That's stupid: it's not outdated, it's just old, but nevertheless, it works quite well. I still have my 83, haven't used it for many years now, but still check the batteries in it from time to time to be sure it'll never die:) I guess it's more nostalgia at this point for me, but still, these things were/are quite great. Yes, pricey, but I don't mind paying some extra for a tool that lasts forever (and they seemingly do).
" each user would have to pay about ã140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue"
This sounds crazy, I hope someone realizes that. "Lost revenue" in a businness which only has any revenue at all, because soeone somewhere thought that choking the Internet in a tide of ads must be a good businness model... "Losing" that "revenue" would be lost to those companies who built on this idiotic assumption, also this businness is one of those who drive the whole web into sh*t in the long run.The Internet would function fine, their only problem is that they've grown used to the high revenue stream and reducing or losing it would hurt them. But saying that they couldn't live with a reduced ad revenue and they'd need to push all that revenue's source onto customers to survive is also idiotic - who says they need to have the level of revenue they actually have, or that they actually need to survive at all?:)) I wouldn't mind seeing some of them disappear, they are no friends of mine, that's for sure.
While I can understand T-mob. in this case, they - and others as well - could just do what my mobile internet provider in Europe (not T-mob.) does: I got a data package with 10GB of monthly limit with all the constraints (e.g., no torrent use) for average use, but from midnight to 8:00am in the same package they give a separate 100GB monthly allowance without any restrictions at all (and at LTE speed). This way they can force the heavy users out of the more crowded intervals, and everyone can be happy. Oh, the best part, the whole thing costs only ~$20/month....
My view of university education (having an MSc, a separate BSc, and a PhD) has always been that up until MSc (or until BSc, that very much depends on the country and on the followed traditions of education) the point is to get a fairly diverse _introduction_ into as many related [to your main subject] topics as possible, from people who are somewhat knowledgeable in the area, with more deeper knowledge in a lower number of specific areas. Not to make you a jack-of-all-trades in CS for example, but to prepare you to know where to do and where to look and where to start if you'll require deeper knowledge in some other area of your field than the one in which you got deeper intro earlier. That, and survival, i.e., get you acquainted with an environment where you don't only have to learn and be good in one specific topic, but be able to quickly pick up superficial and sometimes deeper knowledge in a related field as well, and be able to produce some results in a short time period. Plus, add the networking possibilities, the opportunity to meet people and gather connections for your later professional life (if you get lucky). You don't get these if you get your degree by doing online courses and from libraries.
Given the above, I don't think longish courses are doomed, they have their places, but one has to have the ability to judge which ones do, retain them, and complement them with some others which have shorter periods and get you more diversified knowledge, which don't necessarily require face-to-face presence or on-site experience. They have to find the proper balance.
I wouldn't support to give total control in the hand of the students when preparing their courses and modules, since that might result in a too diverse graduate pool - some which have very narrow and deeper knowledge, and some who only have very shallow knowledge in several areas but none actually usable for anything. They simply don't have the necessary experience to be their own guides.
Hehh:) while I agree, I can't easily place my version in the list, so here it goes: I'd like it to not be bigger than a regular watch, to have looks closer to some jewelry than some nerdy toy thingy (i.e., no plastic, not rectangular), to be waterproof (at least to the extent as regular waterproof watches are), and the battery to last at least 24 hours straight (normally don't need that much, but I'm also thinking about long flights, e.g. LHR-SIN-SYD).
I don't even care if it's just a 'dumb' watch relaying every and each function and command to the phone and displaying notifications, don't need it to be any smarter than that, but until the above properties are met, I couldn't care less.
Yeah, rumors are above $200 [1] so good luck with that.
I've been wearing watches all my life, and no phone could change my habit of checking the time on my wrist. The first thing I'd expect from any watch (smart or not) is to last at least a semi-comfortable 4-6 weeks on a charge. I just want to use it more than I charge it, I don't think that's unfair to ask, and be able to go on extended trips without worrying that I won't be able to tell the freaking time.
Also, I'd never want a smartwatch that's dumb - i.e., it doesn't really do anything, it's just a clunky extension of your phone... thanks, but keep it.
If it were an add-on, I'd have nothing against it. Do not integrate unnecessary crap into the browser, history has made it clear it's not going to end well.
"human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy."
Very roughly, IMHO, believing in someting based on available provable facts, data and information stands closer to science, and believing in something even without (or despite of) them stands closer to religion [*]. However, without definitive proof for the quoted statement, if only yes-no can be chosen one might answer 'no' even when not being a religious fanatic. Thus, I'd say not asking the question is a good compromise (vs. starting yet another religion-science debate).
