Don't think I agree. I think it's because they want to charge people more for matte. I think Apple asks $50 to have a matte screen instead of glossy. I want matte, but I don't want to pay $50.
On one hand I'm not getting what I want, on the other hand Apple "learned" from the results that I don't want it badly enough to pay for it.
Cara bel, cara mia bella. Mia bambina, a tra che la stima che la stima. A cara mia, addio! Mia bambina cara, perche non passi lontana si lontana de scienza? Cara cara mia bambina. A mia bel. A mia cara. A mia cara. A mia bambina. A cara, cari a mi!
I think you're missing the point, maybe the article is missing the point. Popularity in high school is primarily centered around the moving target that is high school culture. Those that conform to the culture (not necessarily the rules, or society in general), are generally not given the "geek" label. Those however whose independent thought judges the norm to be bizarre, for some reason, even if that judgement is logical and based in fact, are outcasts. These may be weirdos, or they may just be people who are paying attention.
I was a geek/nerd (at various times), although I had irrational interests in sci-fi as many geeks do, most of the alienating things I did to myself had nothing to do with my eccentricities. Although I very much wanted sex, I never pursued women because i knew I had X years of high school left and 6 years of college ahead of me, it could go nowhere and was inappropriate to pursue. I studied in school not because of my innate genius, simply because it struck me that my parents weren't telling lies: those who did well would have more opportunities than those who didn't (and life has agreed). I didn't drink, primarily because my parents let me drink at home and booze (or its effects) weren't that mysterious to me and I just didn't understand why people wanted to drink until they puked. And so on, all these things alienated me from culture just as much as my "weird" interests or my social awkwardness. But it was never unpopular to be a little weird (in fact the Cool People, all had a token weirdness), or to be socially inappropriate. It was weird to do your own thing and not join the hive.
As an adult however this mindset is usually going to produce better results, and social popularity isn't nearly as much of a spendable currency as it was in high school. People who think for themselves rather than follow the pack tend to not get bitten by life's many challenges. It won't surprise them that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, that their employers drive for money will outweigh any unwritten promises, and that a big paycheck is better than a big title. All these things alienate you from a culture, but also enable you to see what's really there, and if you use that knowledge you will succeed.
You probably wouldn't pay to do it, you'd simply not use her services again. But then she's a contractor.
If you were a pimp however, and she was "yo' bitch", you might find some method of training her to make sure "the bitch has yo money". You may keep the pimp hand strong, but she'll make more if she at least knows what she's doing.
I haven't found this to be true at all. I've had doctors say "well, I'm not sure what's wrong I can prescribe something but I'd recommend against it" for myself, for my wife and for our child. I've even had doctors not prescribe anti-biotics in cases where it seems like they absolutely should have, for reasons I still don't understand. In my experience doctors are the MOST conservative when: 1) Ordering tests, even when warranted or when they can't explain the problem. 2) Referring to a specialist.
I needed an MRI pretty badly, it took a lot of work on my part to get doctors to prescribe one. It got to the point where I didn't care about insurance, I'd pay out of pocket just to have the damn thing done and interpreted by someone who knew shit from shinola, but I get the feeling doctors feel some pain financially for prescribing them. But from their standpoint I was reasonably asymptomatic (pains that came and went, of varying degrees of severity), and no other visible complications. However, and maybe I'm the 1 of 100 that actually was persistent, it turns out something really WAS wrong, that it was treatable, and that had it gone undiagnosed it would eventually have reached a crisis point which would have hospitalized me.
I understand old-people issues, and I definitely think when there are too many doctors involved and not talking to each other shit like what you describe DOES happen and it requires the patient to be very proactive and get things under control (which again, with old people often is problematic). But I don't think this is a systemic problem plaguing health care top to bottom.
In my opinion this entire article is bullshit, creating the illusion of a problem. Our increased ability to detect problems early, or to detect problems that would previously have escaped notice is not a crisis. The expense of funding good medicine and what the funding model looks like IS a problem.
