Nobody thinks it's weird that someone talented at an academic subject says, "X was always easy for me." How many people can say, "Basketball was always easy for me," or, "Violin was always easy for me?" Nobody! Only academics is set up so that someone who is good at, say, math, will never encounter any challenging math until they reach college. Everything else runs the way it should -- no matter how good you are, there's always a challenge to keep you working.
There are plenty of talented athletes who find thier sport easy as children. Just as in academics, sometimes it breeds arrogance and/or boredom which prevents the person from reaching their potential. There are plenty of super talented basketball players who dominate the playgrounds because they refused to listen to coaching. Structured learning can never provide everything, the people who make the most of their talents in any walk of life are the ones who pursue self-directed activities as a compliment. The best athletes are the ones who play during the offseason, the best musicians play in their garage with their friends, the best students are the ones who do find their own activities (eg enter poetry contests, or write their own computer programs).
Does a toddler who only has cardboard boxes to play with grow up stupider than one who has plastic puzzles in primary colors?
I don't think it's about smarter/stupider, its about experience. A child growing up in extreme poverty who has to forage to survive, will be "smarter" when it comes to finding food than a child who grew up being fed by parents. When it comes to teaching similar material (eg math), technology's only affect is motivational. It doesn't matter if the child is solving problems from a chalkboard, workbook, or a computer monitor; the fundamental information and required thinking is the same. A more interesting question is what is the minimal level of exposure does it take for a child to be familiar with certain skills, as well, what is the maximum level of exposure for effective learning? At some point there is diminishing returns when it comes to learning, from both interest of the child, and information they are able to absorb.
Religion is all well and good when it is a personal thing and mayebe OK when you are following the teachings of people (or things) long gone, but once it forms into clumps or groups of people, and it would seem especially once these groups of people start following the teachings of people who are alive now, we start getting problems. It's the high priests, the living leaders of religions who decide they need to spread the word of their god at the point of their follower's swords and that's when the trouble starts!
What you describe is true for any group of people. Hostility to those who oppose a groups ideas is not just the realm of religion. Nationalism, governments, even environmentalism all have demonstrated that a sufficiently motivated group will hurt others who do not adhere to their agenda.
I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school. Meat is programmable too. Knowledge is good but ethics will hopefully ease our future obsolescence
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I see your point, and I agree that there is a larger problem somewhere in the system.
It's US culture, so it will be nearly impossible to change. In other countries, the culture revolves around education. Instead of bragging about how their kid did in the game, parents brag about what school their child got into. The social pressure to get high scores in science and math, and get into the right schools drives the children (They don't want to make mom & dad look bad).
There's a more pragmatic view about education in the US, know enough to make money. The positive of US culture is it encourages entrepreneurship, creativity, and multidisciplinary interests; which leads to innovation and business creation.
that PC games in other non-MMO genres may sell fewer copies?"
No it means that shitty games will sell fewer copies. If you have a good game, like Morrowwind: Oblivion, for example, it'll fly off the shelves.
You ignore the fact that WoW requires a subscription. So not only do players have less time, they have less money to spend on entertainment. That in fact does reduce the overall market for non-MMO games. Great games with lots of hype will still sell, it's not like the entire market is eliminated; but good games, or great games without marketing will likely suffer.
Whereas, ESP is not observable. No one has ever observed it in a controlled setting. Plenty of anecdotes, but no empirical evidence gathered in a controlled evironment. Since you can't observe it you can't develop theories that try to define it and you can't can't test those theories with further observation.
Same goes for other dimensions and theoretical particles, however, that doesn't stop scientists from trying to detect, describe, and use them in theory.
That hasn't stopped dozens, hundreds of experiments being done to try to detect ESP. All of which are flawed or fail miserably. In short ESP is a phenomena that for all intents and purposes does not exist. Of course it might exist, just as my tiny Titanic in the bathtub might, but it is such a preposterous claim in the first place that a line must be drawn. After how many centuries of anecdotes but not a single shred of proof do you give up?
