That site should have nothing to do with the/. name. The community of (more or less) like minded people is what has made this site special since its inception. "News For Nerds". That important little slogan disappeared from the banner at the top of the page early last year. Now this business improvement blog is aimed at helping executives make important decisions. It says so right in that poorly done video. That doesn't sound like/. to me.
I, like many others who post here have noticed the decline in the quality of both stories and comments over the last 8 or so years I've been coming here. Most of this hasn't been the site's fault. But with/.TV (which has a HUGE icon up on the top line, ever noticed?) and this B.I. site, the discussion appears to be less important. I don't even see an obvious way to join a discussion on the TV site.
I guess this is a long way of saying that I think this is a bad idea. You're changing the mission of the site, maybe in order to broaden your audience, but I think it will just end up alienating the loyal audience that has been around for a long time.
It's not just prestige, it's promotion. In many cases their career and their wallet benefit more from those two papers in the high impact journal than the five in a lower impact one. There are some (sort of) legitimate reasons for this, but on the whole it's BS.
I disagree. Apple is contracting with Foxconn to churn out millions of iDevices. Regardless of what other Silicon Valley companies are doing, Apple is the one that is dealing with FoxConn. If they think that the workers deserve better treatment, they have it in their power to see that their demands are met; if they aren't, then they can contract with someone who will. "I'm just following the status quo," is a poor defense.
I work for a company that deals with a lot of contractors. If a contractor isn't living up to our expectations (usually safety related), we find a new company to do that work. If they're not living up to our standards, they don't come on our site. Our safety numbers reflect this. (I think our bottom line benefits, too, but those numbers are a little trickier to pin down.)
I think that a company's handling of contractors reflects their values. Apple (and I guess the rest of Silicon Valley) values money more than good working conditions.
After I posted I realized that I should have chosen a different "dissenting" post. There are a few on there, and they all have led to similar angry and insulting comments. I guess my point is that I do feel bad for these people in dire straits. I really do, especially those who are in a tight spot by no fault of their own.
The thing that bugs me is that they are claiming to speak for the entire 99% (implying it, at the very least). If you have a college degree and no job, yes, you are part of the 99%, but your sad story is more about the 5.4 percent than the 99. It drops to being 4 percent for all those on there who claim a master's degree (chart). So stop saying that you were lied to about education; those claims are demonstrably false. And stop saying you have no future. For the vast majority of those posting their stories, this is a rough spot, longer than most, but we'll get through. It is those sorts of claims on that blog annoy me greatly. As does the opposition to the people (like me) who are part of the 99% and are okay with life, for the most part.
Now, I recognize that there are many, many parts of our system that are beyond screwed up. Reforms are needed. But the people who are posting pictures of their stories do not represent me. I am the 99%, and I'm doing fine.
But when anyone who claims to be happy, healthy, and gainfully employed adds their voice, they get shouted down by the rest (example). The people representing this protest don't represent the 99%.
I can't say, as many have, that I've been around since the beginning, but since I've been a regular reader (sometime in 2004) I have learned a lot and have been exposed to many thought provoking and insightful discussions. Thanks for building the site that made this possible and provides a place to indulge my inner nerd. All the best in whatever comes next.
You make a good point about computers (generally) being good at finding related material. However, right now many library search systems don't bring up related titles. And even if you do have a system that displays related items, until these are digitized and you have sufficiently advanced algorithms to dig up relevant content, "related content" will be based on keywords, etc. This short circuits the computer's advantages in finding related content. My university recently completed a robotic retrieval system much like the one described, so I come at this with some experience.
I also think there's something to be said for browsing through the stacks looking for something that catches your eye, leading to unexpected discovery. I have yet to find a search platform that gives this kind of flexibility.
As a minor correction, most universities, at least in the US, use the Library of Congress classification system which does a good job of grouping by rather specialized subjects. If it grouped largely by author's last name, it would be pretty useless to see what's farther on down the shelf.
