Yeah, I know they likely would have scoffed at the idea, at least that's the Libertarian mantra. The truth is, we don't know how they would have felt considering their world consisted of imperialism, colonialism, and mercantilism. People tend to reflect the biases of the culture in which they lived. For me, the Founding Fathers' opinions on any topic are interesting, but not authoritative. I'm not a libertarian. I do believe in the Constitution being a framework rather than a singular document etched in stone. Considering that the FF didn't see fit to ensure that women were equal to men, or that Irish slaves and African slaves were equal to white men, you could make the case that their invention (The Constitution) got away from them. The fact is, the FF had beliefs which would never be tolerated in a civil society today.
Yeah, there's a lot of things going haywire in this country right now, but you know what? I feel pretty confident in saying that I feel safer and more free here than there in Persia. I've never been to the region, granted, but I'm a proud European born imperialist American who celebrates American hegemony. America is not everything that is wrong in this world as the first poster claims, pretty far from it. America has certainly failed a lot of tests, but then my Britain and my Germany have as well, so it's hard for me knock the US for being self interested and imperfect. I would hope that Americans would know about the dark past of Chiquita back when it was called United Fruit and called El Pulpo by the locals it fed on, but most likely don't just as they don't know about the horrible things American companies like Abercrombie & Fitch have done in Saipan. That said, the world is big, but not so big we can't easily find human rights violations committed in other countries by governments, private industries, and state run businesses.
But since we're going to claim in this thread that the US is inciting rebellion in Iran with this site, let's look at some of the horrible imperialistic things that the US has done using this virtual embassy. From a quick glance, there's:
1. A section explaining visas; how they work, what type there are, how to read one. 2. A section for document reqs for birth registration and a PPT application 3. A bookmark of links to various US cabinet and mission websites. 4. Instructions for renewal of passports 5. Information on how to study abroad in the US.
That's all pretty scary stuff, isn't it? There are a couple of things that challenge Iran's fundament human right to control what its residents see and read like annual reports on human rights, trafficking, country reports on terrorism, and an International Religious Freedom Report on Iran. There's also an Open Societies page that seems to paint the US as some kind of defender of women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Yeah, America has its bad days. So does every other nation in the world that has aspired to be more than San Marino. I know, I know, I'm being unfair in ignoring that one time when San Marino violated its neutrality during WWI as a result of 10 partisans joining the Italian Army. The Virtual Embassy is a good endeavor.
I'm a fan of '80s era Japanese crotch rockets myself, particularly Yahama. For the classic look, I prefer Valkyrie or Honda. They both have tended to be both forward looking and classic at the same time. Harleys can be loud, but so can any motorcycle. I think people like this poster aren't aware of the mods riders will do to their bikes. A favorite mod is to give the bike more growl by either replacing the pipes or the removing the baffles. Motorcycles are often loud in general, but that's more of a feature that a particular segment likes. There are super quiet bikes on the market.
Pentax might not offer a full frame dSLR, but we Pentaxians have some of the best lenses ever made, not to mention a digital medium format.
What the original poster needs to consider is the benefit of accessibility of a point & shoot type camera vs the flexibility and performance of an SLR. If he goes with a P&S, he needs manual controls. Most P&S cameras don't have manual controls. He'll want to be able to manually adjust his aperture, shutter speed. A problem inherent to all P&S cameras is poor low-light performance. P&S cameras have small lenses and a small sensor. There's never enough light getting in. If you're like me and you do available light documentary style photography, you don't want to mess with flashes, and you don't want to have to bump up the ISO level, which is another limitation of P&S cameras. They tend to be noise free only around ISO 200. Finally, most P&S cameras only shoot JPEG. I shoot using RAW, essentially a digital negative. I can non-destructively adjust my shots in post so that I can recover a photo that was over or under exposed. The good news is that a couple of companies offer pro-sumer grade P&S cameras that have very high quality photos at ISO 800, manual controls, and RAW support. Canon has the G series. I love my G9. It's a heavy camera that resembles a rangefinder, and the controls are fully accessible via physical dials as well as in-menu on the screen. I forget what the Nikon version is called. P-something. There is also the Ricoh GR which I love for black and white street photography. However, it's a fixed focal length. I think Panasonic's Lumix has one too. There is also the Leica (which is actually a Panasonic manufactured product but with the addition of Leica glass and Leica software).
For SLRs, I own many as a result of shifting from film to digital, and then from Pentax to Nikon then flirting with Canon. I love Pentax SLRs for the quality of the hardware and the firmware. I've had numerous issues on my Nikon D300 which at the time I got it was best in class. My Pentax's have always been reliable. What makes Pentax my favorite are the lenses. This is something the original poster will have to think about when choosing an SLR. He is buying into an SLR system, so he needs to look at the lenses that are available to see if they meet his needs. Pentax K-mount lenses give me decades of backwards compatibility with some amazing lenses. I'm fond of older manual focus lenses like my Russian Jupiter, my Ricoh Rikenons, and my Asahi Super Taks. Next to Pentax, Nikkor and Canon lenses seem bland. However, Nikon and Canon offers the most accessories, and often the most features, but these features are things like 3D matrixing, HDR, etc. Stuff that is great until it gets in the way. When it comes to shots per second, the Nikons and Canons tend to be the fastest. The K100D for instance was notoriously sluggish when shooting RAW. I would get like 3 shots before the buffer had to write.