The anecdotes are proof that something is going on, we just may not be asking the right questions. We may not even have the right definition of ESP. It could be ESP on demand doesn't exist, but instances of clairvoyance can occur under the right situation, like athletes being "in the zone." It could be that it is entirely psychological or sociological. So while the "Sci-Fi" elements don't exist, there is a lot to learn about human nature.
The point is you don't just dismiss things, you continually investigate.
I have a miniaturized Titanic floating in my bath complete with a tiny crew and tiny Kate Winslet. Prove that I haven't. You can't see it? Oh I meant to say it's invisible. You can't touch it? It's very fast, and it's insubstantial to the touch. You could concoct the most elaborate tests to search for my Titanic and you'd always have an "out" that you couldn't find it.
You are missing the point. It isn't about detecting ESP, UFOs, ghosts, it's investigating unexplained phenomenon. People tried to explain the stars in the sky, why they moved, and what they were with paranormal explainations. They simply did not have the technology or understanding to come up with anything better. Eventually technology improved, so that investigations into the "magical" sky had more concrete results.
We may simply not have the technology or understanding of the universe to rationally describe such phenomenon.
The State: let it grow, let it restrain, let it fail to provide and let the imbeciles that support it think they're doing good for others. I've already found my ways to ignore it in 70% of my life. Eventually I'll extend that more, and not be concerned with what the mad majority wants to do this year that will harm people for generations.
Unfortunately your position advocates a policy of escalation, where the individual will eventually lose out. Your example of smoking in clubs is the first step on the chain of escalation. If government bans smoking altogether to stop such clubs, it results in the free market formation of organized resistance (from the peaceful: protesters, to the violent: organized crime). If the escalation between government and those it opresses becomes sufficient you wind up with civil unrest. Yes it's a slippery slope arguement, but it is a lesson that has been demonstrated by history. History has also taught us that such civil unrest tends towards violence.
Well, that's not how it is ending up. Given that the cost of education in (time and money) is increasing beyond the amount that can be paid, offshoring is being used primarily to replace high quality domestic workers with those who have low initial cost but higher costs in having the proper people do it afterwards to clean up.
Businesses will react accordingly. Its a case-by-case basis, some jobs that were offshored are being returned to the states, but that doesn't mean that offshoring is altogether bad. Eventually businesses will figure what can be offshored and what can't. Is it bad when companies adopt Linux, it is the very essence of global collaboration and low cost adoption. Think of all the "high quality" proprietary OS programming job opportunities that are lost each year because of Linux. The economic advantage, however, is that companies don't need to pay for a proprietary OS to create products. The lower barrier to entry means more new products which means new jobs.
You must be joking if the newer products out there have any resemblance to "quality" - Lenovo's machines are using less durable materials, Dell's laptops have models that explode, and HP's status gone down to a "ink revenue station" seller that's about to get the problems of NCR's Nyberg generation (Hurd) all over it.
First, laptop batteries have been exploding for years. Things should be good enough for their application. Mission critical systems shouldn't be buying Dell computers, at the same time average home users don't necessarily need to pay extra to have raid 5 storage, and uninterrupted power. Personally I don't want to pay twice as much for a computer that lasts twice as long. Technology changes so rapidly that when my computer fails, I would be able to get something far more powerful at a cheaper price. There are situations where quality is of essence, and there are product makers who supply to that market.
Whatever opportunities I'm seeing, you seem to want to keep out of reach of displaced workers and those in states (read:the Rust Belt) have unfavorable economic situations.
The rust belt is getting car jobs again from honda and Toyota, since Japanese automakers are finding it cheaper to produce in those areas. Such areas also are benefitting from the high cost of living in other areas of the countries like California.
When you have merit blind, subsidized access(by redirection of existing subsidy) education, maybe I can see there being practical opportunity.
i do agree widespread investment in education is key to longterm success. The way to gain maximimum advanatage of lower cost of goods and services is to have a developed workforce able to create new value added opportunities.
Offshoring as it is done now is a large mistake in need of a complete overhaul.