There continues to be confusion between PhD meaning "crazy high level of applicable education", and PhD meaning "specialization and expertise in a narrow field". Commercial and social interests want the first definition of PhD, some certification that means "this person is a top tier and well rounded member of his field who knows everything we want him to know", and the academic need of someone who is an expert in a narrow field of sufficiently believable level that he can advance the art.
These are two really different concepts. You need the former to bring the fruits of learning to the masses and to connect the dots between different specializations, and you need the latter to actually make the small advances without which there would be no progress. A faster semiconductor process may have biological applications, but to find a way to make a faster process you need very deep specialization. This problem isn't limited to academia either, some companies have this issue with their engineering staff: engineers find marketable careers in specialized areas (board design, digital logic design, dsp, firmware, applications, etc.) but corporations, but many systems companies need people who know a bit about everything or they can't innovate.
The problem is that there isn't normally money available at an individual level for broad minds (either as salary or academic grants), the money is in specialization. Companies would rather hire 3 complementary experts for $x/yr, than 1 generalist for >$x/yr.
Well if I show you a drawing depicting a house, and the house is green, and the question asks "how many sides of the house are green?" and you answer 4 (assuming a box shaped house insofar as you can see), and you learn on a test exam that your answer is wrong, and you should have answered "at least three", you learn something about the nature of the test (i.e. make no assumptions). That knowledge will teach you to take IQ tests smarter, and you'd have done better than someone who went in without that learning. Certainly you can say this is a bad question, but in practice, your score depends on your answer to good and bad questions (just like any exam). The more practiced you are and the more you have learned how to think about common problems, the better you are likely going to do.
I think it's probably pretty hard to develop a test with excellent questions, which are also original and have been verified to be "good" by the standards of the IQ judging process. And thus you end up with a test that doesn't measure what we think we want it to measure. That in itself isn't really a bad thing, you can easily argue that the results speak for themselves (those who score high achieve high on other metrics), but you have to be careful. People who do less well all get lumped together, and some of those people may not have been achievers at that point in their life but might change later for a number of reasons. But they're grouped in with people that have ACTUAL mental, emotional or other disorders, as well as people who are brought up poorly and have no actual hope for a variety of reasons. The net result confirms itself: those who were once good performers, on average perform better than the group of people who were not.
For that reason IQ tests should stay as they are, an academic attempt to measure something we can't really define very well in an effort to understand ourselves. They should not be used for any other purpose, particularly education or employment.
If some guy with an italian last name did this, we'd call it extortion and racketeering and throw him and his friends in jail. When Apple or Microsoft do it, we call it "good business".
Post World War II there were basically two countries that either weren't former colonies or bombed back decades in development. The US and USSR. The Cold War pretty much was the two big boys fighting and keeping everyone else down.
Except that India, Malaysia were impacted to varying degrees, but probably not "bombed back decades", neither was Sweden. I'm not sure about Finland, but I don't recall it being as badly mutilated as Germany, China, France and the UK. Germany has bounced back very well, but I wouldn't say that the competitive threat to the US lies in either England or France. Similarly, during the cold war era the US worked fairly closely with western europe on technological developments, and were relatively afraid (and had draconian laws about) sharing various types of technology outside of that clique. Now the US and europe both are mostly running to Asia.
I think you're partly right, but it's not about anyone "keeping the man down" or WWII damages. We generally avoided Asia (except Japan) because of the ties to our enemies. Once that threat was removed, it was a grab for cheap labor. The concept of keeping "high value jobs" in America (or Europe) is a myth itself, but it doesn't really pan out even if it were true, because our population isn't uniformly super-educated, nor are there sufficient resources available to make such achievement worth while. We have some very well educated, very smart people, and we have some hard cases. The well educated, smart people are going to drive their lives and careers towards high return investments, which is NOT technology due to both to the decreasing number of positions, and decreasing salaries (also due to offshoring and to a lesser extent H1Bs). Meanwhile the less fortunate are just left in the cold, since the manufacturing jobs which are their staple income are moving away, and these people will be consuming more of the social services. The net effect on everyone is we're getting poor and we're not innovating and bringing jobs in.
