses now disable the use of external storage devices on their machines out of security and data privacy concerns. Besides, requiring a cheap adaptor or using a USB-C specific flash drive is not exactly preventing anyone from using external storage.
It stored the maximum altitude as compared to the base we set. We weren't concerned with anything else. After recording the altitude we reset it for the next launch. The only measurement we got that seemed really bogus was when the nose cone came off and it fell out of payload section several hundred feet on to solid ice, - a frozen lake.
It wasn't heavy and the little LiPo battery pack probably provided some air resistance to slow it down so it wasn't damaged much. Nothing a little hot glue couldn't fix.
I've run marathons and most recently triathlons. Sure, you may prefer not to use a phone and that is totally up to you. But a lot of people run and bike with phones. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of what a smartphone can provide vs something like a low-end Garmin.
As far as comfort goes, people will bike with a phone in a jersey pocket or mounted to the stem/handlebars. Most folks I see running with a phone use an arm strap. Personally I wouldn't want to run 26 miles with one on my arm but for short training runs I find it incredibly useful, - more so than a simple GPS. When it comes to elevation changes, well, they are a big deal on a bike.
Not to monitor your body, - to monitor what you do. Mileage, elevation change, pace, pace this mile compared to last mile, pace compared to your personal best on that segment, pace compare to others who have done the same route. If you're a runner, cyclist, etc, these apps are a great training aid but those that rely solely on GPS to track elevation changes don't do it very accurately.
Sure, if you're climbing a set of stairs that leads you through the front door of an over-pressurized building it might lead to some inaccuracies. But the phone could correlate the pressure readings with GPS to determine that one or the other is giving a bogus reading. It's certainly better than relying on GPS alone, which is what a lot of current fitness apps do.
A few years ago I put together a tiny altimeter using a temperature/pressure sensor following a plan on "Instructables". You had to set the base altitude for it to work and there were some other calibration that could be done. It could easily measure changes while I was climbing stairs. I'm tempted to turn on the bathroom fan right next to the stairs to see how much of an effect it has. I bet almost none.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that big manufacturers don't sell all of their products in all markets and I find it highly unlikely that manufactures would put EU energy efficiency labels on products sold in the US since there would be no incentive for them to do so.
They will happily sell products in the US that don't meet EU standards and products in Thailand that don't meet US standards.
And yes, I am one of those people that considers Energy Star ratings when I make a purchase. What you'll generally find is that products with better Energy Star ratings are also of better quality than similar products with lower ratings. They're not just more energy efficient.
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Where did I say that? What I did say is that if it were a FOX reporter that had done that hacking, it would be different. I still have some moral issues with breaking into systems and exposing private communications.
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.
The problem I see with your argument is that you're assuming that the Republicans can't or haven't been compromised.
So it's OK with you that a foreign power hacked the systems of one of our political parties for the express purpose of swaying the election towards a candidate of their liking?
If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it, but it wasn't. My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties. Democracy doesn't exist without free and fair elections.
Regardless of whether the actions of the Russians actually made any actual difference in the outcome, what has happened is that it has sown distrust in the validity of our election process. That is a big problem, not a good thing.
What you're talking about is giving people some menial tasks in exchange for shelter, food, clothing, etc. Who distributes this food, shelter, clothing, etc? Is it the government? How does the government obtain it? Do they buy it? From who? How does the government get the money to purchase it?
The way it works now is that the government gets its money from tax payers who get it mostly through employment.
But what happens when the government doesn't receive enough in taxes to keep operating let alone do what you're suggesting? This is the future we're facing. Not only is there risk to those who can't find work, but the smaller workforce ends up defunding the governments that are supposed to provide the safety net and other services. That's why some have suggested taxing robots as well since they will becoming a major part of the labor pool.
To the extent that capitalism functions, it depend on the value of peoples' work at least meeting their living expenses. What's happening is that automation is severely cutting the value of the average worker. We are fast approaching a time where a large percentage of the workforce can't earn their keep because automation can do it cheaper.