It's the same as it's been done for hundreds of years, with the same complaints by displaced workers. Unless you're a poor displaced cobbler or weaver, the result has been a significant improvement in lifestyle.
I'm not going to say I'm ticked off at outsourcing, because it's a zero-sum game at the end of the day, one person loses a job, another gains it.
It is not a zero-sum game, it's about efficiency. The lowering of cost (whether through automation or outsourcing), in a competitive market, results in the consumer paying a lower price. This allows products to enter new markets and create new opportunities and jobs. The internet boom wasn't a strictly technology driven phenomenon, it required lower cost PCs so that "average" people could afford them and create demand for new services.
Kind of like introducing Rabbits into New Zealand, or Foxes into Australia, or a myriad of other examples. They end up thriving and taking over, to the detriment of the various species that were already there.
Actually if it's a consumer product that depend on repeat purchases, you drastically shorten the product lifecycle when extra-heavy marketing is applied to inferior goods.
From the summary: "Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. " Well, duh.
No they actually buy a "copy," which has specific rights under copyright law. The consumer right to resell, modify, and backup are all granted under copyright law, the only thing they can't do is distribute. The law works both ways, it protects the rights of the content owner, as well as the rights of owners of copies.
I rember learning in my high school chemistry class that pv=nrt and my teacher said that higher levels of chemistry don't use that formula because it is just sort of a rough guide to gasses.
It's because the fundamental assumptions for that equation are not true (eg the particles do not interact). It is used at higher levels for theory development, but for useful applications a measured constant is often included to make up for the discrepency between theoretical models and actual observation.
Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?
DMV. Been to Walmart lately? They have 25 registers, but only 4 open... they know they can get away with bad service, because people value the $.50 they save more than the time they wait in line. Besides, DMV allows me to do most of my transactions online.
If an airline is given 100% responsibilities for its future, why would they want an explosion or a crash? If tort were properly returned to a more free-market system, insurance companies would have more reason to be involved in the safety of their customers.
Airline safety would become a cost-benefit analysis, a few crashes might be an acceptable cost of business.
The FAA _is_ guilty of 9/11 as well as flight delays. When Canada privatized their FAA, delays went from one of the worst in the Western world to one of the best, if not THE best. Unions are inefficient, public ones are terrible.
The failure of 9/11 was due to a failure of the privatized baggage screening process, not the FAA.
No, I mean actual cassette tapes (like from the 70's/80's). There have been many technical advances in magnetic materials, digital storage, and electronics that an engineer could use to make better cassette players. I can make a better cassette player, that doesn't necessarily mean I can start a business around it. Engineering in a vaccuum is academia. Many great ideas come from Universities, many more are interesting tidbits that go nowhere.
Here's the problem with your example: Suppose we rewind time back to before mp3 players existed. The marketer would tell the engineer that they needed a better tape player to sell. Or something smaller using a new proprietary format. Left alone, the engineer might come up with an mp3 player utilizing an off-the-shelf storage medium. Polish with great minimalist design, and you have an iPod. Note that I don't consider the iPod design as marketing-influenced; looking good and being easy to use are blindingly obvious design problems, not clever marketing.
Here's the opposite problem, left alone the engineer might develop a better quality format than MP3 and design the player around that; People should buy it, it is after all "better" than MP3. Unfortunately such an attitude ignores the market forces of installed base, availability of ripping software, and market penetration.
The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, it isn't the most feature rich MP3 player... it isn't engineering that makes it so popular.
It's the actual engineers that make companies like HP and Compaq move forwards. I don't care how much marketting you spin on your new laptops, if you don't put a screen in [for example] it's not going to sell. Or if the damn thing weighs a ton, or the batteries explode or....
Many tech companies have engineers in marketing. Marketing isn't just cute TV ads and fast talking salesmen, there is also industy analysis which falls in the technical realm. A great engineer today could develop a longer lasting and more efficient walkman for playing cassette tapes, and not make a dime. I don't care how well designed your product is, if you can't find a market it won't sell.
Personally I think the executives should be the least paid people in the company. And if they don't like that they can moonlight as an engineer or something.
