People do tend to pair up as couples, although there's exceptions, but efficient operations don't require strict hierarchies. Your idea of sociology appears to be based on what you usually see where you live.
No, the FBI director didn't recommend prosecution because, as a matter of rule, violations like Clinton's have not been criminally prosecuted. Nobody's shown me a counterexample, and people have been naming some cases. In most of these cases, the violator deliberately transferred classified information where it should not have been, instead of being somewhat negligent in keeping it out of systems not cleared for such information, and that justified the criminal prosecution. In at least one, the person in question did pretty much what Clinton did, and was punished for it administratively.
I'd be real interested in a case of someone who did something like what Clinton did and did wind up facing criminal charges in court or pleading guilty. (In the case of the person mentioned above who was negligent, there was a misdemeanor charge involved, but it was dropped.
Until we know more about the Flynn Effect, I'm going to regard a difference of 15 IQ points between different populations to be inconclusive. Are modern blacks about as well-nourished as 1950s whites? Both groups had/have nutrition issues. Stimulation? It's not hard for me to think that the two might be roughly on a par here.
The cases I've seen of people studying intelligence and race have not impressed me as good research. You've said the average IQ of US blacks is 85, and I haven't seen much of a fuss over that. Claiming that blacks are inferior based on that fact is going beyond the evidence, and that's what some people do. Stephen Jay Gould wrote "The Mismeasure of Man", a book about failed attempts to distinguish population intelligence, with details about why the attempts were screwy.
It is a political flashpoint, with (very generally speaking) the right wanting to find proof of inherent racial inequality and the left wanting to find none. Whether this is genetic or not is not really important in itself, since we need to deal with individuals on a day-to-day basis, not racial groups. If there is no difference, it suggests that we might get an overall brighter population by trying to help blacks succeed (which is a very large and complicated issue in itself). Having it come out as "no inherent difference" would make people concentrate more on individual differences, which is why I'm hoping for that. Any attempt to make a definite statement is going to have large political consequences, and unless it's founded on really really good evidence it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. (Undergoing major social and cultural changes and then finding there is no population difference is probably the only way this is going to be resolved without too much rancor, but the rancor involved in the changes is going to be massive.)
I'm glad you're helping people who've been through the judicial system, and wish you all the success in the world, but why there's a population IQ gap doesn't matter, because it's almost certainly too late to change the basic intelligence of people that age.
Saying that Facebook is at fault for not mirroring population statistics is stupid. They can't do much better than their hiring pool. It is something we should pay attention to as an issue with society, and try to figure out why and what we can do to encourage individuals to live up to their potential.
A 1280x720 display where you see the pixels will be more readable (for the same content) than a 960x640 display where you don't see the pixels.
In other words, a larger screen is more readable than a smaller screen. If you've got more and larger pixels, you've definitely got a larger screen. If you've got a limit on the size of the screen, then more DPI is more pixels. My phone is already about as large as it can be and fit into my shirt pockets. Increase screen size and I'll buy something that's no bigger than what I've got now. My sister-in-law has impaired vision and motor control, and so we tried her with the big iPhones. Unfortunately, she doesn't think she can handle them, and she can handle the iPhone 4 we gave her.
Even if they are of the same size, there is a distance where the 1280x720 display WILL allow you to display more readable text.
How old are you? If your vision is good, or corrected so you can see properly at infinity, the distance you can see things clearly ("near point") creeps out with age. Bring the phone closer than your near point, and you're going to find it less readable.
You seem to be ignoring the facts that there are limits on screen sizes and human vision.
You're still missing the point. Apps are typically written to make money somehow, and iPhone users have more money to be extracted. Nobody's going to ignore the 12% of the market that brings in at least half the revenue.
You say their next phone "will be", and that in preparation they killed off what they had. This is not the way to sell phones. In order to keep their sales going, they have to keep offering improvements whenever one of their three fans wants to upgrade. They've been finding ways to alienate their customers for a long time, including the WP7 upgrade promise.
You're missing the fact that Apple does a really good job on some things, like interfaces. The iPhone didn't do as much as previous smartphones, but it was a lot easier to get it to do what it did. The smartphone market is completely dominated by the iPhone and Androids, and Google copied a lot of Apple UI for Android.
If you know that you aren't going to want apps, and are happy with making a few calls (odd use for a smartphone, but....), hit the web now and then, use maps, whatever, then a Windows phone will work for you. Similarly, if you want to buy a desktop or laptop and are happy with email, a web browser, light word processing, and a few casual games you'll be better off with Ubuntu or Mint than Windows. Most people aren't that sure of their future desires.
When Pokemon Go hit, I had to download the app to keep in the office conversations. If it wasn't available for my phone, I'd have missed out.
