But why honor that collectibility? I mean, this isn't like counterfeiting physical paintings, where counterfeiting only produces something very similar to original artwork; this allows for counterfeiting wherein the counterfeit art would be, bit-for-bit, indistinguishable from the original, save for a cryptographic signature that doesn't actually contribute anything artistic to the piece. In essence, the scarcity doesn't derive from the actual artwork; it derives from the signature for the artwork.
Maybe there will be some people anal enough to care about that signature, but at that point, why even attach art to it? If scarcity is all you're really after, then couldn't you say, "Random person of note X sent out only Y amount of signatures, and I got one! It's so valuable!" Don't you think that bubble will burst sooner than later if you try to apply it to actual economies?
It's a bit interesting how you're so inclined to tell the parent that what applies to him does not apply to other workers, so he shouldn't judge them by that standard, but then go on to describe the capabilities of other workers, and what would benefit them.
Maybe not everybody working waged jobs can obtain the skills necessary to move beyond that type of work -- for whatever reason. Maybe a lot of the "exploitative" work that exists out there, exists because there are plenty of people who cannot reasonably pursue something better, so there's no real incentive for "oppressors" (either employers or simply clients) to offer anything better (since there are plenty other people from which to choose).
No, that couldn't be part of the problem. Obviously it's just greedy capitalists perpetually oppressing everybody else. That's the sole issue; nothing else.
I would say this, though: nobody is forcing people to work those exploitative positions. They do genuinely have a choice. That would imply that work, even in a crappy job, is better than nothing for a lot of people. Would you instead suggest that they stay home, and rely on handouts? Two things: Will you personally provide those handouts? Will you invite them into your home? If you don't do that now, what's stopping you? Also, would you like to be in the position of having to rely on whatever the good intentions of others supply? Would you be happy existing, essentially, as someone else's pet? Or would you rather have the capability of directing your own life, even if meagerly?
That's not entirely true. If the universe were a simulation, there are possible was that such a simulation might be detectable. For example, if we ever calculated the end of a transcendental number like pi, that would be good evidence that we're in a simulation, since we would have apparently exhausted the simulation's precision capacity for something which provably cannot be expressed with a finite combination of rational numbers. In a limited sense, then, there are ways in which a simulated universe idea could be testable.
However, you're correct that, just because some possible simulations might be detectable, it doesn't mean that all simulations would be detectable. That is, it's conceivable that we could live in a better simulation than the one described above, and still not have any capability of detecting it by any means, such as computing the end of an infinitely precise number. In that way, the simulation idea is just another unfalsifiable claim... it's just that it still might be detectable given the right simulation conditions.
Incorrect. Science has been very useful in disproving things unequivocally. That is, science has truly and completely proven that some things cannot be true. In fact, for any assertion to be scientific, it must carry with it the potential to be completely disproven. Maybe that's not the type of proof you were talking about, but it's (useful) proof nonetheless.
I could have been clearer in my description, but I wasn't talking about working on a private project on company time, or even using company equipment; I was talking about working independently on a private project. Even if that independent project is unrelated to an employer's product lines, many employers still claim ownership via their employment contracts. That's what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with a company disapproving of your job application example because, as you said, that's done on their time and dime, and certainly doesn't contribute toward their success.
I struggle a bit to understand why this isn't a bigger issue. I mean, I understand why employers would want to own anything employees create -- free labor, ability to quash disruptive technology, and all that -- but when so many political noises are made about innovation, and you have company policies that clearly disincentivize it on the part of individuals, I wonder why some politician hasn't attempted to differentiate themselves by even mentioning the stifling effect on innovation such policies impose.
As an engineer, I'd think that more similarly inclined people would want to have at least an opportunity to pursue non-work related projects on their own time, but I guess I'm in the minority. Actually, I suppose that pretty much addresses my own question; after all, if essentially nobody is complaining, then there's no reason to call into question exploitative, innovation-quashing practices.
If the wage gap from the quote corresponds to identical salaried positions, then you might have a point regarding entry level wages. If, however, it corresponds to hourly wage positions, and annual incomes are being compared (as often occurs in these types of click-baity articles), then, given that plenty of data suggests women generally put in fewer hours than men, men will generally earn more over the course of a year. Unless you advocate cutting men's real wages, or force everyone to work identical amounts of time -- good luck with that --, that annual average disparity isn't going to go away.