All this said, there is a third option: Pentax Q, Sony's Nex, and the increasing number of systems using micro four-thirds lenses give you a hybrid option. You can get a P&S camera that has replaceable lenses, allowing you to experiment with primes, and really taking advantage of the features of SLRs without carrying around a bulky camera.
Do you even remember your point? You asked me where the MBAs were that were successfully running companies. I said they existed. You challenged me. I named some. Scully didn't wreck Apple. Check your history. Under Scully, Apple II continued to sell. Even the Apple III, a failure overall, actually did fairly well in sales. And Apple introduced several successful products. Amelio and Spindler, maybe, but not Scully. I already stipulated that Fiorina can be said to have ruined HP. If you really look at HP though, that was a company that was eating its own. Some would say Fiorina was a victim of it. The other I named are the CEOs of Intel, Samsung, IBM, and Acer amongst others. I apologize, I should of have listed their companies. None of these guys, save for maybe Meg Whitman are household names.
Fine, off the top of my head: Paul Otellini, Meg Whitman, Kevin Rollins, John Scully, Sam Palmisano, Lee Kun-hee, Zhentang Wang, Carly Fiorina, Greg Brown. Granted, some of these names comes with caveats. You either loved Fiorina's HP or you hated according to the insiders I knew. Greg Brown's degree was in economics. John Scully's Apple isn't everyone's favorite. And eventually people turned on Kevin Rollins. Obviously, the tech industry has a smaller number of MBA chiefs than do other industries, but some people would argue that while they are not Google or Facebook; Intel, Dell, and Samsung are somewhat successful companies.
Sure, that's a fair point. As one person already, noted legacy MBAs can be problem. What it takes is business leadership by individuals who can see both sides of the coin. I'll mention Eric Schmidt again, but he might not be a good example if we consider the arguments that Google has become so focused on business performance that it's killing projects prematurely for failure to give an instant high ROI rather than nurturing those projects. Eric Schmidt is an engineer, formally, but he hasn't worked as an engineer in a while. He's been functioning an executive (an MBA so to speak) for years. I have direct experience with AOL. They can be difficult to work with because of, as you point out, all the MBAs at the company. There's a lot of middle management BS you have to put up with when dealing with AOL. For HP, I'm more familiar with Carly Fiorina's tenure. Some say she did great, but fought constantly with other corporate suits. Others say she was horrible. I just remember watching the quality of my HP consumer products nosedive between the early 90s and the 2005. Consider Zhentang Wang, CEO of Acer as a positive example of MBA leadership. He is a EE and an MBA.
I was just using SEs as an example. Obviously, the industry has more engineers than just SEs. Again, you listed a handful of people who don't represent the bulk of the industry, and most of those you listed cannot be claimed by engineers as one of theirs if business admins can't equally claim them as one of their own just because of that education. Eric Schmidt is far more than than just a software engineer. Most software engineers, maybe not even many, have his executive experience. My point about proper executive leadership still stands. I'm not going to bring up a list of every Silicon Valley company that isn't Apple, Microsoft, or Google just to find MBAs who do a good job of running their companies.
Seriously? The point isn't that people who hold Masters in Business Administration know best per se, it is that successful technology businesses are not the result of good engineering, but the result of a mix of engineering, good business management, and marketing expertise. This is traditionally the area of the MBA, but this doesn't imply that a computer scientist can never ever under any circumstances understand things like SWOT. It means that understanding how to make a business successful is separate from knowing how to make cool technology. You have identified four companies out of an entire industry populated by many successful tech companies operated by businessmen. And incidentally, Steve Jobs is not an engineer or a computer scientist. Nor are Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. None of these guys fits the profile of the typical software engineer. And Sergy Brin and Larry Page worked with Eric Schmidt who possessed executive experience, realizing the need for someone who understood how to run a business.
I realize you're just taking the piss, but as an MBA who has always understood technology, I've done fairly well. It's always fun to make fun of the MBAs when you're on the tech side, but the fact is, engineers don't know how to run companies. They don't know how to develop markets. They don't know how to sell products. Sure, they can make truly epic prototypes that look really awesome sitting in a private room. I've seen a lot of cool tech wizardry that went nowhere. Every successful example of computer technology has depended on a mix of both. But we can always do with fewer lawyers, totally.
I concur. I was also on Trumpet though back then when I wasn't on Slackware. I was still mostly in DOS. Windows was just when you wanted sexy wallpaper. I remember Prodigy working fine, being very stable. AOL would disconnect regularly, but I believe that was programmed behavior then.
Maybe. So what would have been preferable? I've gotten by with onboard graphics for years, doing no more than video processing and photography, and as a console gamer, video cards are just something I don't think about. I'm assuming that the sell is that discrete video cards offer better features for intense gaming, and that integrated graphics will eventually disappoint when the user tries to play AAA game title. Dell could just provide performance metrics, but numbers really are meaningless to most consumers. I doubt they could get away with screenshots of Crysis 2 or Skyrim showing a comparative degradation in quality. I suggest a more clear alternative: happy panda with tears of joy cursing at all the noobs its pwning vs sad pirate wallaby stoically playing a game.