I think engineers should be paid less than the guy running the machines on the assembly line. I mean engineers just sit around all day in their cubes surfing the net or in meetings talking about stuff, and maybe after a few months make a decision. While the operators are actually working every single day making stuff that gets sold. If the engineers don't like it, they can go out on the assembly line and make product.
The ad isn't racist, nor are the people looking at it. The ONLY people that seem to be racist are the hyper-sensitive Americans looking at the ad and applying their own screwed up values to it.
I see the ad as potentially racist, while I personally I don't see racism. The ad provides insufficient context, which leaves it to the individual viewer to create context. Those who have experienced racism, or have been consistantly exposed to the images of racism may fill in different context than somebody who has not experienced such things. People in the US can accept the images of a black player hitting a white player, or vice versa, in the sports arena because there is context, ethnic identity is trumped by team identity in the mind of the viewer. I'm sure the image of a white man standing with his foot on the back of a prone middle eastern man would evoke responses in certain communities. People in different parts of the world with different histories can look at the same image and interpret it differently.
Basketball, baseball and football are all mechanically... very simple. Afterall, a jock has to understand what to do.
As opposed to your example of soccer? Football, the top sport in the US, IMHO is the best blend of mental and physical competition of any sport.
So, danger and tangible loss does not appeal to Americans.
Physically players are highly specialized, from 5'10 170lb DBs, to 6'8 400lb linemen, and the danger is definately there. Injuries are a huge part of the sport, it is not uncommon for several top players to suffer season ending injuries each year. Great running backs usually have their careers ended before age 30 from wear.
Americans don't like 'options', which is bizarre becuase the general population are supposed to be 'consumers'. Options, require making a choice and making a choice requires some degree of analysis which is another way of saying "thinking".
For me what makes football great is the mental aspect. They may be "dumb jocks" but every player needs to memorize their role for hundreds of different plays (they are given large binders to memorize in training camp). Also, all players must also be able to recognize dozens of formations by the opposition, know how to react, and how their teammates will react. For example a particular defensive formation against a particular offense play may trigger a number of reactions by the offense: - blocking scheme for the linemen - blocking scheme/route for the running backs - route for the wide receivers - read progression by the quarterback
And it is important for everybody to know what others are doing, since if the RB doesn't make the same read as the lineman, somebody can go unblocked. Or if a WR doesn't make the same read as the QB, the ball could be thrown 15 yards and the WR stops running at 10.
Compare the melodic sophistication of GreenDay with that of Jimi Hendrix, or The Beatles.
Green Day has NEVER been popular enough to tour in other countries, their style only can work in the US. Have you ever listened to Euro Pop or J-Pop music? It sucks just like American Pop music.
Music is an example that's gotten so bad... RAP, the "singers" don't even bother carrying a note or in other words... sing. That's much too hard to do; never mind the fact that poetic composition is also hard, which for a RAP artist, it's always customary for them to make stuff up or do whatever it takes to just make something rhyme even if it makes no sense at all with actual real words.
And Jazz musicians can't even play the music as it was written, they just make stuff up as they play. Rap music places emphasis on rhythm, rather than notes. Good rap, like good Jazz, requires sophistication to improvise well.
EVE is not simple, making the wrong move entails unforgiving consequences... these characteristics, in this day and age, is in total contrast of what Americans enjoy.
Football is not simple, and it is what Americans enjoy the most.
To stick with something to compare... WoW is big with Americans... maybe now, after reading my very brief explanation, this comes as no surprise
WoW is also popular in other parts of the world. What you describe is not an American phenomenon, it's that most people prefer a lower level of challenge than what EVE provides.
The aversion to expending a little extra effort seems to be a uniquely American thing.
What you call, "aversion to expending a little extra effort," I call efficiency. Efficiency doesn't make us lazy, just more productive. Our lives have gotten more complex even though we have "time-saving" gadgets. The reason is we spend that extra time doing something else productive.
. So now we pack it into gyms where we run in place, climb fake staircases, and lift heavy pieces of iron up and down for no useful purpose.