I would also note that, for salaried positions, you'd need to ensure comparisons are made while accounting for as many other variables as possible. For example, you'd need to verify that comparisons are conducted in similar locations, or you'd need to ensure that there is no geographic disparity between men and women. If there is a geographic disparity, then obviously pay disparities between different cities could contribute to an overall observed sexual disparity in wages. You know, abide by basic science stuff.
Maybe the article actually avoided the pitfalls above, and actually uncovered genuine sexual bias. I'm not clicking through to find out, though, since they never do, instead relying on knee-jerking moralizers to cite them as credible observers of systemic yada yada.
Absolutely this. Not to mention that it was government involvement that encouraged the overproduction of degree-holding individuals in the first place. It's quite something, isn't it? Simultaneously inflating the cost of something whilst reducing its demand. If anything exemplifies the largess, bureaucracy, and poor quality often levied as complaints against government involvement, it's the education industry.
Oh, and before some knee-jerker exclaims, "but Edumacationns impOrtAnt!!" Yes. Yes it is. You should try pursuing it. There are far more sources available to you -- often with better content -- than just those offered at East Southern State University College, and they probably won't run you $40,000/year to access. Oh, you will have to exert some actual effort to obtain and understand them, though.
Point me to exactly where the AC said there should be a 50-50 male/female split. Go ahead, do it.
What they actually said was that the context in which people make their choices has an impact on what choices are made. If that context unnaturally or arbitrarily skews choices, then it's probably worth examining whether that context should be maintained, or changed.
Think of the Dutch tulip craze and subsequent crash: In that context, it was completely rational to buy tulips, even knowing that the bubble would eventually burst, in order to hoard them and sell them off at a higher price. Obviously, the market context had a tremendous impact on individual decisions being made, but while individuals were ultimately responsible for the consequences of their decisions (if they got out soon enough and profited, or succumbed to the burst), I think it'd be pretty worthwhile to consider whether the conditions that led to those decisions were truly necessary. That is, it's worth examining whether bubbles, especially for goods of little intrinsic value, are really unavoidable, or if they can be prevented, and if it'd be worth imposing measures for prevention.
The AC applied that same reasoning to a social context. It's not a "load of crap;" you just labeled it as such to avoid engaging in an intellectually honest conversation.
Agreed... Wonder if they'll ever get around to adding a reasonable status feature, such as the ability to specify "Do Not Disturb." Oh, who am I kidding?
The summary is pretty bad (shocking, I know). One type of time crystal would be like a perpetual motion machine, but that's not what the actual article claims was developed; instead, the time crystal developed requires energy to maintain its crystalline state, but the crystal structure itself is not dependent on specifics of the input energy.
The actual experiment is scientifically rigorous, and it does yield something quite useful: namely, it yields an oscillator that will oscillate at the same frequency regardless of the supply energy. If you don't think there's a use for that, you've probably never contemplated how your CPU or memory system actually, you know, works.
By the way, it'll probably be quite some time before this oscillator ends up on an SoC, but that's not the point; the point is that there are some immediately conceivable use cases for this thing. Just because you can't think of them doesn't mean it's useless or dependent on wild speculations.
It's a "time crystal" in the sense that the quantum states of the structure exhibit a precisely recurring pattern in time. Some energy is required to maintain that pattern, but the pattern doesn't depend on specifics of that energy supply (i.e. one voltage produces the same oscillation frequency as a different voltage). That's enough to satisfy most definitions of "time crystal," though it falls well short of the much narrower definition that requires recurring oscillations without any energy input.
It's different from a macroscopic tuned circuit in that the driving energy is decoupled from the resulting oscillations. Basically, some energy is indeed required to maintain the crystalline (repeating pattern) structure in time, but that pattern is precise and does not depend on the energy supplied. In a typical oscillating circuit, on the other hand, you would indeed see recurring oscillations for a given supply voltage, for example, but if you vary that voltage, the oscillations settle to a quite significantly different frequency.