Not a licensed attorney though I did go to law school. This is one of those cases that gets 1L's (first year law students) in a fit. It must be that idealism that first years show up to school with.
The explanation wasn't really mine, it's Justice Jackson's. Here's a quote regarding local non-commercial activity vis-a-vis interstate commerce: "It may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
The purpose of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was to limit the supply of wheat and other commodities in the market, again. Congress' ability to do this is without question since it has the enumerated power to regulate commerce. The law covers more than wheat by the way, and it still stands today. Congress likes the law, and Wickard v Filburn in many ways is a validation of the law. Usually when we talk about government overreaching, it's a criticism of either the judicial or executive branches. I say this from observation purely. It's amazing that legislators are so adept at convincing private citizens that the overreaching by the executive and the judiciary was done without at minimum a legal mandate created through legislation.
I can understand why this case law seems ridiculous. On the surface, Wickard seems to say that all private activity risks being or affecting commercial activity with ludicrous results. A person might wonder, If Congress decides to support the manufacture of computers, would every private citizen who builds a personal computer by in violation? But in actuality, the argument that decision gave Congress the right to regulate every aspect of life (as Conservapedia put it) doesn't stand. The key test is that the private activity substantially affects interstate commerce. Most private activity would not. In Wickard, the belief is that growing *excessive* amount of wheat would. Not everyone grows wheat, and not everyone grows a large volume of wheat. There aren't many buyers of large volumes of wheat. Those details seem to me to provide a limit. I don't know if anyone's argued those limits successfully however. I've tried Googling for real good pro and con debate on the case, but I mostly get con arguments, and those have been almost 100% been from sources that are "free traders". As far as I'm concern, they're too ideologically attached.
Oh fucking hell, not this again. Some people can hear the difference even at 256kbps. The noticeable difference between lossless and lossy compression are a function of source fidelity, type of instruments, type of music, and the inherent characteristics of the compression format among other things, not to mention the hearing ability of the listener and his listening gear. Obviously, you're not to going to perceive a great difference between 256kbps and lossless D&B music when you're playing through a iPod that's got an analog connection to a cassette adapter to a car stereo with small paper cones in the speakers. If you're listening to jazz or classical or even live rock recordings, a person doesn't need golden ears to hear what compression does to a cymbal roll. For the last time, if you can't hear the difference, then you have no idea what the you're not hearing.
Too many armchair legal scholars on Slashdot tonight. I might as well join in. I believe you're talking about Wickard v Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat on his farm in excess of amounts permitted in 1942 by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The important background is that AAA limited the acreage farmers could use for growing wheat in order to limit wheat production nationally. The purpose was to set the market price higher for wheat. Filburn argued that the wheat he grew was for private consumption. Ergo, no commerce. Wickard (Sec-Agra) argued that since Filburn was producing wheat in excess of limits set by AAA, he didn't need to buy wheat in the market, thus Filburn substantially affected the intrastate market for wheat. SCOTUS unanimously held for Wickard. A key note is that Filburn's actions, although non-commercial, would affect the commercial market if replicated by many other farmers who have it within their power to grow extra wheat over the limit.
This decision was not made out of thin air. There is actual legal reasoning in it. AAA was validated as a constitutional law. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is enumerated. And it is logical that in order to regulate interstate commerce, Congress would have additional rights to intervene in intrastate commerce or activities which directly affect intrastate commerce.
I don't think UI teams are primarily focused on that lowest common denominator anymore. At one time, yes, but now I think there is a desire to provide sleek, minimalist desktops this era. Call it copying Apple if you want. Sleek interfaces that tell you just enough were a rave for a while. They were futuristic. They were artistic. I think the consumer adoption of smart phones and mobiles devices like tablets and modern handheld game consoles has made the modern computer user more capable of handling constantly flowing disparate information. I would bet that most Android owners who wouldn't identify as techies have as much a desire for more information flows as I do. Years ago in the '90s it was just new email notifications and new IMs, but now a typical "connected" consumer is streaming information flows from one or more social networks including perhaps several microblogging sites in addition to news headlines, weather events, SMS, and then traditional email.
I'm a Snow Leopard user. As much as I enjoy the elegance of OS X, I want more info. I'm a 20 open tabs browser kinda of person. I spend the vast majority of my time within a web browser. I would love a desktop that followed the widgets model as done on Android phones rather that as done on NeXTSTep/GNUStep. Maybe I'm still arguing for Lifestreams.
Seriously, I really don't see the problem here. I used to buy my software on floppy disc in simple paper cardboard envelopes on a carousel, and then later in boxes on a retail shelf. Even then, there were barriers to getting a consumer's eyes on your software. When it was the '90s and I was getting much of my apps through public FTP and then later windows95.com, CNET downloads, etc, I often filtered my searches specifically so that I would only see apps that were highly rated or which had a try before you buy model. I relied heavily on word of mouth and CNET tech writer reviews. I do the same with iPhone apps. Maybe the real issue is that App Store users aren't always going past the first page to view more apps for a given search, but there's a lot that a developer can do to increase their profitability just by getting more eyes on the product. It doesn't matter that you can only sell your apps through this single channel. Market! Market! Market! If that's too hard, you're not cut out to be an independent businessman.