Not better search, but paper offers a better browsing experience. As noted in a number of other posts, this browsing can lead to the discovery of titles you didn't know existed. This is very beneficial to academic work.
It often takes more than ten years to get through the permitting and construction for a normal mine here on earth. How would it not take at least that long to start mining the moon?
And is there a way to retrieve all comments by default? If not, being the 251st person to reply to a story almost certainly means that nobody will read what you wrote. I imagine very few people are going to want to scroll to the very bottom of the page and click the load more comments button a half dozen times to get retrieve all the comments on this redesign, for example. At the very least put the button up top. I fear that this will cut down on the number of comments submitted across the board. I would hate to see that.
Clicking on a score to see a comment's score/moderation history appears to be broken. After closing the popup, it jumps me back up to the top of the page. This happens in Chrome (v 8.0.552.237) and Opera (v. 11.00). This is annoying.
I'll go on record as saying that there is too much white space, too.
An eight year old, on the other hand, thinks about the cool hockey equipment and tickets he could get with even a modest sum. To an eight year old, hundreds of dollars is a lot of money, and the tens of thousands that you pass off as no big deal is a fortune.
where in this 'long history of global warming and global cooling' did the average temperature rise 0.56C (1F) a degree in 50 years?
This is a point that is brought up frequently, and with good reason: it's the rate we should be concerned with, rather than the fact that we're warming a couple of degrees. However, thinking of the data I've seen, I'm not sure we know for a fact that the planet hasn't warmed this quickly over the past few hundred thousand years. (I am an earth scientist, so although climate isn't my specialty, I have been exposed to some data in a rigorous and rational setting.)
The only record I can think of that would even have a chance at resolving something on the ~50 year scale is the ice core record (see this figure). There are definitely some major swings in that record on short enough time scales that they get smeared out on that chart, but I don't know if they are anywhere near the rate that we've seen in the past 100 years (~1 degC). The people who work on this core claim precision on the annual scale back something like 200k years to where the ice starts to flow and layers representing annual snow fall are lost. Because the temperatures are based on isotopic data, there are some other factors (diffusion, etc.) that need to be considered; I haven't ever heard all the assumptions discussed, but I'm sure people have looked into it.
My point is, anyway, that there may have been a time where we saw a similar rate, but our proxies for paleoclimate might not be sensitive enough to resolve them. (see also this graph for variations in raw isotopic data in Greenland ice core
That being said, the CO2 record is much, much more troubling. We've had concentrations near what we're seeing now, but as I recall, that was back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs were enjoying near tropical paradise at all latitudes.
But that was all before the iPad. Whatever anyone thinks about the iPad, it changed how people view tablets. Now tablets are for consuming, rather than producing, content. Microsoft will need to change their UI to survive in the tablet market.
I'd personally like to see them come out with an interface that behaves kind of like the iPad, but is much more friendly to content production. I think Microsoft can pull it off. Whether they will is the question.
I think that MS will "throw" Windows 7 on tablets in much the same way that Apple "threw" OS X on the iTouch/Phone/Pad. Underneath all the shiny, it's still OS X, but in a streamlined, simplified form. If MS doesn't follow suit, the Windows tablet world is doomed for failure.
Those two articles you cite debating the conclusions of the Washington Post article are the same; Business Week reposted the Harvard Business Review article. I'd like to see more than one source, especially when the source reads like a defensive rebuttal by someone who felt insulted by the conclusions of the Pew study (or at least Washington Post story about the study).
Having taught some college classes and labs over the past several years, I can say that the sense of entitlement and poor work ethic (however you define it!) is real. My experiences may be anecdotal, but the data in form of that Pew study does back my experiences, somewhat.
But that study wasn't done with people who were just learning to drive, so I think your point has a little less weight. I think this bit from the article I linked is an apt response:
Researchers Jason Watson and David L. Strayer go on to say that "inattention blindness associated with cell phone conversations makes drivers unaware of their own driving impairments." That's research-speak for "Hey, I am not even aware of my unawareness while gabbing with my pals. I am special. I can do this!"