In other words, BB was short-sighted, did what maximized immediate profit, and got blind-sided and reduced to irrelevance as the world changed. It's easy to do that when you dominate the market.
The key is "premium customers". If you're trying to market a $3K program, you're going to want to target people who can pay $3K. In general, you can get a lot more money out of the premium customers than out of the non-premium ones, because you know that they have enough money to go premium and are willing to spend it.
It's great that people can get a low-end Android phone or tablet for a lot cheaper than the iOS equivalent, but people who buy the low-end stuff because it's cheap aren't the best people to try to get as customers, particularly for a high-end product. (When I was young, there was a lot of golf shown on network TV on Sundays. It didn't attract all that much audience, but the audience was known to be willing to spend money on the stuff advertised, so it was worth showing golf instead of something more popular that the network couldn't sell the same value of ads for.)
Someone who speaks English as a second language is likely to do better communicating with me by laboriously typing than by laboriously saying the same words with an accent. I seem to have trouble understanding people's accents, and having accented ungrammatical English in fixed audio format doesn't make it work better.
Having one language that's capable of handling simple (shell) and complex (programming) automation tasks isn't a mistake, it's sanity.
Which is why I love Perl.
(Last week, I found myself on a Facebook thread on unpopular geek opinions. Among other things, I said my favorite computer languages were C++, Common Lisp, and Perl.)
I'm happy believing the CS types are better, but it seems to me you'd likely have to pay them more, and you'd run more risk of them deciding IT isn't for them and moving to something different.
The market solution doesn't work. We had a fairly stable situation for a long time where institutions discriminated against blacks and could get more white business because of it.
It's hard to evaluate socio-economic factors, and they can be faked. Look at all the effort expended trying to make sure welfare recipients don't get what they're not entitled to. It's easy to look at someone's skin, hair, and a few other features.
The problem is that we don't understand the social forces involved. We can't figure out from basic principles if girls are not good at STEM or if girls are pushed from STEM. We don't have a society where people do what they like without pressure from gender roles. We know darn well that boys and girls get different treatment in a lot of ways. If we had some way of knowing that STEM would be X% female if everyone did what he or she was good at and liked to do, that would be really handy. We don't, and so a proposal to just let people do what they do now may be good or it may enforce discrimination we don't really understand.
Hiring from a larger pool is going to be a competitive advantage, but how big of one? Businesses usually have lots of inefficiencies, and hiring slightly worse people is unlikely to doom them.
However, there are reasons for groups of people united geographically and separated by less than a century chronologically to have different IQ distributions, it would appear. Check out the Flynn Effect. If modern US blacks have an average IQ of 85, are they different by nature, or are they just in the same general situation as whites of the 1940s? IQ scores are a really bad way to separate groups reliably.
You'll find a lot of people who think it's fine that I'm taxed a little to support things that are of a religion I personally am not a member of (actually, if you name a religion, I'm not a member of it). Other than that, I'm not coming up with counterexamples right now.
My religion is not evident from looking at me (most people probably assume I'm some sort of Christian unless and until they find otherwise) and neither is my sexual orientation. I don't talk about either in situations where it doesn't matter. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty hard to convince those who meet me that I'm not a white male.
I'm somewhat concerned that everyone get a fair shake, and that means that people have as few problems as possible from stuff they can't change or hide.
As a Hillary supporter, I support backing up one's claims about ignoring rule of law. I haven't seen where the Clintons got special treatment from the courts. I have seen a lot of cases where people spoke magic words like "whitewater" as if they constituted jurisprudence.
The last time I asked a guy for some sort of support for what he said about Clinton, he got vague and then annoyed with me. All I asked for was one specific example of wrongdoing, but could he find one? Nope.
I still don't see the difference between this and the internet at large. There's hordes of anti-Clinton people who I'm not going to find common ground with, since I keep asking for evidence, and I don't think it matter whether they're being paid or not. However, thanks for the information.
An API can be designed in different ways to expose the same functionality, and some of these ways are better than others. This means that designing one is a creative act, and since it can be fixed in a static form it's copyrightable. As for the point, there's a fair number of copyrighted works I don't see the point of, but they're still copyrightable. I've worked on APIs with no immediate plans for implementation, just to try to write something with the API calls to see if I had it right yet.
"You're holding it wrong" has nothing to do with "change your behavior so the software works right". The reference was to holding the iPhone so that the hardware worked right. As far as I could tell, while the design was dumb, the issue was not as serious as the press made it out to be, and it is true that some other phones will have problems if you hold them in certain ways.
When I got into the field, more than forty years ago, software was normally written on spec for specific organizations. Where I worked, the accounting software was written around the accounting practices. Since then, there's been the shrink-wrap revolution, so I can buy an accounting package that works for far less than I can have one written to my specs, but to use the shrink-wrap one I have to change my behavior.