Honestly, I've encountered just a few pro-legalization groups. There are the libertarians whose arguments tend to be either 1) It's my inherent right to do something harmful to my body, and 2) The War on Drugs has been a failure. The 2nd argument is not a valid argument, and sounds as if pro-marijuana supporters ultimately want all "narcotics" (using the legal term here, not the technical one) to be legalized. There are the stoners as I've said. There's the medical marijuana crowd, but their arguments seem at best worth considering if we were to make marijuana use controlled. I've also read some of the advocacy writings in trade magazines.
I agree with you so far on regulation. To me, it's only logical that marijuana use be at least as controlled as liquor consumption. But there are a number of loud advocates who want personal responsibility with no government regulation -- essentially the NRA argument against gun control. That just isn't going to happen. If this is really a social or civil rights movement -- and you would think it is with the way people are talking about marijuana arrests being travesties, then the movement needs reasoned arguments made by people who don't stir up anger with the way they dress or talk.
Good question about younger generations. Just accept that the younger generation can never full grasp history because they will only ever learn about the products that either made it or that became legendary despite failing. That's why living it firsthand is such an awesome thing.
That said, I'm tired of people with that Tourette Syndrome-like need to point out that Apple didn't invent X or Y. Apple is constantly the first to deliver new technologies as stock as opposed to a third-party tacked on upgrade. Regarding Siri, I truly don't give a damn if Apple didn't create the technology behind it. From all I've read, Apple hasn't attempted to conceal the fact that the tech comes from elsewhere, and I know of no Apple fanatics who are declaring that Apple invented it. What I have seen are Apple haters claim that Apple lovers are constantly making such statements. Apple merely has masterfully integrated that technology with a good product, and then shipped that product out to customers at a price that makes the product very accessible. And because Apple excels at doing this, Apple creates new markets and reduces the risks for the guys who follow. That is pure genius. And I say this as I look a Moto Xoom and wonder to myself: $800? How the hell did Motorola expect to sell any?
Now, I don't know if I can ever use Siri. For me, there's something eerie about talking to a computer device and having it talk back. No thanks. I'd stick to good old Virtual Girlfriend Teri!
I'd like to see it anyway. I still have the Cringely documentary and it's sequel on tape. I enjoy watching it every now and then even though it's pure historical and I still remember those events.
>You're logic is just because some people within a larger group of people can't make an argument for their case, that something should be illegal?
That's how debate works. If you want to advocate for your side, you better make a good case. It's not my fault as the opposition side that the self-righteous stoners who have had the loudest voice on marijuana advocacy come off looking like stupid drug addicts who despite every half-hearted rationale they give, really are just looking to get their favorite high legalized.
I'm not prudish, nor am I a zealot. You can convince me to join your side, but I need you to make a good case for why I should. Show me the science that says concretely that habitual marijuana is not dangerous overtime, that it's safe for teenagers to casual use marijuana. Give me a nice public relations campaign that leads me to believe that marijuana users are not as the marathon of stoner movies on 4/20 Day stereotypes them. Also, come up with a workable policy. I always hear dope heads talk about how none of the ancillary harm caused by marijuana would have happened had responsible marijuana use been practiced. To me that sounds like a pro-gun argument. I should know, I've made them many times. What is responsible marijuana use? Responsible alcohol consumption has been defined. As a drinker. I have no problem admitted that alcohol abuse comes with some nasty side effects including the destruction of the family and relationships. I am not deterred against legalization only because people can get hurt because eh, it can happen. How about getting some of the marijuana lobby to admit that, yes, on occasion, marijuana use can lead people to do dangerous things that cause people to be hurt? Give me a reasoned argument based on actual scientific studies rather than hearsay, and for once, leave out the arguments about how great a biomass hemp is.
Does all this really seem that unreasonable? Really, it's not my job to make your best argument for you. It's your movement. You want to legalization. You have to convince the rest of us. And I'll even throw you a bone: medical marijuana is not your best argument. We *all* know that marijuana smokers want complete liberation to use marijuana regardless of their medical needs. You're seeking the right to recreational usage. Ergo, the medicinal value is irrelevant. You likely understand this, but honestly, I've never spoken to a stoner who did. Maybe that is a side effect of this drug.
You are aware of course that most people who are against marijuana use don't make the gateway argument. I'm against marijuana use just because I haven't seen a stoner yet who could even debate the subject honestly. It's all rants about the usefulness of hemp and criticisms of drinking. The gateway argument was conceded years ago by most people. The issue people like myself have is the long-term effect marijuana use has on developing minds (kids and teens), punishment issues for crimes committed or harm done resulting from marijuana use (recently a teen ran down a small girl in his car while high), and regulatory concerns for how people will be allowed to consume marijuana. And anytime I've brought up these points with anyone from the pro-marijuana crowd, the response I get is that I don't understand how useful hemp is (industrial hemp is not even the same thing as marijuana), or that wonderful religious argument: marijuana has never killed anyone, but drinking has.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know they likely would have scoffed at the idea, at least that's the Libertarian mantra. The truth is, we don't know how they would have felt considering their world consisted of imperialism, colonialism, and mercantilism. People tend to reflect the biases of the culture in which they lived. For me, the Founding Fathers' opinions on any topic are interesting, but not authoritative. I'm not a libertarian. I do believe in the Constitution being a framework rather than a singular document etched in stone. Considering that the FF didn't see fit to ensure that women were equal to men, or that Irish slaves and African slaves were equal to white men, you could make the case that their invention (The Constitution) got away from them. The fact is, the FF had beliefs which would never be tolerated in a civil society today.