That said, the above question could've been left to be part of the test, if formulated more correctly [i.e. scientifically, yes], e.g. including something like 'based on currently available scientific data and information, human beings, as we know them today, likely developed/originated from earlier species of animals' - or something similar, you hopefully you get my point.
If it's J.J. Abrams, then the central theme will be around time travel. Maybe Luke will become evil and travel back in time to kill himself. There you have it:P
Or a rather huge rock of salt. If lots of people are interested in a subject, create pages that link to pages dealing with it, tweet about it, post about it, etc, that will - or should, at least - create a change in ranking, regardless of it being about politicians, or snakes (oh, sorry, they just might be the same:P). Calling the changes in rankings that reflect people's interest - or lack of it - about a certain subject 'influencing' sounds to me very largely misinterpreted. Anyway, if some people can really be influenced by the rankings of a search engine, that's more a testament of those people's intellect or ignorance, than anything else. Plus, the numbers in the mentioned study, and how they were obtained, can't convince me of any 'science' behind them, let alone make me even consider their significance - if any. Especially this one: 'Biased search rankings also changed the extent to which participants indicated they trust the candidates' - which, to me at least, simply sounds crazy stupid.
I know sleep loss and/or sleeping for unregular length and time can lead to all kinds of problems, but since I can't even remember when I've slept more than 6 hours at a time, and I have to pull all-nighters from time to time, and I'm still alive and kicking, I have to say I believe that eating habits (type and quantity) and regular exercising can help a lot in balancing the scale. Of course, people having circulatory, blood pressure or heart problems might have a different story to tell.
They can demand all they want. What I demand is, that if a show is supposed to present scientific results about what we know about the universe at this point, then it should not feed religious issues into the topic. Make a different show, name it differently, and talk about religious issues all you want. But demanding all scientific publications (tv or not) also include all kinds of religious and creativist ideas as well is plainly idiotic. If you feel offended by that view, then at least you know how other people feel when you demand them to be fed religious issues everywhere they turn. And that comes from a person (yes, me) who has been regularly going to church since early childhood. Religion has its place, and I don't believe Cosmos is that. Neither is our children's biology class for that matter.
Do I agree? I've been using AStudio since the first preview came out after I/O, and after using it for 5 minutes it became clear to me that I'll never go back to frustrate myself with eclipse, ever. I don't mean to offend to good people who develop eclipse, but the damn thing gave me so many headaches over the time I had to use it, that dropping it felt like recovering from a long illness, honestly. Of course, there are lots of people who like it, obviously I'm not one of them. Regarding AStudio, if you didn't try it up to now, I think it's time, since it really matured from its first preview release, and while there can be some big changes between updates causing some minor trouble, it's already pretty good, and I think it's pretty clear it'll be the best IDE for android development.
It'll take you some time to switch from eclipse though, getting used to doing things a bit differently, so don't plan to do it overnight. First I kept using eclipse for existing projects, and using AS for new ones, then at some point I moved everything to AS and never looked back.
"This is good news for replicating experiments, building on past results, and science in general."
It is, unless the data can't be made "publicly available, without restriction" (very important emph. added), in which case you can't publish there. Yes, there are others, but demanding dropping all restrictions in all cases is simply an approach blind to reality. Also, if they demand so, they must provide free storage, which in some cases could range to multiple gb of data - and you won't want to pay for indefinite storage of large datasets, for certain.
Also, I wish to repeat my hatred towards the kind of open access publication methods most (if not all) major sci outlets use, namely charging the author many thousands of USD/EUR for publication, costs which most grants don't cover (e.g. my institute mandates open access publications, but of course they don't provide the financial resources to do so). This in turn shifts the focus, since now it's in the best interest of a publisher to accept as many as they can (keep the money flowing), instead of accepting the best ones and get the money from interested readers (and yes, if it's good, they come). Of course politician-scientists like the publicity they get from folks for trying to 'set science free'. I just wish they'd do a bit more thinking, they are scientists after all (or so they claim to be).
"Calling that "multi-user" is stretching it a little..."
Well, do what I do, each user can use the portable version, self-contained and easily movable to wherever they want to store it. And you just need to copy the database file over to the android, etc. clients. I checked other solutions, but there's just no other that is offline + easy to move, port and backup + cheap (free is pretty cheap).