I'm going to use a dirty word, called protectionism, and suggest that we are probably not doing enough to protect our own interests by allowing our corporate interests to run amok. I'm not saying we should throw up walls and cease all trade and turtle up, but the reality of effectively adding 6 billion people to your economy in the space of 10 years is a hardship. More to the point, in order to create the economy that is going to provide for so many, we need to have a backbone with sufficient funding and overall health to get things done. You may be a very charitable wealthy person, but you don't give all your money to the poor, your best bet is to go built a factory for them, teach them how to run it and make it go (even if you don't make a dime on it). Countries that are more insular right now are able to keep their edge for this same reason, while those who have a more hands off attitude are being pillaged.
They ported it to ARM for Android, and crappily. They will need to port it again to ARM for Windows 8, because of course, the windows API has nothing to do with Android.
If anyone were to ever start using Windows on Arm in the mobile/client space, perhaps they will port it one day. After a long period of development it may work right. As another pointed out they JUST started supporting 64-bit, even though many of us have been using 64-bit windows/linux for years.
Flash would still need to be recompiled for a new platform, this will probably take Adobe until 2025 at their current rate, even assuming the API calls remain constant.
Or just perhaps less useful in getting a job, as your employer doesn't necessarily want to be questioned or to have an argument, he wants what he says he wants (rather than what he needs). Honestly 9/10 of professional engineering is pure and simple logic and the ability to formulate articulate thoughts and apply (educated, informed) reasoning. In contrast most companies right now are looking for certain documented experience in various skills, pedigrees and buzzwords.
Anyway I don't think Greek is incredibly useful for most of us, I'm not saying that this (or any) knowledge is useless, simply that it puts a student who invested his time in this way at a disadvantage compared to one who invested the same time in more pragmatic pursuits.
You are out of your mind. Vista SP2 is light-years ahead of Vista, but it's all a buggy pile of shit. Windows 7 is the first "usable" edition of windows since XP, and it's generally being migrated two not necessarily because it is more stable, but simply because the new feature benefits outweigh the loss in reliability vs. XP. The UAC issue is still a leader in irritations and annoyances with any modern windows, and while I totally agree with the premise for it (being a linux user), it is still horribly implemented.
But even in Vista SP2 I have periodic crashes to desktop, my video card driver UMDF portion periodically fails and resets itself, some USB devices cause erratic behavior (particularly on resume from S3), I've all but given up on sound drivers for Sigmatel based chips, there are lots of drivers none of them work, and it's often not the driver that is failing so much as the reworked sound system in Vista. Microsoft needs to flog each and every person involved with Vista, and then reflog each tier of management at least once per level above individual contributor.
That's about right. I think my company dropped $50M on a "new brand image" (that looked a lot like the old brand image), another $42M on a new "one size fits all" database that actually doesn't work for almost anything, tens of millions in golden parachutes.
"Can I get a monitor with a display resolution larger than 1400x900?" "No." "But...but...I can't even see a page of schematics at a time, and the code I'm maintaining is a hundred thousand lines split in to dozens of files!" "The budget is tight, can't do it."
I was educated in US public schools, but I am pretty sure that I could ace that one, and that by todays standards it would have been considered an easy test.
My sister briefly taught in a high school where greek and latin were core curriculum. It was a "christian" religious school (the non-denominational type), not terribly expensive by national standards although in the south-east where it's located, it's probably as expensive as it can afford to be.
It had a very heavy weight on philosophy, the written word and argumentation. I was not that impressed with math/science, they seemed at or maybe somewhat below what a public school in any area I grew up in would offer.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think I agree. I think it's because they want to charge people more for matte. I think Apple asks $50 to have a matte screen instead of glossy. I want matte, but I don't want to pay $50.
On one hand I'm not getting what I want, on the other hand Apple "learned" from the results that I don't want it badly enough to pay for it.