Yeah, there's a lot of things going haywire in this country right now, but you know what? I feel pretty confident in saying that I feel safer and more free here than there in Persia. I've never been to the region, granted, but I'm a proud European born imperialist American who celebrates American hegemony. America is not everything that is wrong in this world as the first poster claims, pretty far from it. America has certainly failed a lot of tests, but then my Britain and my Germany have as well, so it's hard for me knock the US for being self interested and imperfect. I would hope that Americans would know about the dark past of Chiquita back when it was called United Fruit and called El Pulpo by the locals it fed on, but most likely don't just as they don't know about the horrible things American companies like Abercrombie & Fitch have done in Saipan. That said, the world is big, but not so big we can't easily find human rights violations committed in other countries by governments, private industries, and state run businesses.
But since we're going to claim in this thread that the US is inciting rebellion in Iran with this site, let's look at some of the horrible imperialistic things that the US has done using this virtual embassy. From a quick glance, there's:
1. A section explaining visas; how they work, what type there are, how to read one.
2. A section for document reqs for birth registration and a PPT application
3. A bookmark of links to various US cabinet and mission websites.
4. Instructions for renewal of passports
5. Information on how to study abroad in the US.
That's all pretty scary stuff, isn't it? There are a couple of things that challenge Iran's fundament human right to control what its residents see and read like annual reports on human rights, trafficking, country reports on terrorism, and an International Religious Freedom Report on Iran. There's also an Open Societies page that seems to paint the US as some kind of defender of women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Yeah, America has its bad days. So does every other nation in the world that has aspired to be more than San Marino. I know, I know, I'm being unfair in ignoring that one time when San Marino violated its neutrality during WWI as a result of 10 partisans joining the Italian Army. The Virtual Embassy is a good endeavor.
I'm a fan of '80s era Japanese crotch rockets myself, particularly Yahama. For the classic look, I prefer Valkyrie or Honda. They both have tended to be both forward looking and classic at the same time. Harleys can be loud, but so can any motorcycle. I think people like this poster aren't aware of the mods riders will do to their bikes. A favorite mod is to give the bike more growl by either replacing the pipes or the removing the baffles. Motorcycles are often loud in general, but that's more of a feature that a particular segment likes. There are super quiet bikes on the market.
Pentax might not offer a full frame dSLR, but we Pentaxians have some of the best lenses ever made, not to mention a digital medium format.
What the original poster needs to consider is the benefit of accessibility of a point & shoot type camera vs the flexibility and performance of an SLR. If he goes with a P&S, he needs manual controls. Most P&S cameras don't have manual controls. He'll want to be able to manually adjust his aperture, shutter speed. A problem inherent to all P&S cameras is poor low-light performance. P&S cameras have small lenses and a small sensor. There's never enough light getting in. If you're like me and you do available light documentary style photography, you don't want to mess with flashes, and you don't want to have to bump up the ISO level, which is another limitation of P&S cameras. They tend to be noise free only around ISO 200. Finally, most P&S cameras only shoot JPEG. I shoot using RAW, essentially a digital negative. I can non-destructively adjust my shots in post so that I can recover a photo that was over or under exposed. The good news is that a couple of companies offer pro-sumer grade P&S cameras that have very high quality photos at ISO 800, manual controls, and RAW support. Canon has the G series. I love my G9. It's a heavy camera that resembles a rangefinder, and the controls are fully accessible via physical dials as well as in-menu on the screen. I forget what the Nikon version is called. P-something. There is also the Ricoh GR which I love for black and white street photography. However, it's a fixed focal length. I think Panasonic's Lumix has one too. There is also the Leica (which is actually a Panasonic manufactured product but with the addition of Leica glass and Leica software).
For SLRs, I own many as a result of shifting from film to digital, and then from Pentax to Nikon then flirting with Canon. I love Pentax SLRs for the quality of the hardware and the firmware. I've had numerous issues on my Nikon D300 which at the time I got it was best in class. My Pentax's have always been reliable. What makes Pentax my favorite are the lenses. This is something the original poster will have to think about when choosing an SLR. He is buying into an SLR system, so he needs to look at the lenses that are available to see if they meet his needs. Pentax K-mount lenses give me decades of backwards compatibility with some amazing lenses. I'm fond of older manual focus lenses like my Russian Jupiter, my Ricoh Rikenons, and my Asahi Super Taks. Next to Pentax, Nikkor and Canon lenses seem bland. However, Nikon and Canon offers the most accessories, and often the most features, but these features are things like 3D matrixing, HDR, etc. Stuff that is great until it gets in the way. When it comes to shots per second, the Nikons and Canons tend to be the fastest. The K100D for instance was notoriously sluggish when shooting RAW. I would get like 3 shots before the buffer had to write.
