An iPad or simarly sized device will be capable of displaying large, colorfull charts. And the newer version with the high resolution display will look just as good as a printed page (better in the dark).
As for note-taking and interactivity, tablets are more suited to it from a hardware standpoint, though i'll agree the actual software really isn't there yet.
Bill Gates has been at the forefront of preventing innovation in computing and holding on to old ways of doing things for decades. It stands to reason the he wouldn't be able to understand that computing is possible without a keyboard.
That said, he is right that the equipment and the curriculum must work together. You can't just buy a fancy new toy and expect it to change much. But in the case of tablets, they could easily replace textbooks and printed materials with more interactive alternatives, and of course there'd be no benefit in having a keyboard if that's what you're trying to accomplish.
How would you define ownership over a resource on the moon? Is there anyone to object if we exploit it to produce rocket fuel or breathable are or whatever? You could say that we should save it for future generations, but it's unlikely they'd use it any differently.
Then there's the refurbished monitor I just received that started smoking and burnt itself out as soon as I plugged it in. If I'd spent 50% more and bought it from BestBuy, I wouldn't have to go through the online return process, I could just bring it straight back to them. And I think there's a possibility a new monitor is more likely to work as well. You can't always get away with pinching pennies.
I don't know, I've never been to any of those places. But if you haven't either, you should consider that they may not be as bad as you had been led to believe.
Corporate tablets designed by a committee are riddled with design compromises and fail to fully realize the device's potential as a result. Apple, by contrast, uses relatively small design teams and takes a "we won't release it until it's ready" approach to product schedules. They do not do consumer trials, and they trust their designers to make good decisions. This strategy not only produces better results, it can easily be emulated by much smaller companies.
This sentiment really bothers me. Fixing a car is simple: find the part that's broken and replace it. How do you find that part that's broken? It's the part that's either leaking or making noise (or both). Seriously, this isn't rocket science. It may be more work once you know what to do, but the diagnosis is generally simpler on a car than a computer, because there are obvious physical signs of malfunction.
As with anything in our society that seems complex, mastery is simply a matter of learning a few simple tricks that the experts already know. And given the number of dishonest car mechanics out there, this is really something you should know how to do for yourself, if for no other reason, just so that you will know when you're being taken advantage of.
That's just not the way media works anymore. Anyone with any ability to think rationally would see that the internet has made labels and paying for content completely unnecessary. The whole industry is an anachronism.
Parachutes make recovery more difficult, while a powered landing gets you right where you want to be. Also, these stages don't weigh much when they're empty, so that should help with the fuel requirement.
But as a potential career, it doesn't really make sense unless you can find a successful bank robber who you can trust to show you how to do it without getting caught. If you were starting out on your own, you chances would be better than 20% of getting caught on your first try. Also, if you develop a particularly effective method, it's only a matter of time before the banks catch on, so you'd have to be an innovative thinker to stay ahead of them.
There are better, more dishonest unskilled ways to make a living. You could become a chiropractor, or an auto mechanic, or something like that. And if you can go to college, there are all kinds of better ways to make a dishonest buck.
Assuming someone had all three of those conditions, it would explain only three medications. The problem, of course, is that even in older patients, conditions like those are experienced by less than 10% of individuals. So there is definitely something seriously wrong, regardless of your ability to cite a few conditions you may want to treat. Furthermore, in the case of type 2 diabetes and hypertension, there are preventative lifestyle choices that are far more effective than any drug, if the warning signs were identified early enough.
If you don't want drug companies to do something, make it illegal. Libertarian nonsense won't fix this problem any more than it helps deal with other problems.
It seems to me that you're only interested in treating the symptoms of the problem, which really isn't that surprising since you work in the pharmaceutical industry.
In school you are taught to work towards an "A" even if you are really a "C" student. You are taught to get the right result in your lab or on your test, even if you botched the lab, and didn't learn anything in the class. The same mentality is naturally drawn over to the "real" world. When you write a report, it doesn't really matter what you actually concluded, you have to issue a conclusion that toes the party line and represents you and your company in the best light possible, and you have to tailor the report to that conclusion. If you made a mistake, you spin it into a feature. If your metal is bad, you issue a report explaining why it's actually ok. Truth is the antithesis of society.
It's all so ridiculous though! Sometimes you just need to step back and take a look at it all and laugh at the absurdity. If you take it too seriously, how can you go on living?
Aside from antibiotics and anti viral medications (which scare the shit out of me, honestly), all drugs treat only symptoms. You ether keep taking them until you get better due to some other natural process, or you keep taking them for the rest of your life, unless you want your symptoms to return. And what's worse, they pretty much all have harmful side-effects. I cringe when I see older people taking handfuls of drugs three times a day. How could all that possibly be necessary? Wouldn't it be better just to suffer through whatever symptoms they have?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need a stylus to take notes. . .
An iPad or simarly sized device will be capable of displaying large, colorfull charts. And the newer version with the high resolution display will look just as good as a printed page (better in the dark).
As for note-taking and interactivity, tablets are more suited to it from a hardware standpoint, though i'll agree the actual software really isn't there yet.