We spend less time with targetted and structured excercise so we have more time for other things (many times work).
Taking mental shortcuts will be just as beneficial.
So we should ban computers, calculators, and slide rules?
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of talented athletes who find thier sport easy as children. Just as in academics, sometimes it breeds arrogance and/or boredom which prevents the person from reaching their potential. There are plenty of super talented basketball players who dominate the playgrounds because they refused to listen to coaching.
Structured learning can never provide everything, the people who make the most of their talents in any walk of life are the ones who pursue self-directed activities as a compliment. The best athletes are the ones who play during the offseason, the best musicians play in their garage with their friends, the best students are the ones who do find their own activities (eg enter poetry contests, or write their own computer programs).
I don't think it's about smarter/stupider, its about experience. A child growing up in extreme poverty who has to forage to survive, will be "smarter" when it comes to finding food than a child who grew up being fed by parents.
When it comes to teaching similar material (eg math), technology's only affect is motivational. It doesn't matter if the child is solving problems from a chalkboard, workbook, or a computer monitor; the fundamental information and required thinking is the same.
A more interesting question is what is the minimal level of exposure does it take for a child to be familiar with certain skills, as well, what is the maximum level of exposure for effective learning? At some point there is diminishing returns when it comes to learning, from both interest of the child, and information they are able to absorb.
You're an Asshole.
:)
We've sunk to an all-time low when games are asking, "Want to roleplay teaching a class in Modus Operandi?"
Religion is all well and good when it is a personal thing and mayebe OK when you are following the teachings of people (or things) long gone, but once it forms into clumps or groups of people, and it would seem especially once these groups of people start following the teachings of people who are alive now, we start getting problems. It's the high priests, the living leaders of religions who decide they need to spread the word of their god at the point of their follower's swords and that's when the trouble starts!
What you describe is true for any group of people. Hostility to those who oppose a groups ideas is not just the realm of religion. Nationalism, governments, even environmentalism all have demonstrated that a sufficiently motivated group will hurt others who do not adhere to their agenda.
How can you not want your kid to posess superior intellect
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Is that earth years?
It's US culture, so it will be nearly impossible to change.
In other countries, the culture revolves around education. Instead of bragging about how their kid did in the game, parents brag about what school their child got into. The social pressure to get high scores in science and math, and get into the right schools drives the children (They don't want to make mom & dad look bad).
There's a more pragmatic view about education in the US, know enough to make money. The positive of US culture is it encourages entrepreneurship, creativity, and multidisciplinary interests; which leads to innovation and business creation.
You ignore the fact that WoW requires a subscription. So not only do players have less time, they have less money to spend on entertainment. That in fact does reduce the overall market for non-MMO games. Great games with lots of hype will still sell, it's not like the entire market is eliminated; but good games, or great games without marketing will likely suffer.
Whereas, ESP is not observable. No one has ever observed it in a controlled setting. Plenty of anecdotes, but no empirical evidence gathered in a controlled evironment. Since you can't observe it you can't develop theories that try to define it and you can't can't test those theories with further observation.
Same goes for other dimensions and theoretical particles, however, that doesn't stop scientists from trying to detect, describe, and use them in theory.
That hasn't stopped dozens, hundreds of experiments being done to try to detect ESP. All of which are flawed or fail miserably. In short ESP is a phenomena that for all intents and purposes does not exist. Of course it might exist, just as my tiny Titanic in the bathtub might, but it is such a preposterous claim in the first place that a line must be drawn. After how many centuries of anecdotes but not a single shred of proof do you give up?
The anecdotes are proof that something is going on, we just may not be asking the right questions. We may not even have the right definition of ESP. It could be ESP on demand doesn't exist, but instances of clairvoyance can occur under the right situation, like athletes being "in the zone."
It could be that it is entirely psychological or sociological. So while the "Sci-Fi" elements don't exist, there is a lot to learn about human nature.
The point is you don't just dismiss things, you continually investigate.