All this said, there is a third option: Pentax Q, Sony's Nex, and the increasing number of systems using micro four-thirds lenses give you a hybrid option. You can get a P&S camera that has replaceable lenses, allowing you to experiment with primes, and really taking advantage of the features of SLRs without carrying around a bulky camera.
Do you even remember your point? You asked me where the MBAs were that were successfully running companies. I said they existed. You challenged me. I named some. Scully didn't wreck Apple. Check your history. Under Scully, Apple II continued to sell. Even the Apple III, a failure overall, actually did fairly well in sales. And Apple introduced several successful products. Amelio and Spindler, maybe, but not Scully. I already stipulated that Fiorina can be said to have ruined HP. If you really look at HP though, that was a company that was eating its own. Some would say Fiorina was a victim of it. The other I named are the CEOs of Intel, Samsung, IBM, and Acer amongst others. I apologize, I should of have listed their companies. None of these guys, save for maybe Meg Whitman are household names.
Fine, off the top of my head: Paul Otellini, Meg Whitman, Kevin Rollins, John Scully, Sam Palmisano, Lee Kun-hee, Zhentang Wang, Carly Fiorina, Greg Brown. Granted, some of these names comes with caveats. You either loved Fiorina's HP or you hated according to the insiders I knew. Greg Brown's degree was in economics. John Scully's Apple isn't everyone's favorite. And eventually people turned on Kevin Rollins. Obviously, the tech industry has a smaller number of MBA chiefs than do other industries, but some people would argue that while they are not Google or Facebook; Intel, Dell, and Samsung are somewhat successful companies.
Sure, that's a fair point. As one person already, noted legacy MBAs can be problem. What it takes is business leadership by individuals who can see both sides of the coin. I'll mention Eric Schmidt again, but he might not be a good example if we consider the arguments that Google has become so focused on business performance that it's killing projects prematurely for failure to give an instant high ROI rather than nurturing those projects. Eric Schmidt is an engineer, formally, but he hasn't worked as an engineer in a while. He's been functioning an executive (an MBA so to speak) for years. I have direct experience with AOL. They can be difficult to work with because of, as you point out, all the MBAs at the company. There's a lot of middle management BS you have to put up with when dealing with AOL. For HP, I'm more familiar with Carly Fiorina's tenure. Some say she did great, but fought constantly with other corporate suits. Others say she was horrible. I just remember watching the quality of my HP consumer products nosedive between the early 90s and the 2005. Consider Zhentang Wang, CEO of Acer as a positive example of MBA leadership. He is a EE and an MBA.
I was just using SEs as an example. Obviously, the industry has more engineers than just SEs. Again, you listed a handful of people who don't represent the bulk of the industry, and most of those you listed cannot be claimed by engineers as one of theirs if business admins can't equally claim them as one of their own just because of that education. Eric Schmidt is far more than than just a software engineer. Most software engineers, maybe not even many, have his executive experience. My point about proper executive leadership still stands. I'm not going to bring up a list of every Silicon Valley company that isn't Apple, Microsoft, or Google just to find MBAs who do a good job of running their companies.
Seriously? The point isn't that people who hold Masters in Business Administration know best per se, it is that successful technology businesses are not the result of good engineering, but the result of a mix of engineering, good business management, and marketing expertise. This is traditionally the area of the MBA, but this doesn't imply that a computer scientist can never ever under any circumstances understand things like SWOT. It means that understanding how to make a business successful is separate from knowing how to make cool technology. You have identified four companies out of an entire industry populated by many successful tech companies operated by businessmen. And incidentally, Steve Jobs is not an engineer or a computer scientist. Nor are Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. None of these guys fits the profile of the typical software engineer. And Sergy Brin and Larry Page worked with Eric Schmidt who possessed executive experience, realizing the need for someone who understood how to run a business.
I realize you're just taking the piss, but as an MBA who has always understood technology, I've done fairly well. It's always fun to make fun of the MBAs when you're on the tech side, but the fact is, engineers don't know how to run companies. They don't know how to develop markets. They don't know how to sell products. Sure, they can make truly epic prototypes that look really awesome sitting in a private room. I've seen a lot of cool tech wizardry that went nowhere. Every successful example of computer technology has depended on a mix of both. But we can always do with fewer lawyers, totally.
I concur. I was also on Trumpet though back then when I wasn't on Slackware. I was still mostly in DOS. Windows was just when you wanted sexy wallpaper. I remember Prodigy working fine, being very stable. AOL would disconnect regularly, but I believe that was programmed behavior then.
Maybe. So what would have been preferable? I've gotten by with onboard graphics for years, doing no more than video processing and photography, and as a console gamer, video cards are just something I don't think about. I'm assuming that the sell is that discrete video cards offer better features for intense gaming, and that integrated graphics will eventually disappoint when the user tries to play AAA game title. Dell could just provide performance metrics, but numbers really are meaningless to most consumers. I doubt they could get away with screenshots of Crysis 2 or Skyrim showing a comparative degradation in quality. I suggest a more clear alternative: happy panda with tears of joy cursing at all the noobs its pwning vs sad pirate wallaby stoically playing a game.