Nuts don't grow in a vacuum. I have no idea how much (if any) impact Trump had on this guy. I would guess though that he had plenty of contact with like minded people who at least talked about wanting to do this kind of thing. Trump's policies and penchant for "alternative" facts helps fuel the misguided hatred that feeds this stuff.
Entire societies have been complicit in unspeakable crimes including genocide. Where they nuts? No. They were surrounded by people and institutions that legitimized that kind of thinking. I don't believe Trump even knows how dangerous he his. It was never so important before to know the facts. It was never so important to be careful about what one says. He's not qualified either in experience or temperament for this job.
I would guess that the same people concerned about this event are also largely the same people advocating for stricter gun controls. So it would seem that they are indeed concerned about those other shootings.
What is more interesting is that Trump is pushing his travel ban while far more people are killed by fellow Americans using guns than are killed by terrorists. Over 150,000 gun related homicides since 2001 vs 3,046 killed by terrorists. While 3,046 is indeed a large number, 2,996 of those happened on 9/11. None of those perpetrators were from the seven countries on Trump's list. The bulk of them were from Saudi Arabia, where Trump has significant business interests.
All that being said, I don't think gun control is THE answer to gun related homicides. There are deeper problems that need to be addressed. A travel ban is an order of magnitude worse solution to a much smaller problem. It serves to aggravate anti-US sentiment and makes recruiting people of any nationality an even easier task for terrorists. It makes enemies out of people who might otherwise be allies and promotes an environment where hatred and fear of "outsiders" is encouraged.
The US is part of a larger world. Like it or not, what happens elsewhere matters, and matters to us. We can build walls, shut doors, or whatever we like. But the 7+ billion other people will still be out there. Fighting with each other sure, but also cooperating with each other, learning from each other, etc.
Withdrawing from the world allows others to set the agenda, to form partnerships that may not favor us. I'm sure China and Russia will be happy to step in where we've walked away.
"Helping everyone else" is not just a morally decent thing to do, it also helps us in the long run.
Giuliani is a lawyer and was a mayor of a very large city. Probably not an idiot but has very little geopolitical or security experience. There are probably a hundred people more qualified to do this job who can also lead teams and get things done.
Part of good security is following best practices and keeping the software up to date regardless of the value of the information on the server itself. Not doing so allows the potential for the server to be used for nefarious purposes. No one expects Giuliani to keep the server updated himself, but if he understood and paid any real attention to cyber security, he'd make sure that someone did manage his Internet presence responsibly.
I'm not sure I agree. I learned a lot more about photography after starting to shoot film. With digital there is a tendency to shoot a hundred photos and let the camera do everything. You have no idea why some photos turn out and others don't. There's no reason you can't learn everything you need to with a digital camera, there's just little incentive to.
With a film camera on the other hand, now each shot matters and you want to make sure you get it right most of the time. So you learn about iso, aperture, and shutter speed. You learn what is meant by the term "fast lens". My digital photos have gotten much better since I started shooting film. I've gotten shots in tricky light that I never knew enough to get right before.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. ;)
Here's what I meant. I picked up a Canon AE-1 Program with a 50mm F/1.4 FD lens for free. The equivalent modern lens will cost over $300. Now there are digital cameras you can use that old lens with if you have the proper adaptor. However a Canon DSLR isn't one of them. I'm not saying it's impossible to use on a Canon DSLR but the results won't be good. There's plenty of info on the Internet that explains why. Canon couldn't get autofocus to work well with their old FD lenses so they went with a whole different system, - which effectively made a ton of excellent lenses obsolete, - unless you use an old camera.
I also bought an old Canon rangefinder for $10. This one has the 40mm F1.7 lens. This camera and lens combo is so good, it's often been called the poor man's Leica. I'm afraid with this lens you are stuck with a film camera because it's permanently attached.
Finally, I got a Canon Elan II/e for $15. This came with a pretty nice EF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 USM lens. It's one of the best, if not the best kit zoom lenses Canon ever made. Now, it is still a kit lens and not exactly top of the line, but people will still spend over $100 on them on eBay and it will work just fine with any modern Canon camera. However, because it was attached to a film camera, the quality of the lens went unnoticed and I got it for a song.