I have a miniaturized Titanic floating in my bath complete with a tiny crew and tiny Kate Winslet. Prove that I haven't. You can't see it? Oh I meant to say it's invisible. You can't touch it? It's very fast, and it's insubstantial to the touch. You could concoct the most elaborate tests to search for my Titanic and you'd always have an "out" that you couldn't find it.
You are missing the point. It isn't about detecting ESP, UFOs, ghosts, it's investigating unexplained phenomenon. People tried to explain the stars in the sky, why they moved, and what they were with paranormal explainations. They simply did not have the technology or understanding to come up with anything better. Eventually technology improved, so that investigations into the "magical" sky had more concrete results.
We may simply not have the technology or understanding of the universe to rationally describe such phenomenon.
The State: let it grow, let it restrain, let it fail to provide and let the imbeciles that support it think they're doing good for others. I've already found my ways to ignore it in 70% of my life. Eventually I'll extend that more, and not be concerned with what the mad majority wants to do this year that will harm people for generations.
Unfortunately your position advocates a policy of escalation, where the individual will eventually lose out. Your example of smoking in clubs is the first step on the chain of escalation. If government bans smoking altogether to stop such clubs, it results in the free market formation of organized resistance (from the peaceful: protesters, to the violent: organized crime). If the escalation between government and those it opresses becomes sufficient you wind up with civil unrest.
Yes it's a slippery slope arguement, but it is a lesson that has been demonstrated by history. History has also taught us that such civil unrest tends towards violence.
Well, that's not how it is ending up. Given that the cost of education in (time and money) is increasing beyond the amount that can be paid, offshoring is being used primarily to replace high quality domestic workers with those who have low initial cost but higher costs in having the proper people do it afterwards to clean up.
Businesses will react accordingly. Its a case-by-case basis, some jobs that were offshored are being returned to the states, but that doesn't mean that offshoring is altogether bad. Eventually businesses will figure what can be offshored and what can't.
Is it bad when companies adopt Linux, it is the very essence of global collaboration and low cost adoption. Think of all the "high quality" proprietary OS programming job opportunities that are lost each year because of Linux. The economic advantage, however, is that companies don't need to pay for a proprietary OS to create products. The lower barrier to entry means more new products which means new jobs.
You must be joking if the newer products out there have any resemblance to "quality" - Lenovo's machines are using less durable materials, Dell's laptops have models that explode, and HP's status gone down to a "ink revenue station" seller that's about to get the problems of NCR's Nyberg generation (Hurd) all over it.
First, laptop batteries have been exploding for years. Things should be good enough for their application. Mission critical systems shouldn't be buying Dell computers, at the same time average home users don't necessarily need to pay extra to have raid 5 storage, and uninterrupted power. Personally I don't want to pay twice as much for a computer that lasts twice as long. Technology changes so rapidly that when my computer fails, I would be able to get something far more powerful at a cheaper price. There are situations where quality is of essence, and there are product makers who supply to that market.
Whatever opportunities I'm seeing, you seem to want to keep out of reach of displaced workers and those in states (read:the Rust Belt) have unfavorable economic situations.
The rust belt is getting car jobs again from honda and Toyota, since Japanese automakers are finding it cheaper to produce in those areas. Such areas also are benefitting from the high cost of living in other areas of the countries like California.
When you have merit blind, subsidized access(by redirection of existing subsidy) education, maybe I can see there being practical opportunity.
i do agree widespread investment in education is key to longterm success. The way to gain maximimum advanatage of lower cost of goods and services is to have a developed workforce able to create new value added opportunities.
Offshoring as it is done now is a large mistake in need of a complete overhaul.
It's the same as it's been done for hundreds of years, with the same complaints by displaced workers. Unless you're a poor displaced cobbler or weaver, the result has been a significant improvement in lifestyle.
I'm not going to say I'm ticked off at outsourcing, because it's a zero-sum game at the end of the day, one person loses a job, another gains it.