Except Google Voice doesn't do MMS, and Google's answer to MMS once it comes will be forwarding the message to email.
Not a licensed attorney though I did go to law school. This is one of those cases that gets 1L's (first year law students) in a fit. It must be that idealism that first years show up to school with.
The explanation wasn't really mine, it's Justice Jackson's. Here's a quote regarding local non-commercial activity vis-a-vis interstate commerce: "It may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
The purpose of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was to limit the supply of wheat and other commodities in the market, again. Congress' ability to do this is without question since it has the enumerated power to regulate commerce. The law covers more than wheat by the way, and it still stands today. Congress likes the law, and Wickard v Filburn in many ways is a validation of the law. Usually when we talk about government overreaching, it's a criticism of either the judicial or executive branches. I say this from observation purely. It's amazing that legislators are so adept at convincing private citizens that the overreaching by the executive and the judiciary was done without at minimum a legal mandate created through legislation.
I can understand why this case law seems ridiculous. On the surface, Wickard seems to say that all private activity risks being or affecting commercial activity with ludicrous results. A person might wonder, If Congress decides to support the manufacture of computers, would every private citizen who builds a personal computer by in violation? But in actuality, the argument that decision gave Congress the right to regulate every aspect of life (as Conservapedia put it) doesn't stand. The key test is that the private activity substantially affects interstate commerce. Most private activity would not. In Wickard, the belief is that growing *excessive* amount of wheat would. Not everyone grows wheat, and not everyone grows a large volume of wheat. There aren't many buyers of large volumes of wheat. Those details seem to me to provide a limit. I don't know if anyone's argued those limits successfully however. I've tried Googling for real good pro and con debate on the case, but I mostly get con arguments, and those have been almost 100% been from sources that are "free traders". As far as I'm concern, they're too ideologically attached.
Then I apologize for my libelous comment. Accept my iPod. :)
Oh fucking hell, not this again. Some people can hear the difference even at 256kbps. The noticeable difference between lossless and lossy compression are a function of source fidelity, type of instruments, type of music, and the inherent characteristics of the compression format among other things, not to mention the hearing ability of the listener and his listening gear. Obviously, you're not to going to perceive a great difference between 256kbps and lossless D&B music when you're playing through a iPod that's got an analog connection to a cassette adapter to a car stereo with small paper cones in the speakers. If you're listening to jazz or classical or even live rock recordings, a person doesn't need golden ears to hear what compression does to a cymbal roll. For the last time, if you can't hear the difference, then you have no idea what the you're not hearing.
Too many armchair legal scholars on Slashdot tonight. I might as well join in. I believe you're talking about Wickard v Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat on his farm in excess of amounts permitted in 1942 by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The important background is that AAA limited the acreage farmers could use for growing wheat in order to limit wheat production nationally. The purpose was to set the market price higher for wheat. Filburn argued that the wheat he grew was for private consumption. Ergo, no commerce. Wickard (Sec-Agra) argued that since Filburn was producing wheat in excess of limits set by AAA, he didn't need to buy wheat in the market, thus Filburn substantially affected the intrastate market for wheat. SCOTUS unanimously held for Wickard. A key note is that Filburn's actions, although non-commercial, would affect the commercial market if replicated by many other farmers who have it within their power to grow extra wheat over the limit.
This decision was not made out of thin air. There is actual legal reasoning in it. AAA was validated as a constitutional law. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is enumerated. And it is logical that in order to regulate interstate commerce, Congress would have additional rights to intervene in intrastate commerce or activities which directly affect intrastate commerce.
I don't think UI teams are primarily focused on that lowest common denominator anymore. At one time, yes, but now I think there is a desire to provide sleek, minimalist desktops this era. Call it copying Apple if you want. Sleek interfaces that tell you just enough were a rave for a while. They were futuristic. They were artistic. I think the consumer adoption of smart phones and mobiles devices like tablets and modern handheld game consoles has made the modern computer user more capable of handling constantly flowing disparate information. I would bet that most Android owners who wouldn't identify as techies have as much a desire for more information flows as I do. Years ago in the '90s it was just new email notifications and new IMs, but now a typical "connected" consumer is streaming information flows from one or more social networks including perhaps several microblogging sites in addition to news headlines, weather events, SMS, and then traditional email.
I'm a Snow Leopard user. As much as I enjoy the elegance of OS X, I want more info. I'm a 20 open tabs browser kinda of person. I spend the vast majority of my time within a web browser. I would love a desktop that followed the widgets model as done on Android phones rather that as done on NeXTSTep/GNUStep. Maybe I'm still arguing for Lifestreams.
Seriously, I really don't see the problem here. I used to buy my software on floppy disc in simple paper cardboard envelopes on a carousel, and then later in boxes on a retail shelf. Even then, there were barriers to getting a consumer's eyes on your software. When it was the '90s and I was getting much of my apps through public FTP and then later windows95.com, CNET downloads, etc, I often filtered my searches specifically so that I would only see apps that were highly rated or which had a try before you buy model. I relied heavily on word of mouth and CNET tech writer reviews. I do the same with iPhone apps. Maybe the real issue is that App Store users aren't always going past the first page to view more apps for a given search, but there's a lot that a developer can do to increase their profitability just by getting more eyes on the product. It doesn't matter that you can only sell your apps through this single channel. Market! Market! Market! If that's too hard, you're not cut out to be an independent businessman.