Actually, I don't. But is that really the best you can do? I'm not even sure which of my points upset you.
Book publishers are out-dated. Educators can now develop, collaborate, and share learning materials free of charge without publishers.
Bill Gates has been at the forefront of preventing innovation in computing and holding on to old ways of doing things for decades. It stands to reason the he wouldn't be able to understand that computing is possible without a keyboard.
That said, he is right that the equipment and the curriculum must work together. You can't just buy a fancy new toy and expect it to change much. But in the case of tablets, they could easily replace textbooks and printed materials with more interactive alternatives, and of course there'd be no benefit in having a keyboard if that's what you're trying to accomplish.
How would you define ownership over a resource on the moon? Is there anyone to object if we exploit it to produce rocket fuel or breathable are or whatever? You could say that we should save it for future generations, but it's unlikely they'd use it any differently.
Then there's the refurbished monitor I just received that started smoking and burnt itself out as soon as I plugged it in. If I'd spent 50% more and bought it from BestBuy, I wouldn't have to go through the online return process, I could just bring it straight back to them. And I think there's a possibility a new monitor is more likely to work as well. You can't always get away with pinching pennies.
What's the point of leaving natural resources in place?
I don't know, I've never been to any of those places. But if you haven't either, you should consider that they may not be as bad as you had been led to believe.
Almost nothing is exactly what we'll have if we don't get our fiscal affairs in order right away. And no, I don't think that will be better.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way about their empire right before it collapsed.
Corporate tablets designed by a committee are riddled with design compromises and fail to fully realize the device's potential as a result. Apple, by contrast, uses relatively small design teams and takes a "we won't release it until it's ready" approach to product schedules. They do not do consumer trials, and they trust their designers to make good decisions. This strategy not only produces better results, it can easily be emulated by much smaller companies.
That's the plan. Almost anything would better than what we have now.
This sentiment really bothers me. Fixing a car is simple: find the part that's broken and replace it. How do you find that part that's broken? It's the part that's either leaking or making noise (or both). Seriously, this isn't rocket science. It may be more work once you know what to do, but the diagnosis is generally simpler on a car than a computer, because there are obvious physical signs of malfunction.
As with anything in our society that seems complex, mastery is simply a matter of learning a few simple tricks that the experts already know. And given the number of dishonest car mechanics out there, this is really something you should know how to do for yourself, if for no other reason, just so that you will know when you're being taken advantage of.
That's just not the way media works anymore. Anyone with any ability to think rationally would see that the internet has made labels and paying for content completely unnecessary. The whole industry is an anachronism.
Sounds legit. . .
Parachutes make recovery more difficult, while a powered landing gets you right where you want to be. Also, these stages don't weigh much when they're empty, so that should help with the fuel requirement.
Only 5-10% of diabetes cases in north america are type 1. Most have type 2.
But as a potential career, it doesn't really make sense unless you can find a successful bank robber who you can trust to show you how to do it without getting caught. If you were starting out on your own, you chances would be better than 20% of getting caught on your first try. Also, if you develop a particularly effective method, it's only a matter of time before the banks catch on, so you'd have to be an innovative thinker to stay ahead of them.
There are better, more dishonest unskilled ways to make a living. You could become a chiropractor, or an auto mechanic, or something like that. And if you can go to college, there are all kinds of better ways to make a dishonest buck.
Of course, it pays the banks more than the bank robbers. Same basic principle though.
Assuming someone had all three of those conditions, it would explain only three medications. The problem, of course, is that even in older patients, conditions like those are experienced by less than 10% of individuals. So there is definitely something seriously wrong, regardless of your ability to cite a few conditions you may want to treat. Furthermore, in the case of type 2 diabetes and hypertension, there are preventative lifestyle choices that are far more effective than any drug, if the warning signs were identified early enough.
Like any medical device, hearing aids are an important source of income for rich assholes who don't mind screwing over taxpayers and senior citizens.
It seems to me that you're only interested in treating the symptoms of the problem, which really isn't that surprising since you work in the pharmaceutical industry.
In school you are taught to work towards an "A" even if you are really a "C" student. You are taught to get the right result in your lab or on your test, even if you botched the lab, and didn't learn anything in the class. The same mentality is naturally drawn over to the "real" world. When you write a report, it doesn't really matter what you actually concluded, you have to issue a conclusion that toes the party line and represents you and your company in the best light possible, and you have to tailor the report to that conclusion. If you made a mistake, you spin it into a feature. If your metal is bad, you issue a report explaining why it's actually ok. Truth is the antithesis of society.
It's all so ridiculous though! Sometimes you just need to step back and take a look at it all and laugh at the absurdity. If you take it too seriously, how can you go on living?
Aside from antibiotics and anti viral medications (which scare the shit out of me, honestly), all drugs treat only symptoms. You ether keep taking them until you get better due to some other natural process, or you keep taking them for the rest of your life, unless you want your symptoms to return. And what's worse, they pretty much all have harmful side-effects. I cringe when I see older people taking handfuls of drugs three times a day. How could all that possibly be necessary? Wouldn't it be better just to suffer through whatever symptoms they have?