There's classes of warnings I deliberately ignore for considered reasons. If I think running something is safe, I just click through UAC warnings without further thought.
Slashdot Mirror
People do tend to pair up as couples, although there's exceptions, but efficient operations don't require strict hierarchies. Your idea of sociology appears to be based on what you usually see where you live.
No, the FBI director didn't recommend prosecution because, as a matter of rule, violations like Clinton's have not been criminally prosecuted. Nobody's shown me a counterexample, and people have been naming some cases. In most of these cases, the violator deliberately transferred classified information where it should not have been, instead of being somewhat negligent in keeping it out of systems not cleared for such information, and that justified the criminal prosecution. In at least one, the person in question did pretty much what Clinton did, and was punished for it administratively.
I'd be real interested in a case of someone who did something like what Clinton did and did wind up facing criminal charges in court or pleading guilty. (In the case of the person mentioned above who was negligent, there was a misdemeanor charge involved, but it was dropped.
Until we know more about the Flynn Effect, I'm going to regard a difference of 15 IQ points between different populations to be inconclusive. Are modern blacks about as well-nourished as 1950s whites? Both groups had/have nutrition issues. Stimulation? It's not hard for me to think that the two might be roughly on a par here.
The cases I've seen of people studying intelligence and race have not impressed me as good research. You've said the average IQ of US blacks is 85, and I haven't seen much of a fuss over that. Claiming that blacks are inferior based on that fact is going beyond the evidence, and that's what some people do. Stephen Jay Gould wrote "The Mismeasure of Man", a book about failed attempts to distinguish population intelligence, with details about why the attempts were screwy.
It is a political flashpoint, with (very generally speaking) the right wanting to find proof of inherent racial inequality and the left wanting to find none. Whether this is genetic or not is not really important in itself, since we need to deal with individuals on a day-to-day basis, not racial groups. If there is no difference, it suggests that we might get an overall brighter population by trying to help blacks succeed (which is a very large and complicated issue in itself). Having it come out as "no inherent difference" would make people concentrate more on individual differences, which is why I'm hoping for that. Any attempt to make a definite statement is going to have large political consequences, and unless it's founded on really really good evidence it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. (Undergoing major social and cultural changes and then finding there is no population difference is probably the only way this is going to be resolved without too much rancor, but the rancor involved in the changes is going to be massive.)
I'm glad you're helping people who've been through the judicial system, and wish you all the success in the world, but why there's a population IQ gap doesn't matter, because it's almost certainly too late to change the basic intelligence of people that age.
Saying that Facebook is at fault for not mirroring population statistics is stupid. They can't do much better than their hiring pool. It is something we should pay attention to as an issue with society, and try to figure out why and what we can do to encourage individuals to live up to their potential.
In other words, a larger screen is more readable than a smaller screen. If you've got more and larger pixels, you've definitely got a larger screen. If you've got a limit on the size of the screen, then more DPI is more pixels. My phone is already about as large as it can be and fit into my shirt pockets. Increase screen size and I'll buy something that's no bigger than what I've got now. My sister-in-law has impaired vision and motor control, and so we tried her with the big iPhones. Unfortunately, she doesn't think she can handle them, and she can handle the iPhone 4 we gave her.
How old are you? If your vision is good, or corrected so you can see properly at infinity, the distance you can see things clearly ("near point") creeps out with age. Bring the phone closer than your near point, and you're going to find it less readable.
You seem to be ignoring the facts that there are limits on screen sizes and human vision.
You're still missing the point. Apps are typically written to make money somehow, and iPhone users have more money to be extracted. Nobody's going to ignore the 12% of the market that brings in at least half the revenue.
You say their next phone "will be", and that in preparation they killed off what they had. This is not the way to sell phones. In order to keep their sales going, they have to keep offering improvements whenever one of their three fans wants to upgrade. They've been finding ways to alienate their customers for a long time, including the WP7 upgrade promise.
You're missing the fact that Apple does a really good job on some things, like interfaces. The iPhone didn't do as much as previous smartphones, but it was a lot easier to get it to do what it did. The smartphone market is completely dominated by the iPhone and Androids, and Google copied a lot of Apple UI for Android.
If you know that you aren't going to want apps, and are happy with making a few calls (odd use for a smartphone, but....), hit the web now and then, use maps, whatever, then a Windows phone will work for you. Similarly, if you want to buy a desktop or laptop and are happy with email, a web browser, light word processing, and a few casual games you'll be better off with Ubuntu or Mint than Windows. Most people aren't that sure of their future desires.
When Pokemon Go hit, I had to download the app to keep in the office conversations. If it wasn't available for my phone, I'd have missed out.
In other words, BB was short-sighted, did what maximized immediate profit, and got blind-sided and reduced to irrelevance as the world changed. It's easy to do that when you dominate the market.