Honestly, I've encountered just a few pro-legalization groups. There are the libertarians whose arguments tend to be either 1) It's my inherent right to do something harmful to my body, and 2) The War on Drugs has been a failure. The 2nd argument is not a valid argument, and sounds as if pro-marijuana supporters ultimately want all "narcotics" (using the legal term here, not the technical one) to be legalized. There are the stoners as I've said. There's the medical marijuana crowd, but their arguments seem at best worth considering if we were to make marijuana use controlled. I've also read some of the advocacy writings in trade magazines. I agree with you so far on regulation. To me, it's only logical that marijuana use be at least as controlled as liquor consumption. But there are a number of loud advocates who want personal responsibility with no government regulation -- essentially the NRA argument against gun control. That just isn't going to happen. If this is really a social or civil rights movement -- and you would think it is with the way people are talking about marijuana arrests being travesties, then the movement needs reasoned arguments made by people who don't stir up anger with the way they dress or talk.
Good question about younger generations. Just accept that the younger generation can never full grasp history because they will only ever learn about the products that either made it or that became legendary despite failing. That's why living it firsthand is such an awesome thing. That said, I'm tired of people with that Tourette Syndrome-like need to point out that Apple didn't invent X or Y. Apple is constantly the first to deliver new technologies as stock as opposed to a third-party tacked on upgrade. Regarding Siri, I truly don't give a damn if Apple didn't create the technology behind it. From all I've read, Apple hasn't attempted to conceal the fact that the tech comes from elsewhere, and I know of no Apple fanatics who are declaring that Apple invented it. What I have seen are Apple haters claim that Apple lovers are constantly making such statements. Apple merely has masterfully integrated that technology with a good product, and then shipped that product out to customers at a price that makes the product very accessible. And because Apple excels at doing this, Apple creates new markets and reduces the risks for the guys who follow. That is pure genius. And I say this as I look a Moto Xoom and wonder to myself: $800? How the hell did Motorola expect to sell any? Now, I don't know if I can ever use Siri. For me, there's something eerie about talking to a computer device and having it talk back. No thanks. I'd stick to good old Virtual Girlfriend Teri!
That's what the Parent said. As for usability, none of those 1st generation MP3 players were designed well, and I hated all of them, iPod included.
I'd like to see it anyway. I still have the Cringely documentary and it's sequel on tape. I enjoy watching it every now and then even though it's pure historical and I still remember those events.
>You're logic is just because some people within a larger group of people can't make an argument for their case, that something should be illegal? That's how debate works. If you want to advocate for your side, you better make a good case. It's not my fault as the opposition side that the self-righteous stoners who have had the loudest voice on marijuana advocacy come off looking like stupid drug addicts who despite every half-hearted rationale they give, really are just looking to get their favorite high legalized. I'm not prudish, nor am I a zealot. You can convince me to join your side, but I need you to make a good case for why I should. Show me the science that says concretely that habitual marijuana is not dangerous overtime, that it's safe for teenagers to casual use marijuana. Give me a nice public relations campaign that leads me to believe that marijuana users are not as the marathon of stoner movies on 4/20 Day stereotypes them. Also, come up with a workable policy. I always hear dope heads talk about how none of the ancillary harm caused by marijuana would have happened had responsible marijuana use been practiced. To me that sounds like a pro-gun argument. I should know, I've made them many times. What is responsible marijuana use? Responsible alcohol consumption has been defined. As a drinker. I have no problem admitted that alcohol abuse comes with some nasty side effects including the destruction of the family and relationships. I am not deterred against legalization only because people can get hurt because eh, it can happen. How about getting some of the marijuana lobby to admit that, yes, on occasion, marijuana use can lead people to do dangerous things that cause people to be hurt? Give me a reasoned argument based on actual scientific studies rather than hearsay, and for once, leave out the arguments about how great a biomass hemp is. Does all this really seem that unreasonable? Really, it's not my job to make your best argument for you. It's your movement. You want to legalization. You have to convince the rest of us. And I'll even throw you a bone: medical marijuana is not your best argument. We *all* know that marijuana smokers want complete liberation to use marijuana regardless of their medical needs. You're seeking the right to recreational usage. Ergo, the medicinal value is irrelevant. You likely understand this, but honestly, I've never spoken to a stoner who did. Maybe that is a side effect of this drug.
You are aware of course that most people who are against marijuana use don't make the gateway argument. I'm against marijuana use just because I haven't seen a stoner yet who could even debate the subject honestly. It's all rants about the usefulness of hemp and criticisms of drinking. The gateway argument was conceded years ago by most people. The issue people like myself have is the long-term effect marijuana use has on developing minds (kids and teens), punishment issues for crimes committed or harm done resulting from marijuana use (recently a teen ran down a small girl in his car while high), and regulatory concerns for how people will be allowed to consume marijuana. And anytime I've brought up these points with anyone from the pro-marijuana crowd, the response I get is that I don't understand how useful hemp is (industrial hemp is not even the same thing as marijuana), or that wonderful religious argument: marijuana has never killed anyone, but drinking has.