This isn't a perpetual motion machine, but it does exhibit characteristics that are nonetheless really cool and potentially quite useful, and it does so by relying on what is essentially a new matter phase previously though to be impossible.
What about "wage gap" implies injustice? Were it called an "unjust wage disparity" or something, then you might have a point, but right now, justice, or the lack thereof, is implied by you, not by the actual phrase.
No, this is not about laziness; this is about unreasonable, arbitrary inflexibility imposing unnecessary sacrifices when also dealing with truly inflexible requirements, such as child-rearing. It is completely possible to be hard-working, but prioritize families over careers, thereby limiting available options, at least, currently. While that will always be a trade-off to some extent, the point is that requiring a physical office presence and a set block of work time artificially raises the amount that must be traded. On this point, laziness is irrelevant.
The laziness canard is just a moralizing myth, ironically much like "patriarchy" theory, overgeneralized and overextended to explain away relative positions in society in a feel-good (for the person invoking the argument) manner.
The summary title is certainly inviting of knee-jerk retorts of the gender wage gap -- retorts that exist for good reason -- but the summary itself is actually a fairly reasonable assessment of the wage gap, noting things like:
in order achieve pay parity, women need to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields
and
One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time
Both of these statements are true, and represent a departure from the typical "OMG!! PATRIARCHYYYY!!" bullshit. Moreover, the central contention is, I think, fair and warranted:
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.
Think about your own job... How much of it truly requires a physical presence at an office at a set time of day? If you're like me, the actual work requires almost no physical office presence, and certainly doesn't require a set time frame (I'm working with India half the time anyway), yet the company I work for still mandates a work-at-the-office policy. Why? There's really no good reason for it aside from that it makes the CEO feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Now thing of all the penalties associated with requiring work at the office. Aside from inflexible scheduling that arbitrarily penalizes mothers (or stay-at-home dads), it also requires unnecessary transportation (costing gasoline and emitting CO2 -- if that matters to you), unnecessary heating/cooling/maintenance (for office infrastructure), wasted time spent commuting, etc.
Requiring work at a specific work-site and time makes sense if you're doing some sort of manufacturing/construction/physical maintenance/etc., but for straight office work, it's pretty unreasonably pointless. It's pointless, and it imposes completely unnecessary and arbitrary costs. Rather than reject the article because it's attached to some (mildly) feminist rhetoric, maybe consider that there may actually be a good point underlying it -- a point which applies to, and would benefit, more than just women.
Wow, those things actually "hurt" you? Amazing. You epitomize first world problems right there.
Again, if you don't like it, don't buy into Hollywood movies. Nobody's forcing you to support them. It's an entirely unnecessary, voluntary engagement; and it's entirely up to you whether or not you engage. Jesus.
First of all,/. is hardly representative of the general public. Second, even if it were representative of the general public, markets don't exist to supply what most people want; they exist to supply what enough people want to make a venture profitable. Third, markets have no obligation to provide what you want, or withhold what you don't want (if the thing you don't want isn't actually illegal/harmful). Fourth, if not capitalism, it'd be whatever is in it's place; the rest of the world has no obligation to address your particular wants (which seems to be what you're really getting at). Fifth, again... how does this hurt you? If you don't want to pay to see new movies, don't watch them; nobody -- including ranton -- is forcing you to do that or even see any studio movies in general. You just want the movie industry to suffer, is that it? Good luck with that.
Everybody has some sort of stupid, costly activity that they nonetheless enjoy; I'm not an exception to that, and neither are you. Clearly, this guy doesn't *have* to watch a brand new movie, but he seems to enjoy it, so why complain about his particular stupid, costly pursuit? If you don't want to validate movie companies' approach, don't buy into it, but don't begrudge those who actually do want it. If it's successful, there will still be more traditional options available to you, and if it isn't successful, then ranton can make due with what is available.
I agree that $50 is a bit ludicrous (unless you have a lot of people you're taking to the theater, and have a good setup of your own), but why the snarky response to this guy? It's not like he's complaining about the cost; he's saying that he'd be in the market for what they're offering, and is happy to shell out $50. What's wrong with that?
Somewhat off-topic from the main article, but to your point about bike lights, I've used both lights powered by a generator, and battery-powered lights.