There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other, and neither one comes naturally
But there is research suggesting that you can't be good at multitasking, or rather very few people actually are. Link. Even though talking on the phone and driving isn't necessarily what this article is talking about, I think it does fall into your classification of "boring things".
It would be interesting to see some research actually showing whether you can improve your multitasking skills.
I think you're right that disinformation is the problem, but the tendency to accept disinformation as truth is exacerbated by the shear amount of information that is out there. It is sometimes hard to sift through all the crap to find the truth.
Incidentally, this is one reason I am a little nervous about the pending death of print journalism. The big newspapers (papers of record, and all that) have built their reputations on providing well researched and clearly written reports of what is going on in the world. If and when these sorts of institutions go under, we will be left with a lots of outlets of varying quality, and it will be hard to tell who is getting the whole story. Throw in the fact that many, many online "news" sources just copy and/or link to other sources, and the whole thing becomes a mess.
And yes I recognize that there are a handful of online sources that do good reporting, but they are a) few and far between, and b) usually bereft of any semblance of balance.
But the problem isn't the system, it's the people in it. Pure capitalism would work if everyone is completely honest - you get what you pay for (and no more!) and you pay for what you get. No exceptions. Problems arise, as you point out, when someone takes advantage of others who may be more naive by paying them less than fair market value, for example. I think you'll find that if you replace capitalism with a more cooperative system, not everyone wants to cooperate; some people want to get ahead. You'll get the communist governments that were such a big problem throughout the latter half of the 1900s.
Pure communism has as good a chance of working as pure capitalism iff all parties involved buy into it and do their part honestly. Until that happens, some regulated form of capitalism provides the best way to raise the standard of living for the most people
Slashdot Mirror
And that name is just awful!
That site should have nothing to do with the /. name. The community of (more or less) like minded people is what has made this site special since its inception. "News For Nerds". That important little slogan disappeared from the banner at the top of the page early last year. Now this business improvement blog is aimed at helping executives make important decisions. It says so right in that poorly done video. That doesn't sound like /. to me.
I, like many others who post here have noticed the decline in the quality of both stories and comments over the last 8 or so years I've been coming here. Most of this hasn't been the site's fault. But with /.TV (which has a HUGE icon up on the top line, ever noticed?) and this B.I. site, the discussion appears to be less important. I don't even see an obvious way to join a discussion on the TV site.
I guess this is a long way of saying that I think this is a bad idea. You're changing the mission of the site, maybe in order to broaden your audience, but I think it will just end up alienating the loyal audience that has been around for a long time.
It's not just prestige, it's promotion. In many cases their career and their wallet benefit more from those two papers in the high impact journal than the five in a lower impact one. There are some (sort of) legitimate reasons for this, but on the whole it's BS.
But there are no fees for giving a friend a $20 bill.
but it isn't apple to blame
I disagree. Apple is contracting with Foxconn to churn out millions of iDevices. Regardless of what other Silicon Valley companies are doing, Apple is the one that is dealing with FoxConn. If they think that the workers deserve better treatment, they have it in their power to see that their demands are met; if they aren't, then they can contract with someone who will. "I'm just following the status quo," is a poor defense.
I work for a company that deals with a lot of contractors. If a contractor isn't living up to our expectations (usually safety related), we find a new company to do that work. If they're not living up to our standards, they don't come on our site. Our safety numbers reflect this. (I think our bottom line benefits, too, but those numbers are a little trickier to pin down.)
I think that a company's handling of contractors reflects their values. Apple (and I guess the rest of Silicon Valley) values money more than good working conditions.
After I posted I realized that I should have chosen a different "dissenting" post. There are a few on there, and they all have led to similar angry and insulting comments. I guess my point is that I do feel bad for these people in dire straits. I really do, especially those who are in a tight spot by no fault of their own.