It is not a zero-sum game, it's about efficiency. The lowering of cost (whether through automation or outsourcing), in a competitive market, results in the consumer paying a lower price. This allows products to enter new markets and create new opportunities and jobs. The internet boom wasn't a strictly technology driven phenomenon, it required lower cost PCs so that "average" people could afford them and create demand for new services.
Kind of like introducing Rabbits into New Zealand, or Foxes into Australia, or a myriad of other examples. They end up thriving and taking over, to the detriment of the various species that were already there.
Why is that necessarily bad?
Actually if it's a consumer product that depend on repeat purchases, you drastically shorten the product lifecycle when extra-heavy marketing is applied to inferior goods.
The solution to that is just rebrand
From the summary: "Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. " Well, duh.
No they actually buy a "copy," which has specific rights under copyright law. The consumer right to resell, modify, and backup are all granted under copyright law, the only thing they can't do is distribute.
The law works both ways, it protects the rights of the content owner, as well as the rights of owners of copies.
And make sure to take a picture of your high score, so you can get the patch
I rember learning in my high school chemistry class that pv=nrt and my teacher said that higher levels of chemistry don't use that formula because it is just sort of a rough guide to gasses.
It's because the fundamental assumptions for that equation are not true (eg the particles do not interact). It is used at higher levels for theory development, but for useful applications a measured constant is often included to make up for the discrepency between theoretical models and actual observation.
Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?
DMV. Been to Walmart lately? They have 25 registers, but only 4 open... they know they can get away with bad service, because people value the $.50 they save more than the time they wait in line. Besides, DMV allows me to do most of my transactions online.
If an airline is given 100% responsibilities for its future, why would they want an explosion or a crash? If tort were properly returned to a more free-market system, insurance companies would have more reason to be involved in the safety of their customers.
Airline safety would become a cost-benefit analysis, a few crashes might be an acceptable cost of business.
The FAA _is_ guilty of 9/11 as well as flight delays. When Canada privatized their FAA, delays went from one of the worst in the Western world to one of the best, if not THE best. Unions are inefficient, public ones are terrible.
The failure of 9/11 was due to a failure of the privatized baggage screening process, not the FAA.
You mean like an iPod?
No, I mean actual cassette tapes (like from the 70's/80's). There have been many technical advances in magnetic materials, digital storage, and electronics that an engineer could use to make better cassette players. I can make a better cassette player, that doesn't necessarily mean I can start a business around it.
Engineering in a vaccuum is academia. Many great ideas come from Universities, many more are interesting tidbits that go nowhere.
Here's the problem with your example: Suppose we rewind time back to before mp3 players existed. The marketer would tell the engineer that they needed a better tape player to sell. Or something smaller using a new proprietary format. Left alone, the engineer might come up with an mp3 player utilizing an off-the-shelf storage medium. Polish with great minimalist design, and you have an iPod. Note that I don't consider the iPod design as marketing-influenced; looking good and being easy to use are blindingly obvious design problems, not clever marketing.
Here's the opposite problem, left alone the engineer might develop a better quality format than MP3 and design the player around that; People should buy it, it is after all "better" than MP3. Unfortunately such an attitude ignores the market forces of installed base, availability of ripping software, and market penetration.
The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, it isn't the most feature rich MP3 player... it isn't engineering that makes it so popular.
It's the actual engineers that make companies like HP and Compaq move forwards. I don't care how much marketting you spin on your new laptops, if you don't put a screen in [for example] it's not going to sell. Or if the damn thing weighs a ton, or the batteries explode or ....
Many tech companies have engineers in marketing. Marketing isn't just cute TV ads and fast talking salesmen, there is also industy analysis which falls in the technical realm.
A great engineer today could develop a longer lasting and more efficient walkman for playing cassette tapes, and not make a dime. I don't care how well designed your product is, if you can't find a market it won't sell.
Personally I think the executives should be the least paid people in the company. And if they don't like that they can moonlight as an engineer or something.
I think engineers should be paid less than the guy running the machines on the assembly line. I mean engineers just sit around all day in their cubes surfing the net or in meetings talking about stuff, and maybe after a few months make a decision. While the operators are actually working every single day making stuff that gets sold. If the engineers don't like it, they can go out on the assembly line and make product.