Unless you're in a high-level bike race (where you wouldn't have lights to being with), you're not going to notice any additional drag from a generator -- at least, not with the method my generator uses. It's not like it comes into direct contact with the wheel or anything; it just uses the circulation of permanent magnets around the center hub of the front wheel, which doesn't produce drag noticeable beyond regular road noise. That said, it's not as bright as good battery-powered lights. Note that, when I say good, I don't mean a Wal-Mart light that just uses AAs; I'm talking about a rechargeable light that puts out a lot of light. This should also address your concern of battery replacement, since you really don't need to do that with such lights.
This isn't a replacement for a bike light any more than street lamps are a replacement for car headlights; it's there to augment night vision, that's all.
I've got a good headlight for my bike, and I use it at night all the time, but it still has its limitations. Have you never come across something, like a stray branch or random hunk of metal, when you're biking at night? These things are often dark, not particularly reflective, and laying on a dark surface, so they're easy to miss until you're basically running over them, even with a bright headlight to light the way ahead. Having a dull backlight that exposes these things due to occlusion of that light would, for me at least, be very helpful.
I'd also note that this applies to people walking on bike paths at night as well. Speaking personally, I've actually run into someone on an unlit bike path (I was almost able to slam on the brakes in time, so it wasn't major) because I didn't see them -- dressed all in black, no less -- until I was right on top of them. Why didn't I see them? Because there was no ambient light, and the path was curving at that point, so my headlight, being fairly directional, wasn't able to shine directly on them until I was right on top of them. Incidentally, a glowing path would be useful for exposing turns on unfamiliar paths as well.
So, yeah, I've got a good headlight, but I've experienced its limitations, and can see how Poland's solution would address those limitations without costing a bunch in infrastructure, without requiring external power generation, and without introducing overly-bright lights lining bike paths. Assuming that this isn't some environmental catastrophe (I'm assuming it's no better or worse than highway paint), I think this is a pretty good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
But why honor that collectibility? I mean, this isn't like counterfeiting physical paintings, where counterfeiting only produces something very similar to original artwork; this allows for counterfeiting wherein the counterfeit art would be, bit-for-bit, indistinguishable from the original, save for a cryptographic signature that doesn't actually contribute anything artistic to the piece. In essence, the scarcity doesn't derive from the actual artwork; it derives from the signature for the artwork.
Maybe there will be some people anal enough to care about that signature, but at that point, why even attach art to it? If scarcity is all you're really after, then couldn't you say, "Random person of note X sent out only Y amount of signatures, and I got one! It's so valuable!" Don't you think that bubble will burst sooner than later if you try to apply it to actual economies?
It's a bit interesting how you're so inclined to tell the parent that what applies to him does not apply to other workers, so he shouldn't judge them by that standard, but then go on to describe the capabilities of other workers, and what would benefit them.
Maybe not everybody working waged jobs can obtain the skills necessary to move beyond that type of work -- for whatever reason. Maybe a lot of the "exploitative" work that exists out there, exists because there are plenty of people who cannot reasonably pursue something better, so there's no real incentive for "oppressors" (either employers or simply clients) to offer anything better (since there are plenty other people from which to choose).
No, that couldn't be part of the problem. Obviously it's just greedy capitalists perpetually oppressing everybody else. That's the sole issue; nothing else.
I would say this, though: nobody is forcing people to work those exploitative positions. They do genuinely have a choice. That would imply that work, even in a crappy job, is better than nothing for a lot of people. Would you instead suggest that they stay home, and rely on handouts? Two things: Will you personally provide those handouts? Will you invite them into your home? If you don't do that now, what's stopping you? Also, would you like to be in the position of having to rely on whatever the good intentions of others supply? Would you be happy existing, essentially, as someone else's pet? Or would you rather have the capability of directing your own life, even if meagerly?
Well, only if the person isn't actually a moron... sometimes it's an accurate and truthful categorization.
That's not entirely true. If the universe were a simulation, there are possible was that such a simulation might be detectable. For example, if we ever calculated the end of a transcendental number like pi, that would be good evidence that we're in a simulation, since we would have apparently exhausted the simulation's precision capacity for something which provably cannot be expressed with a finite combination of rational numbers. In a limited sense, then, there are ways in which a simulated universe idea could be testable.