The thing that bugs me is that they are claiming to speak for the entire 99% (implying it, at the very least). If you have a college degree and no job, yes, you are part of the 99%, but your sad story is more about the 5.4 percent than the 99. It drops to being 4 percent for all those on there who claim a master's degree (chart). So stop saying that you were lied to about education; those claims are demonstrably false. And stop saying you have no future. For the vast majority of those posting their stories, this is a rough spot, longer than most, but we'll get through. It is those sorts of claims on that blog annoy me greatly. As does the opposition to the people (like me) who are part of the 99% and are okay with life, for the most part.
Now, I recognize that there are many, many parts of our system that are beyond screwed up. Reforms are needed. But the people who are posting pictures of their stories do not represent me. I am the 99%, and I'm doing fine.
But when anyone who claims to be happy, healthy, and gainfully employed adds their voice, they get shouted down by the rest (example). The people representing this protest don't represent the 99%.
I can't say, as many have, that I've been around since the beginning, but since I've been a regular reader (sometime in 2004) I have learned a lot and have been exposed to many thought provoking and insightful discussions. Thanks for building the site that made this possible and provides a place to indulge my inner nerd. All the best in whatever comes next.
You make a good point about computers (generally) being good at finding related material. However, right now many library search systems don't bring up related titles. And even if you do have a system that displays related items, until these are digitized and you have sufficiently advanced algorithms to dig up relevant content, "related content" will be based on keywords, etc. This short circuits the computer's advantages in finding related content. My university recently completed a robotic retrieval system much like the one described, so I come at this with some experience.
I also think there's something to be said for browsing through the stacks looking for something that catches your eye, leading to unexpected discovery. I have yet to find a search platform that gives this kind of flexibility.
As a minor correction, most universities, at least in the US, use the Library of Congress classification system which does a good job of grouping by rather specialized subjects. If it grouped largely by author's last name, it would be pretty useless to see what's farther on down the shelf.
Not better search, but paper offers a better browsing experience. As noted in a number of other posts, this browsing can lead to the discovery of titles you didn't know existed. This is very beneficial to academic work.
It often takes more than ten years to get through the permitting and construction for a normal mine here on earth. How would it not take at least that long to start mining the moon?
And is there a way to retrieve all comments by default? If not, being the 251st person to reply to a story almost certainly means that nobody will read what you wrote. I imagine very few people are going to want to scroll to the very bottom of the page and click the load more comments button a half dozen times to get retrieve all the comments on this redesign, for example. At the very least put the button up top. I fear that this will cut down on the number of comments submitted across the board. I would hate to see that.
Clicking on a score to see a comment's score/moderation history appears to be broken. After closing the popup, it jumps me back up to the top of the page. This happens in Chrome (v 8.0.552.237) and Opera (v. 11.00). This is annoying. I'll go on record as saying that there is too much white space, too.
Posting to undo errant mod.
An eight year old, on the other hand, thinks about the cool hockey equipment and tickets he could get with even a modest sum. To an eight year old, hundreds of dollars is a lot of money, and the tens of thousands that you pass off as no big deal is a fortune.
where in this 'long history of global warming and global cooling' did the average temperature rise 0.56C (1F) a degree in 50 years?
This is a point that is brought up frequently, and with good reason: it's the rate we should be concerned with, rather than the fact that we're warming a couple of degrees. However, thinking of the data I've seen, I'm not sure we know for a fact that the planet hasn't warmed this quickly over the past few hundred thousand years. (I am an earth scientist, so although climate isn't my specialty, I have been exposed to some data in a rigorous and rational setting.)
The only record I can think of that would even have a chance at resolving something on the ~50 year scale is the ice core record (see this figure). There are definitely some major swings in that record on short enough time scales that they get smeared out on that chart, but I don't know if they are anywhere near the rate that we've seen in the past 100 years (~1 degC). The people who work on this core claim precision on the annual scale back something like 200k years to where the ice starts to flow and layers representing annual snow fall are lost. Because the temperatures are based on isotopic data, there are some other factors (diffusion, etc.) that need to be considered; I haven't ever heard all the assumptions discussed, but I'm sure people have looked into it.