The key is "premium customers". If you're trying to market a $3K program, you're going to want to target people who can pay $3K. In general, you can get a lot more money out of the premium customers than out of the non-premium ones, because you know that they have enough money to go premium and are willing to spend it.
It's great that people can get a low-end Android phone or tablet for a lot cheaper than the iOS equivalent, but people who buy the low-end stuff because it's cheap aren't the best people to try to get as customers, particularly for a high-end product. (When I was young, there was a lot of golf shown on network TV on Sundays. It didn't attract all that much audience, but the audience was known to be willing to spend money on the stuff advertised, so it was worth showing golf instead of something more popular that the network couldn't sell the same value of ads for.)
Someone who speaks English as a second language is likely to do better communicating with me by laboriously typing than by laboriously saying the same words with an accent. I seem to have trouble understanding people's accents, and having accented ungrammatical English in fixed audio format doesn't make it work better.
Which is why I love Perl.
(Last week, I found myself on a Facebook thread on unpopular geek opinions. Among other things, I said my favorite computer languages were C++, Common Lisp, and Perl.)
I'm happy believing the CS types are better, but it seems to me you'd likely have to pay them more, and you'd run more risk of them deciding IT isn't for them and moving to something different.
The market solution doesn't work. We had a fairly stable situation for a long time where institutions discriminated against blacks and could get more white business because of it.
It's hard to evaluate socio-economic factors, and they can be faked. Look at all the effort expended trying to make sure welfare recipients don't get what they're not entitled to. It's easy to look at someone's skin, hair, and a few other features.
The problem is that we don't understand the social forces involved. We can't figure out from basic principles if girls are not good at STEM or if girls are pushed from STEM. We don't have a society where people do what they like without pressure from gender roles. We know darn well that boys and girls get different treatment in a lot of ways. If we had some way of knowing that STEM would be X% female if everyone did what he or she was good at and liked to do, that would be really handy. We don't, and so a proposal to just let people do what they do now may be good or it may enforce discrimination we don't really understand.
Hiring from a larger pool is going to be a competitive advantage, but how big of one? Businesses usually have lots of inefficiencies, and hiring slightly worse people is unlikely to doom them.
However, there are reasons for groups of people united geographically and separated by less than a century chronologically to have different IQ distributions, it would appear. Check out the Flynn Effect. If modern US blacks have an average IQ of 85, are they different by nature, or are they just in the same general situation as whites of the 1940s? IQ scores are a really bad way to separate groups reliably.
You'll find a lot of people who think it's fine that I'm taxed a little to support things that are of a religion I personally am not a member of (actually, if you name a religion, I'm not a member of it). Other than that, I'm not coming up with counterexamples right now.
My religion is not evident from looking at me (most people probably assume I'm some sort of Christian unless and until they find otherwise) and neither is my sexual orientation. I don't talk about either in situations where it doesn't matter. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty hard to convince those who meet me that I'm not a white male.
I'm somewhat concerned that everyone get a fair shake, and that means that people have as few problems as possible from stuff they can't change or hide.
As a Hillary supporter, I support backing up one's claims about ignoring rule of law. I haven't seen where the Clintons got special treatment from the courts. I have seen a lot of cases where people spoke magic words like "whitewater" as if they constituted jurisprudence.
The last time I asked a guy for some sort of support for what he said about Clinton, he got vague and then annoyed with me. All I asked for was one specific example of wrongdoing, but could he find one? Nope.
I still don't see the difference between this and the internet at large. There's hordes of anti-Clinton people who I'm not going to find common ground with, since I keep asking for evidence, and I don't think it matter whether they're being paid or not. However, thanks for the information.
An API can be designed in different ways to expose the same functionality, and some of these ways are better than others. This means that designing one is a creative act, and since it can be fixed in a static form it's copyrightable. As for the point, there's a fair number of copyrighted works I don't see the point of, but they're still copyrightable. I've worked on APIs with no immediate plans for implementation, just to try to write something with the API calls to see if I had it right yet.
"You're holding it wrong" has nothing to do with "change your behavior so the software works right". The reference was to holding the iPhone so that the hardware worked right. As far as I could tell, while the design was dumb, the issue was not as serious as the press made it out to be, and it is true that some other phones will have problems if you hold them in certain ways.
When I got into the field, more than forty years ago, software was normally written on spec for specific organizations. Where I worked, the accounting software was written around the accounting practices. Since then, there's been the shrink-wrap revolution, so I can buy an accounting package that works for far less than I can have one written to my specs, but to use the shrink-wrap one I have to change my behavior.
There's classes of warnings I deliberately ignore for considered reasons. If I think running something is safe, I just click through UAC warnings without further thought.