I always thought that developing color film was a difficult process that you couldn't do at home without specialized equipment. Not so. I hadn't development my own film since a middle school photography class decades ago but this year I got back into film and have been pleasantly surprised. For C41 color film you can get all the chemicals you need in a kit for less than $30 shipped and it's good for many rolls.
Being a geek I used a raspberry pi, a temp sensor, and a relay to shut a thrift store roaster oven filled with water on and off to maintain the proper temp. But people get good results just filling a cooler with water and adjusting the temp by adding hot or cold water.
No one will confuse me with a hipster. So why do I shoot film? I'm not going to say it's better than digital. After all, I end up scanning the negatives anyway. It does have a different quality that you may or may not prefer. The longer process does make you think about your shots more, and learning about film has given me a much better understanding of photography in general. Even with digital cameras I've been able to get results that I never could have before.
Another benefit is that excellent film cameras and lenses (that are still great by today's standards) are available for next to nothing.
On a different forum that I participate in that's almost totally unrelated to music, a guy started a topic about George Michael dying. Now, it was in a section devoted to off-topic subjects so there was nothing particularly unusual about the fact that he did that. But it got a little weird.
I posted a brief reply to which he responded, first thanking me for my thoughts and then going on this long diatribe about how no one else had engaged in the thread. He referred to the other regulars as people without a pulse and as being soul-less. It was the sort of reaction that Dr. Watkins was referring to. As far as I knew this guy didn't have any kind of personal relationship with George Michael. He was just a ardent fan.
But here is the thing that Dr Watkins is missing or perhaps he understands but laments it anyway. Those 745 people that died in Chicago this year undoubtedly had people that loved them and grieved for them, but the cold reality is that to the rest of us, 745 is just a number. We have no personal connection to them, therefore it has little emotional impact on us. There is lots of evidence that personal stories have far more effect on people than statistics. We will believe the heartfelt personal story. We will deny any statistic that doesn't fit our world view.
You can argue that other than small fraction of people, those that mourn the loss of George Michael or any celebrity didn't really know them either. Nevertheless, they had an impact on our lives. They are connected with strong memories for some of us.
So while arguably we should feel a lot worse about 745 people dying than we do about the death of a single celebrity, that's not how emotions work.
Yes, that's right. I had the unfortunate experience of working for a startup about 15 years ago that ran into financial difficulty. Survival depended on finding a buyer but that buyer didn't want everything, only those parts of the business that they thought had some benefit for them.
In the end, the buyer backed out and the startup folded, leaving customers without service, employees that were suddenly out of work and hadn't been paid in several weeks, and all kinds of vendors that were owed money.
What happened with the Pebble/FitBit deal sucks, but it's far better. It sounds like there will be refunds issued (eventually) and some employees will still have jobs with Fitbit.
I run a small IT department but spent most of my years as a programmer. We have two major development projects in progress right now. Believe it or not, one is a mostly agile project and another is mostly waterfall. The agile project is targeted to be completed at the beginning of the year and the waterfall by end of 1st quarter.
Right now, I expect that both will be successful. Oh, and the agile project is adding significant new functionality for an organization we are merging with. It's being built on an 8 year old codebase that started its life as an agile project and has always been run that way. The business function it supports is constantly changing and evolving. Using the waterfall method to build that software simply wouldn't have worked. We were launching a brand new service. The users were as brand new to the service as we were. We worked with them closely. They certainly had ideas about what the software should do and how it should support them. But they were ideas that needed to be validated.
The system that resulted has supported the business well, but yes parts have needed to be redesigned. Not sure that could have been avoided with the waterfall method.
Good practice is good practice and no methodology should be used as an excuse to avoid doing them. That's where things go wrong. "Agile" doesn't mean there's no design, and "waterfall" doesn't mean you disappear for two years while you build the software.
My personal belief is that certain projects and teams lend themselves more to one approach than the other. "Agile" is only hype in the sense that it's sometimes used where it's not a good fit. But to deny that lots of organizations have had success with it is just sticking your head in the sand.