My point is, anyway, that there may have been a time where we saw a similar rate, but our proxies for paleoclimate might not be sensitive enough to resolve them. (see also this graph for variations in raw isotopic data in Greenland ice core
That being said, the CO2 record is much, much more troubling. We've had concentrations near what we're seeing now, but as I recall, that was back in the Cretaceous when dinosaurs were enjoying near tropical paradise at all latitudes.
But that was all before the iPad. Whatever anyone thinks about the iPad, it changed how people view tablets. Now tablets are for consuming, rather than producing, content. Microsoft will need to change their UI to survive in the tablet market.
I'd personally like to see them come out with an interface that behaves kind of like the iPad, but is much more friendly to content production. I think Microsoft can pull it off. Whether they will is the question.
I think that MS will "throw" Windows 7 on tablets in much the same way that Apple "threw" OS X on the iTouch/Phone/Pad. Underneath all the shiny, it's still OS X, but in a streamlined, simplified form. If MS doesn't follow suit, the Windows tablet world is doomed for failure.
Undoing errant mod
Those two articles you cite debating the conclusions of the Washington Post article are the same; Business Week reposted the Harvard Business Review article. I'd like to see more than one source, especially when the source reads like a defensive rebuttal by someone who felt insulted by the conclusions of the Pew study (or at least Washington Post story about the study).
Having taught some college classes and labs over the past several years, I can say that the sense of entitlement and poor work ethic (however you define it!) is real. My experiences may be anecdotal, but the data in form of that Pew study does back my experiences, somewhat.
But that study wasn't done with people who were just learning to drive, so I think your point has a little less weight. I think this bit from the article I linked is an apt response:
Researchers Jason Watson and David L. Strayer go on to say that "inattention blindness associated with cell phone conversations makes drivers unaware of their own driving impairments." That's research-speak for "Hey, I am not even aware of my unawareness while gabbing with my pals. I am special. I can do this!"
There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other, and neither one comes naturally
But there is research suggesting that you can't be good at multitasking, or rather very few people actually are. Link. Even though talking on the phone and driving isn't necessarily what this article is talking about, I think it does fall into your classification of "boring things".
It would be interesting to see some research actually showing whether you can improve your multitasking skills.
I think you're right that disinformation is the problem, but the tendency to accept disinformation as truth is exacerbated by the shear amount of information that is out there. It is sometimes hard to sift through all the crap to find the truth.
Incidentally, this is one reason I am a little nervous about the pending death of print journalism. The big newspapers (papers of record, and all that) have built their reputations on providing well researched and clearly written reports of what is going on in the world. If and when these sorts of institutions go under, we will be left with a lots of outlets of varying quality, and it will be hard to tell who is getting the whole story. Throw in the fact that many, many online "news" sources just copy and/or link to other sources, and the whole thing becomes a mess.
And yes I recognize that there are a handful of online sources that do good reporting, but they are a) few and far between, and b) usually bereft of any semblance of balance.
But the problem isn't the system, it's the people in it. Pure capitalism would work if everyone is completely honest - you get what you pay for (and no more!) and you pay for what you get. No exceptions. Problems arise, as you point out, when someone takes advantage of others who may be more naive by paying them less than fair market value, for example. I think you'll find that if you replace capitalism with a more cooperative system, not everyone wants to cooperate; some people want to get ahead. You'll get the communist governments that were such a big problem throughout the latter half of the 1900s.
Pure communism has as good a chance of working as pure capitalism iff all parties involved buy into it and do their part honestly. Until that happens, some regulated form of capitalism provides the best way to raise the standard of living for the most people
The system isn't the problem; the people are.
Probably not less safe than having pipes and/or tanks of natural gas scattered throughout neighborhoods like they are today.