I think they call this grammar nazi baiting.
Cara bel, cara mia bella. Mia bambina, a tra che la stima che la stima. A cara mia, addio! Mia bambina cara, perche non passi lontana si lontana de scienza? Cara cara mia bambina. A mia bel. A mia cara. A mia cara. A mia bambina. A cara, cari a mi!
Never PVP against the Kwisatz Haderach, you'll always lose. They should charge him a lot of money to play on their servers.
Or they'd have to stop using overseas sweatshops to avoid licensing fees (and increased labor fees) to dodge license costs.
College sex in a nearly all male engineering school? No, I didn't miss anything I wanted there.
I think you're missing the point, maybe the article is missing the point. Popularity in high school is primarily centered around the moving target that is high school culture. Those that conform to the culture (not necessarily the rules, or society in general), are generally not given the "geek" label. Those however whose independent thought judges the norm to be bizarre, for some reason, even if that judgement is logical and based in fact, are outcasts. These may be weirdos, or they may just be people who are paying attention.
I was a geek/nerd (at various times), although I had irrational interests in sci-fi as many geeks do, most of the alienating things I did to myself had nothing to do with my eccentricities. Although I very much wanted sex, I never pursued women because i knew I had X years of high school left and 6 years of college ahead of me, it could go nowhere and was inappropriate to pursue. I studied in school not because of my innate genius, simply because it struck me that my parents weren't telling lies: those who did well would have more opportunities than those who didn't (and life has agreed). I didn't drink, primarily because my parents let me drink at home and booze (or its effects) weren't that mysterious to me and I just didn't understand why people wanted to drink until they puked. And so on, all these things alienated me from culture just as much as my "weird" interests or my social awkwardness. But it was never unpopular to be a little weird (in fact the Cool People, all had a token weirdness), or to be socially inappropriate. It was weird to do your own thing and not join the hive.
As an adult however this mindset is usually going to produce better results, and social popularity isn't nearly as much of a spendable currency as it was in high school. People who think for themselves rather than follow the pack tend to not get bitten by life's many challenges. It won't surprise them that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, that their employers drive for money will outweigh any unwritten promises, and that a big paycheck is better than a big title. All these things alienate you from a culture, but also enable you to see what's really there, and if you use that knowledge you will succeed.
You probably wouldn't pay to do it, you'd simply not use her services again. But then she's a contractor.
If you were a pimp however, and she was "yo' bitch", you might find some method of training her to make sure "the bitch has yo money". You may keep the pimp hand strong, but she'll make more if she at least knows what she's doing.
It's a very simple problem, peace will be achieved in the world when there is only one person left.
In the end, there can be only one.
It should've been "Focused, Productive
Oooh, Shiny!
This is generally my experience too.
I haven't found this to be true at all. I've had doctors say "well, I'm not sure what's wrong I can prescribe something but I'd recommend against it" for myself, for my wife and for our child. I've even had doctors not prescribe anti-biotics in cases where it seems like they absolutely should have, for reasons I still don't understand. In my experience doctors are the MOST conservative when:
1) Ordering tests, even when warranted or when they can't explain the problem.
2) Referring to a specialist.
I needed an MRI pretty badly, it took a lot of work on my part to get doctors to prescribe one. It got to the point where I didn't care about insurance, I'd pay out of pocket just to have the damn thing done and interpreted by someone who knew shit from shinola, but I get the feeling doctors feel some pain financially for prescribing them. But from their standpoint I was reasonably asymptomatic (pains that came and went, of varying degrees of severity), and no other visible complications. However, and maybe I'm the 1 of 100 that actually was persistent, it turns out something really WAS wrong, that it was treatable, and that had it gone undiagnosed it would eventually have reached a crisis point which would have hospitalized me.
I understand old-people issues, and I definitely think when there are too many doctors involved and not talking to each other shit like what you describe DOES happen and it requires the patient to be very proactive and get things under control (which again, with old people often is problematic). But I don't think this is a systemic problem plaguing health care top to bottom.