And I suspect that this is how it will go with the more recent immigrant populations. The kids (and grand-kids to a lessor extent) may retain some of the cultural traditions but will be products of the larger society and for the most part will have adopted its values. However, some may be more determined to maintain their cultural heritage and language than others. It's nothing new and it's been part of the American landscape since the beginning.
...so to speak. But I will contribute to that society. I will hopefully at least make an effort to learn the language, because I think I will have a better experience if I do.
When I retire I haven't ruled out becoming an expat and moving somewhere in Central America. Now, that's not quite the same as moving someplace as a young person with the intent of having my decendents grow up there. I will likely go to a region where there a plenty of other non-natives around. I think that's just the natural thing to do. I'd probably be able to get by just fine without ever learning the local language. I'd probably always consider myself an American more than belonging to wherever I end up. I think the older you are, the harder it is to change your identity,
Personally, I don't expect immigrants to "assimilate". I expect them to obey the laws, -which may mean that the have to abandon some practices that were common in their countries. I expect them to pay taxes. I feel blessed if I can enjoy their food and music.
I'll take it one step further and suggest that "assimilation" is an anti-American concept. Though in reality we have a checkered history when it comes to this, we regard "religious freedom" as an American tenet. People established colonies here precisely because they didn't want to be assimilated into the cultures of where they came from. We are also one of the few countries that does not have an official language. That's not an oversight.
Given that religious values and language are intimately tied to culture, it's not at all a stretch to say that a diversity of cultures is baked into the fabric of America. What you've described as some new phenomena is what's being going on since the beginning.
Even among whites in the US there are regional dialects and cultural traditions that can be traced back to other countries, - Louisiana Creole for example. Then there's perhaps the best example, the Amish, who've doggedly resisted any sort of assimilation.
You can make the argument that the Amish should take on the values of the larger society but my point is that not "assimilating" is nothing new. And to the extent that melting does occur, it can take generations and is never really complete or uniform.
I find it ironic that some people want to turn the US into the kind of countries that our ancestors deliberately left.
My grandfather still had a noticeable accent and identifying cultural traits over 100 years after his grand father moved to this country. He was white. They moved to a part of the US popular with people who came from the same place. Just like other immigrants tend to do. Over time, they adopted the language, dialects, and some of the traditions of other immigrant populations. There wasn't and isn't some base culture that they all assimilated into. The common cultural elements changed over time and there have always been sub cultures.
A melting pot doesn't mean that everything thrown in turns into what was already there.
Man, how did I ever end up being a director of an IT department after years of desktop support, software development, and managing networks? Clearly, I have no understanding of what a business IT environment should look like. ;-)
Maybe it's partly because I had the foresight not to get too tied to any single vender, - hardware or software (Apple included). Our office is 80% Windows computers. Most, but not all of the developers use Macs and we have various servers running linux. But we're clearly a bunch of unprofessional hacks.
Anyway, there are universal docking stations, - including ones for USB-C if you are so inclined. Some people like docking stations and over the years I have bought and installed many. I have used a few myself. Never been that enamored with using them or troubleshooting them.
Years ago, when I purchased my first Mac laptop to use at work, my Network Manager was baffled by the fact that I didn't get a mouse to go with it. "You spent a couple grand on that thing, it's OK spend a few bucks on a mouse". He was convinced that I was punishing myself to try and prove some point.
What he didn't understand was that even back then, on a Mac laptop, the trackpad wasn't some 2nd class pointing device only to be used when lacking a suitable mousing surface. It was big, supported gestures, and I could work with my hands never far from the keyboard. But he didn't get it because he couldn't get passed his preconceived notions. Now trackpads like that are common on many laptops. Still, some people like mice and that's fine.
Not every business is the same and if you're trying to support 5,000 or 50,000 people, maybe uniformity becomes extremely important. But honestly, being labeled unprofessional (in certain contexts) is almost a compliment at this point in my career. It's served me well.
And there would be little to push peripheral makers to USB-C as long as all major laptop/computer venders continue to provide USB-A and HDMI ports along with USB-C.