However, you're correct that, just because some possible simulations might be detectable, it doesn't mean that all simulations would be detectable. That is, it's conceivable that we could live in a better simulation than the one described above, and still not have any capability of detecting it by any means, such as computing the end of an infinitely precise number. In that way, the simulation idea is just another unfalsifiable claim... it's just that it still might be detectable given the right simulation conditions.
Incorrect. Science has been very useful in disproving things unequivocally. That is, science has truly and completely proven that some things cannot be true. In fact, for any assertion to be scientific, it must carry with it the potential to be completely disproven. Maybe that's not the type of proof you were talking about, but it's (useful) proof nonetheless.
I could have been clearer in my description, but I wasn't talking about working on a private project on company time, or even using company equipment; I was talking about working independently on a private project. Even if that independent project is unrelated to an employer's product lines, many employers still claim ownership via their employment contracts. That's what I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with a company disapproving of your job application example because, as you said, that's done on their time and dime, and certainly doesn't contribute toward their success.
I struggle a bit to understand why this isn't a bigger issue. I mean, I understand why employers would want to own anything employees create -- free labor, ability to quash disruptive technology, and all that -- but when so many political noises are made about innovation, and you have company policies that clearly disincentivize it on the part of individuals, I wonder why some politician hasn't attempted to differentiate themselves by even mentioning the stifling effect on innovation such policies impose.
As an engineer, I'd think that more similarly inclined people would want to have at least an opportunity to pursue non-work related projects on their own time, but I guess I'm in the minority. Actually, I suppose that pretty much addresses my own question; after all, if essentially nobody is complaining, then there's no reason to call into question exploitative, innovation-quashing practices.
Anyway, good on GitHub for doing this.
Indeed. Online ticket purchases for a minimal convenience/service fee of 1.35 per ticket. What a deal!
If the wage gap from the quote corresponds to identical salaried positions, then you might have a point regarding entry level wages. If, however, it corresponds to hourly wage positions, and annual incomes are being compared (as often occurs in these types of click-baity articles), then, given that plenty of data suggests women generally put in fewer hours than men, men will generally earn more over the course of a year. Unless you advocate cutting men's real wages, or force everyone to work identical amounts of time -- good luck with that --, that annual average disparity isn't going to go away.
I would also note that, for salaried positions, you'd need to ensure comparisons are made while accounting for as many other variables as possible. For example, you'd need to verify that comparisons are conducted in similar locations, or you'd need to ensure that there is no geographic disparity between men and women. If there is a geographic disparity, then obviously pay disparities between different cities could contribute to an overall observed sexual disparity in wages. You know, abide by basic science stuff.
Maybe the article actually avoided the pitfalls above, and actually uncovered genuine sexual bias. I'm not clicking through to find out, though, since they never do, instead relying on knee-jerking moralizers to cite them as credible observers of systemic yada yada.
Absolutely this. Not to mention that it was government involvement that encouraged the overproduction of degree-holding individuals in the first place. It's quite something, isn't it? Simultaneously inflating the cost of something whilst reducing its demand. If anything exemplifies the largess, bureaucracy, and poor quality often levied as complaints against government involvement, it's the education industry.
Oh, and before some knee-jerker exclaims, "but Edumacationns impOrtAnt!!" Yes. Yes it is. You should try pursuing it. There are far more sources available to you -- often with better content -- than just those offered at East Southern State University College, and they probably won't run you $40,000/year to access. Oh, you will have to exert some actual effort to obtain and understand them, though.
Point me to exactly where the AC said there should be a 50-50 male/female split. Go ahead, do it.
What they actually said was that the context in which people make their choices has an impact on what choices are made. If that context unnaturally or arbitrarily skews choices, then it's probably worth examining whether that context should be maintained, or changed.