In my opinion this entire article is bullshit, creating the illusion of a problem. Our increased ability to detect problems early, or to detect problems that would previously have escaped notice is not a crisis. The expense of funding good medicine and what the funding model looks like IS a problem.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking down the tubez.
There continues to be confusion between PhD meaning "crazy high level of applicable education", and PhD meaning "specialization and expertise in a narrow field". Commercial and social interests want the first definition of PhD, some certification that means "this person is a top tier and well rounded member of his field who knows everything we want him to know", and the academic need of someone who is an expert in a narrow field of sufficiently believable level that he can advance the art.
These are two really different concepts. You need the former to bring the fruits of learning to the masses and to connect the dots between different specializations, and you need the latter to actually make the small advances without which there would be no progress. A faster semiconductor process may have biological applications, but to find a way to make a faster process you need very deep specialization. This problem isn't limited to academia either, some companies have this issue with their engineering staff: engineers find marketable careers in specialized areas (board design, digital logic design, dsp, firmware, applications, etc.) but corporations, but many systems companies need people who know a bit about everything or they can't innovate.
The problem is that there isn't normally money available at an individual level for broad minds (either as salary or academic grants), the money is in specialization. Companies would rather hire 3 complementary experts for $x/yr, than 1 generalist for >$x/yr.
Well if I show you a drawing depicting a house, and the house is green, and the question asks "how many sides of the house are green?" and you answer 4 (assuming a box shaped house insofar as you can see), and you learn on a test exam that your answer is wrong, and you should have answered "at least three", you learn something about the nature of the test (i.e. make no assumptions). That knowledge will teach you to take IQ tests smarter, and you'd have done better than someone who went in without that learning. Certainly you can say this is a bad question, but in practice, your score depends on your answer to good and bad questions (just like any exam). The more practiced you are and the more you have learned how to think about common problems, the better you are likely going to do.
I think it's probably pretty hard to develop a test with excellent questions, which are also original and have been verified to be "good" by the standards of the IQ judging process. And thus you end up with a test that doesn't measure what we think we want it to measure. That in itself isn't really a bad thing, you can easily argue that the results speak for themselves (those who score high achieve high on other metrics), but you have to be careful. People who do less well all get lumped together, and some of those people may not have been achievers at that point in their life but might change later for a number of reasons. But they're grouped in with people that have ACTUAL mental, emotional or other disorders, as well as people who are brought up poorly and have no actual hope for a variety of reasons. The net result confirms itself: those who were once good performers, on average perform better than the group of people who were not.
For that reason IQ tests should stay as they are, an academic attempt to measure something we can't really define very well in an effort to understand ourselves. They should not be used for any other purpose, particularly education or employment.
If some guy with an italian last name did this, we'd call it extortion and racketeering and throw him and his friends in jail. When Apple or Microsoft do it, we call it "good business".
"What a maroon."
Post World War II there were basically two countries that either weren't former colonies or bombed back decades in development. The US and USSR. The Cold War pretty much was the two big boys fighting and keeping everyone else down.
Except that India, Malaysia were impacted to varying degrees, but probably not "bombed back decades", neither was Sweden. I'm not sure about Finland, but I don't recall it being as badly mutilated as Germany, China, France and the UK. Germany has bounced back very well, but I wouldn't say that the competitive threat to the US lies in either England or France. Similarly, during the cold war era the US worked fairly closely with western europe on technological developments, and were relatively afraid (and had draconian laws about) sharing various types of technology outside of that clique. Now the US and europe both are mostly running to Asia.
I think you're partly right, but it's not about anyone "keeping the man down" or WWII damages. We generally avoided Asia (except Japan) because of the ties to our enemies. Once that threat was removed, it was a grab for cheap labor. The concept of keeping "high value jobs" in America (or Europe) is a myth itself, but it doesn't really pan out even if it were true, because our population isn't uniformly super-educated, nor are there sufficient resources available to make such achievement worth while. We have some very well educated, very smart people, and we have some hard cases. The well educated, smart people are going to drive their lives and careers towards high return investments, which is NOT technology due to both to the decreasing number of positions, and decreasing salaries (also due to offshoring and to a lesser extent H1Bs). Meanwhile the less fortunate are just left in the cold, since the manufacturing jobs which are their staple income are moving away, and these people will be consuming more of the social services. The net effect on everyone is we're getting poor and we're not innovating and bringing jobs in.