People have really short memories. When the original iMac came out, people were freaked because it dropped floppy drives along traditional ADB (serial ports) and only provided USB ports.
You know what happened? People who needed floppy drives bought USB floppy drives. Lots of others realized they easily could do without. People who needed to connect their old serial devices bought adaptors. USB became massively popular far sooner than it otherwise would have. It was one of the most popular Mac models ever.
Lots of Apple products were predicted to be massive failures because they didn't have this or that feature that everything before had had.
On my desk right now is a 2015 Macbook Pro. Not a single USB device plugged in but I do use them now and then. In fact I have a 4 port USB hub sitting next to it, that I used to use but no longer do. Every morning I plug in my power cord, second display, and thunderbolt to ethernet adaptor (which has the ethernet cable plugged in the other end). If i had a new Macbook Pro, every morning I'd plug in my power cord, my 2nd display, and a $20 USB-C to gigabit ethernet/USB-A hub. That would give me everything I have today without any extra effort or dongles.
3 of our conference rooms have VGA connectors for the projector. One also has HDMI port. All of the rooms have spare dongles in them and I have my own. It is nice to be able to plug the HDMI cable directly into the computer when I use the conference room projector but that feature is hardly a deal breaker. Same with the SD card slot. It's nice but I rarely use it and have a USB multi-card reader sitting in my drawer if I really needed to.
We generally replace our computers every 3 years and by the time mine will be due, I'll get another Macbook pro without hesitation unless something else really compelling comes on the market by then. I'd be happy with a new pro now, but my current one is just fine.
Real professionals to the extent that they have a choice, choose tools that work best for them and don't worry about whether or not other professionals, whose needs may be different, deem said tools as worthy of the label "professional".
In other words, I've been hearing some variation of the phrase "Macs aren't suited for business" for decades while I've been happily using a Mac for business most of that time.
I have a relatively new Macbook Pro right now and by the time I get another one, this latest flap over ports will have faded into history as the rest of the world moves to USB-C too.
Lots of businesses now disable the use of external storage devices on their machines out of security and data privacy concerns. Besides, requiring a cheap adaptor or using a USB-C specific flash drive is not exactly preventing anyone from using external storage.
It stored the maximum altitude as compared to the base we set. We weren't concerned with anything else. After recording the altitude we reset it for the next launch. The only measurement we got that seemed really bogus was when the nose cone came off and it fell out of payload section several hundred feet on to solid ice, - a frozen lake.
It wasn't heavy and the little LiPo battery pack probably provided some air resistance to slow it down so it wasn't damaged much. Nothing a little hot glue couldn't fix.
I've run marathons and most recently triathlons. Sure, you may prefer not to use a phone and that is totally up to you. But a lot of people run and bike with phones. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of what a smartphone can provide vs something like a low-end Garmin.
As far as comfort goes, people will bike with a phone in a jersey pocket or mounted to the stem/handlebars. Most folks I see running with a phone use an arm strap. Personally I wouldn't want to run 26 miles with one on my arm but for short training runs I find it incredibly useful, - more so than a simple GPS. When it comes to elevation changes, well, they are a big deal on a bike.
Not to monitor your body, - to monitor what you do. Mileage, elevation change, pace, pace this mile compared to last mile, pace compared to your personal best on that segment, pace compare to others who have done the same route. If you're a runner, cyclist, etc, these apps are a great training aid but those that rely solely on GPS to track elevation changes don't do it very accurately.
Sure, if you're climbing a set of stairs that leads you through the front door of an over-pressurized building it might lead to some inaccuracies. But the phone could correlate the pressure readings with GPS to determine that one or the other is giving a bogus reading. It's certainly better than relying on GPS alone, which is what a lot of current fitness apps do.
A few years ago I put together a tiny altimeter using a temperature/pressure sensor following a plan on "Instructables". You had to set the base altitude for it to work and there were some other calibration that could be done. It could easily measure changes while I was climbing stairs. I'm tempted to turn on the bathroom fan right next to the stairs to see how much of an effect it has. I bet almost none.