Think of the Dutch tulip craze and subsequent crash: In that context, it was completely rational to buy tulips, even knowing that the bubble would eventually burst, in order to hoard them and sell them off at a higher price. Obviously, the market context had a tremendous impact on individual decisions being made, but while individuals were ultimately responsible for the consequences of their decisions (if they got out soon enough and profited, or succumbed to the burst), I think it'd be pretty worthwhile to consider whether the conditions that led to those decisions were truly necessary. That is, it's worth examining whether bubbles, especially for goods of little intrinsic value, are really unavoidable, or if they can be prevented, and if it'd be worth imposing measures for prevention.
The AC applied that same reasoning to a social context. It's not a "load of crap;" you just labeled it as such to avoid engaging in an intellectually honest conversation.
Agreed... Wonder if they'll ever get around to adding a reasonable status feature, such as the ability to specify "Do Not Disturb." Oh, who am I kidding?
The summary is pretty bad (shocking, I know). One type of time crystal would be like a perpetual motion machine, but that's not what the actual article claims was developed; instead, the time crystal developed requires energy to maintain its crystalline state, but the crystal structure itself is not dependent on specifics of the input energy.
The actual experiment is scientifically rigorous, and it does yield something quite useful: namely, it yields an oscillator that will oscillate at the same frequency regardless of the supply energy. If you don't think there's a use for that, you've probably never contemplated how your CPU or memory system actually, you know, works.
By the way, it'll probably be quite some time before this oscillator ends up on an SoC, but that's not the point; the point is that there are some immediately conceivable use cases for this thing. Just because you can't think of them doesn't mean it's useless or dependent on wild speculations.
It's a "time crystal" in the sense that the quantum states of the structure exhibit a precisely recurring pattern in time. Some energy is required to maintain that pattern, but the pattern doesn't depend on specifics of that energy supply (i.e. one voltage produces the same oscillation frequency as a different voltage). That's enough to satisfy most definitions of "time crystal," though it falls well short of the much narrower definition that requires recurring oscillations without any energy input.
This is indeed real science, though.
It's different from a macroscopic tuned circuit in that the driving energy is decoupled from the resulting oscillations. Basically, some energy is indeed required to maintain the crystalline (repeating pattern) structure in time, but that pattern is precise and does not depend on the energy supplied. In a typical oscillating circuit, on the other hand, you would indeed see recurring oscillations for a given supply voltage, for example, but if you vary that voltage, the oscillations settle to a quite significantly different frequency.
This isn't a perpetual motion machine, but it does exhibit characteristics that are nonetheless really cool and potentially quite useful, and it does so by relying on what is essentially a new matter phase previously though to be impossible.
What about "wage gap" implies injustice? Were it called an "unjust wage disparity" or something, then you might have a point, but right now, justice, or the lack thereof, is implied by you, not by the actual phrase.
No, this is not about laziness; this is about unreasonable, arbitrary inflexibility imposing unnecessary sacrifices when also dealing with truly inflexible requirements, such as child-rearing. It is completely possible to be hard-working, but prioritize families over careers, thereby limiting available options, at least, currently. While that will always be a trade-off to some extent, the point is that requiring a physical office presence and a set block of work time artificially raises the amount that must be traded. On this point, laziness is irrelevant.
The laziness canard is just a moralizing myth, ironically much like "patriarchy" theory, overgeneralized and overextended to explain away relative positions in society in a feel-good (for the person invoking the argument) manner.
The summary title is certainly inviting of knee-jerk retorts of the gender wage gap -- retorts that exist for good reason -- but the summary itself is actually a fairly reasonable assessment of the wage gap, noting things like:
in order achieve pay parity, women need to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields
and
One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time
Both of these statements are true, and represent a departure from the typical "OMG!! PATRIARCHYYYY!!" bullshit. Moreover, the central contention is, I think, fair and warranted:
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.
Think about your own job... How much of it truly requires a physical presence at an office at a set time of day? If you're like me, the actual work requires almost no physical office presence, and certainly doesn't require a set time frame (I'm working with India half the time anyway), yet the company I work for still mandates a work-at-the-office policy. Why? There's really no good reason for it aside from that it makes the CEO feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Now thing of all the penalties associated with requiring work at the office. Aside from inflexible scheduling that arbitrarily penalizes mothers (or stay-at-home dads), it also requires unnecessary transportation (costing gasoline and emitting CO2 -- if that matters to you), unnecessary heating/cooling/maintenance (for office infrastructure), wasted time spent commuting, etc.