I'm going to use a dirty word, called protectionism, and suggest that we are probably not doing enough to protect our own interests by allowing our corporate interests to run amok. I'm not saying we should throw up walls and cease all trade and turtle up, but the reality of effectively adding 6 billion people to your economy in the space of 10 years is a hardship. More to the point, in order to create the economy that is going to provide for so many, we need to have a backbone with sufficient funding and overall health to get things done. You may be a very charitable wealthy person, but you don't give all your money to the poor, your best bet is to go built a factory for them, teach them how to run it and make it go (even if you don't make a dime on it). Countries that are more insular right now are able to keep their edge for this same reason, while those who have a more hands off attitude are being pillaged.
They ported it to ARM for Android, and crappily. They will need to port it again to ARM for Windows 8, because of course, the windows API has nothing to do with Android.
If anyone were to ever start using Windows on Arm in the mobile/client space, perhaps they will port it one day. After a long period of development it may work right. As another pointed out they JUST started supporting 64-bit, even though many of us have been using 64-bit windows/linux for years.
Flash would still need to be recompiled for a new platform, this will probably take Adobe until 2025 at their current rate, even assuming the API calls remain constant.
Or just perhaps less useful in getting a job, as your employer doesn't necessarily want to be questioned or to have an argument, he wants what he says he wants (rather than what he needs). Honestly 9/10 of professional engineering is pure and simple logic and the ability to formulate articulate thoughts and apply (educated, informed) reasoning. In contrast most companies right now are looking for certain documented experience in various skills, pedigrees and buzzwords.
Anyway I don't think Greek is incredibly useful for most of us, I'm not saying that this (or any) knowledge is useless, simply that it puts a student who invested his time in this way at a disadvantage compared to one who invested the same time in more pragmatic pursuits.
You are out of your mind. Vista SP2 is light-years ahead of Vista, but it's all a buggy pile of shit. Windows 7 is the first "usable" edition of windows since XP, and it's generally being migrated two not necessarily because it is more stable, but simply because the new feature benefits outweigh the loss in reliability vs. XP. The UAC issue is still a leader in irritations and annoyances with any modern windows, and while I totally agree with the premise for it (being a linux user), it is still horribly implemented.
But even in Vista SP2 I have periodic crashes to desktop, my video card driver UMDF portion periodically fails and resets itself, some USB devices cause erratic behavior (particularly on resume from S3), I've all but given up on sound drivers for Sigmatel based chips, there are lots of drivers none of them work, and it's often not the driver that is failing so much as the reworked sound system in Vista. Microsoft needs to flog each and every person involved with Vista, and then reflog each tier of management at least once per level above individual contributor.
That's about right. I think my company dropped $50M on a "new brand image" (that looked a lot like the old brand image), another $42M on a new "one size fits all" database that actually doesn't work for almost anything, tens of millions in golden parachutes.
"Can I get a monitor with a display resolution larger than 1400x900?" "No." "But...but...I can't even see a page of schematics at a time, and the code I'm maintaining is a hundred thousand lines split in to dozens of files!" "The budget is tight, can't do it."
I was educated in US public schools, but I am pretty sure that I could ace that one, and that by todays standards it would have been considered an easy test.
My sister briefly taught in a high school where greek and latin were core curriculum. It was a "christian" religious school (the non-denominational type), not terribly expensive by national standards although in the south-east where it's located, it's probably as expensive as it can afford to be.
It had a very heavy weight on philosophy, the written word and argumentation. I was not that impressed with math/science, they seemed at or maybe somewhat below what a public school in any area I grew up in would offer.