The ad isn't racist, nor are the people looking at it. The ONLY people that seem to be racist are the hyper-sensitive Americans looking at the ad and applying their own screwed up values to it.
I see the ad as potentially racist, while I personally I don't see racism. The ad provides insufficient context, which leaves it to the individual viewer to create context. Those who have experienced racism, or have been consistantly exposed to the images of racism may fill in different context than somebody who has not experienced such things. People in the US can accept the images of a black player hitting a white player, or vice versa, in the sports arena because there is context, ethnic identity is trumped by team identity in the mind of the viewer.
I'm sure the image of a white man standing with his foot on the back of a prone middle eastern man would evoke responses in certain communities.
People in different parts of the world with different histories can look at the same image and interpret it differently.
Basketball, baseball and football are all mechanically... very simple. Afterall, a jock has to understand what to do.
As opposed to your example of soccer?
Football, the top sport in the US, IMHO is the best blend of mental and physical competition of any sport.
So, danger and tangible loss does not appeal to Americans.
Physically players are highly specialized, from 5'10 170lb DBs, to 6'8 400lb linemen, and the danger is definately there. Injuries are a huge part of the sport, it is not uncommon for several top players to suffer season ending injuries each year. Great running backs usually have their careers ended before age 30 from wear.
Americans don't like 'options', which is bizarre becuase the general population are supposed to be 'consumers'. Options, require making a choice and making a choice requires some degree of analysis which is another way of saying "thinking".
For me what makes football great is the mental aspect. They may be "dumb jocks" but every player needs to memorize their role for hundreds of different plays (they are given large binders to memorize in training camp). Also, all players must also be able to recognize dozens of formations by the opposition, know how to react, and how their teammates will react.
For example a particular defensive formation against a particular offense play may trigger a number of reactions by the offense:
- blocking scheme for the linemen
- blocking scheme/route for the running backs
- route for the wide receivers
- read progression by the quarterback
And it is important for everybody to know what others are doing, since if the RB doesn't make the same read as the lineman, somebody can go unblocked. Or if a WR doesn't make the same read as the QB, the ball could be thrown 15 yards and the WR stops running at 10.
Compare the melodic sophistication of GreenDay with that of Jimi Hendrix, or The Beatles.
Green Day has NEVER been popular enough to tour in other countries, their style only can work in the US. Have you ever listened to Euro Pop or J-Pop music? It sucks just like American Pop music.
Music is an example that's gotten so bad... RAP, the "singers" don't even bother carrying a note or in other words... sing. That's much too hard to do; never mind the fact that poetic composition is also hard, which for a RAP artist, it's always customary for them to make stuff up or do whatever it takes to just make something rhyme even if it makes no sense at all with actual real words.
And Jazz musicians can't even play the music as it was written, they just make stuff up as they play. Rap music places emphasis on rhythm, rather than notes. Good rap, like good Jazz, requires sophistication to improvise well.
EVE is not simple, making the wrong move entails unforgiving consequences... these characteristics, in this day and age, is in total contrast of what Americans enjoy.
Football is not simple, and it is what Americans enjoy the most.
To stick with something to compare... WoW is big with Americans... maybe now, after reading my very brief explanation, this comes as no surprise
WoW is also popular in other parts of the world. What you describe is not an American phenomenon, it's that most people prefer a lower level of challenge than what EVE provides.
The aversion to expending a little extra effort seems to be a uniquely American thing.
What you call, "aversion to expending a little extra effort," I call efficiency. Efficiency doesn't make us lazy, just more productive. Our lives have gotten more complex even though we have "time-saving" gadgets. The reason is we spend that extra time doing something else productive.
. So now we pack it into gyms where we run in place, climb fake staircases, and lift heavy pieces of iron up and down for no useful purpose.
We spend less time with targetted and structured excercise so we have more time for other things (many times work).
Taking mental shortcuts will be just as beneficial.
So we should ban computers, calculators, and slide rules?