Requiring work at a specific work-site and time makes sense if you're doing some sort of manufacturing/construction/physical maintenance/etc., but for straight office work, it's pretty unreasonably pointless. It's pointless, and it imposes completely unnecessary and arbitrary costs. Rather than reject the article because it's attached to some (mildly) feminist rhetoric, maybe consider that there may actually be a good point underlying it -- a point which applies to, and would benefit, more than just women.
Wow, those things actually "hurt" you? Amazing. You epitomize first world problems right there.
Again, if you don't like it, don't buy into Hollywood movies. Nobody's forcing you to support them. It's an entirely unnecessary, voluntary engagement; and it's entirely up to you whether or not you engage. Jesus.
What??
First of all, /. is hardly representative of the general public. Second, even if it were representative of the general public, markets don't exist to supply what most people want; they exist to supply what enough people want to make a venture profitable. Third, markets have no obligation to provide what you want, or withhold what you don't want (if the thing you don't want isn't actually illegal/harmful). Fourth, if not capitalism, it'd be whatever is in it's place; the rest of the world has no obligation to address your particular wants (which seems to be what you're really getting at). Fifth, again... how does this hurt you? If you don't want to pay to see new movies, don't watch them; nobody -- including ranton -- is forcing you to do that or even see any studio movies in general. You just want the movie industry to suffer, is that it? Good luck with that.
Everybody has some sort of stupid, costly activity that they nonetheless enjoy; I'm not an exception to that, and neither are you. Clearly, this guy doesn't *have* to watch a brand new movie, but he seems to enjoy it, so why complain about his particular stupid, costly pursuit? If you don't want to validate movie companies' approach, don't buy into it, but don't begrudge those who actually do want it. If it's successful, there will still be more traditional options available to you, and if it isn't successful, then ranton can make due with what is available.
I agree that $50 is a bit ludicrous (unless you have a lot of people you're taking to the theater, and have a good setup of your own), but why the snarky response to this guy? It's not like he's complaining about the cost; he's saying that he'd be in the market for what they're offering, and is happy to shell out $50. What's wrong with that?
Somewhat off-topic from the main article, but to your point about bike lights, I've used both lights powered by a generator, and battery-powered lights.
Unless you're in a high-level bike race (where you wouldn't have lights to being with), you're not going to notice any additional drag from a generator -- at least, not with the method my generator uses. It's not like it comes into direct contact with the wheel or anything; it just uses the circulation of permanent magnets around the center hub of the front wheel, which doesn't produce drag noticeable beyond regular road noise. That said, it's not as bright as good battery-powered lights. Note that, when I say good, I don't mean a Wal-Mart light that just uses AAs; I'm talking about a rechargeable light that puts out a lot of light. This should also address your concern of battery replacement, since you really don't need to do that with such lights.
This isn't a replacement for a bike light any more than street lamps are a replacement for car headlights; it's there to augment night vision, that's all.
I've got a good headlight for my bike, and I use it at night all the time, but it still has its limitations. Have you never come across something, like a stray branch or random hunk of metal, when you're biking at night? These things are often dark, not particularly reflective, and laying on a dark surface, so they're easy to miss until you're basically running over them, even with a bright headlight to light the way ahead. Having a dull backlight that exposes these things due to occlusion of that light would, for me at least, be very helpful.
I'd also note that this applies to people walking on bike paths at night as well. Speaking personally, I've actually run into someone on an unlit bike path (I was almost able to slam on the brakes in time, so it wasn't major) because I didn't see them -- dressed all in black, no less -- until I was right on top of them. Why didn't I see them? Because there was no ambient light, and the path was curving at that point, so my headlight, being fairly directional, wasn't able to shine directly on them until I was right on top of them. Incidentally, a glowing path would be useful for exposing turns on unfamiliar paths as well.
So, yeah, I've got a good headlight, but I've experienced its limitations, and can see how Poland's solution would address those limitations without costing a bunch in infrastructure, without requiring external power generation, and without introducing overly-bright lights lining bike paths. Assuming that this isn't some environmental catastrophe (I'm assuming it's no better or worse than highway paint), I think this is a pretty good idea.