"Compare this to the engineers who aren't as strong, and use the opportunity to move up as a way to get their voice heard."
No need to go very far, most of us experience this every day. And suffer the consequences. Also, these people are often good survivors as well, masters in shifting the blame and pointing fingers when they cause trouble, never admitting their fault. Like the best politicians.
"People get angry at Glass. They get angry at you for wearing Glass. They talk about you openly. It inspires the most aggressive of passive aggression.... Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face." [emph. added]
I agree and disagree with many of the above statements, but overall, I just think he simply doesn't get it.
People start talking about you openly because, hello, you are there with a device that can record their every action and every word they say, and you wear the device knowing what it can do, and without caring about whether other people like that or not. So if you allow yourself the liberty to disregard everyone else, why would you expect to be treated any differently? Maybe they think talking about you will make you stop, since for legal reasons they might not have any other way to stop you at most public spaces - besides common sense and basic social etiquette which you might consider learning about sometime.
And yes, wearing it might set you apart, but not because we might think you are 'special', or that Google thought you're 'special', but because it makes an obvious statement that you don't care about other people's opinion of being monitored and recorded without notice, which makes you a jerk (at least).
When meeting with GGlass-wearing people, I ask them to put it away while having a conversation. If they don't, then I shouldn't be talking to them anyway.
I'd like to make mandatory to post the age of a submitter alongside any 'news' item. Why? Because if the poster of this item is a 10 year old, then I'd say OK, someone getting into the game is looking around, good job. However, I don't think this is the case here, I even thought first that it was a joke, which it doesn't seem so. I'd suggest redirecting noobies into other forums instead of posting their totally useless submissions on/.
"Ever since tablets got popular, it's been almost impossible to find a decent notebook."
So right. There are some good ones, but much less to choose from then we could a few years ago. Thats why I'm happy I got an xps13 when it came out, still using it, especially when I'm travelling since I'm much more productive with it than with any tablet. I just hope that when I'll have to ditch it there will still be some decent notebooks to pick from (I'm not too optimistic though).
Slashdot Mirror
"the Outdated TI-84 Plus"
:) I guess it's more nostalgia at this point for me, but still, these things were/are quite great. Yes, pricey, but I don't mind paying some extra for a tool that lasts forever (and they seemingly do).
That's stupid: it's not outdated, it's just old, but nevertheless, it works quite well. I still have my 83, haven't used it for many years now, but still check the batteries in it from time to time to be sure it'll never die
" each user would have to pay about ã140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue"
:)) I wouldn't mind seeing some of them disappear, they are no friends of mine, that's for sure.
This sounds crazy, I hope someone realizes that. "Lost revenue" in a businness which only has any revenue at all, because soeone somewhere thought that choking the Internet in a tide of ads must be a good businness model... "Losing" that "revenue" would be lost to those companies who built on this idiotic assumption, also this businness is one of those who drive the whole web into sh*t in the long run.The Internet would function fine, their only problem is that they've grown used to the high revenue stream and reducing or losing it would hurt them. But saying that they couldn't live with a reduced ad revenue and they'd need to push all that revenue's source onto customers to survive is also idiotic - who says they need to have the level of revenue they actually have, or that they actually need to survive at all?
While I can understand T-mob. in this case, they - and others as well - could just do what my mobile internet provider in Europe (not T-mob.) does: I got a data package with 10GB of monthly limit with all the constraints (e.g., no torrent use) for average use, but from midnight to 8:00am in the same package they give a separate 100GB monthly allowance without any restrictions at all (and at LTE speed). This way they can force the heavy users out of the more crowded intervals, and everyone can be happy. Oh, the best part, the whole thing costs only ~$20/month....
My view of university education (having an MSc, a separate BSc, and a PhD) has always been that up until MSc (or until BSc, that very much depends on the country and on the followed traditions of education) the point is to get a fairly diverse _introduction_ into as many related [to your main subject] topics as possible, from people who are somewhat knowledgeable in the area, with more deeper knowledge in a lower number of specific areas. Not to make you a jack-of-all-trades in CS for example, but to prepare you to know where to do and where to look and where to start if you'll require deeper knowledge in some other area of your field than the one in which you got deeper intro earlier. That, and survival, i.e., get you acquainted with an environment where you don't only have to learn and be good in one specific topic, but be able to quickly pick up superficial and sometimes deeper knowledge in a related field as well, and be able to produce some results in a short time period. Plus, add the networking possibilities, the opportunity to meet people and gather connections for your later professional life (if you get lucky). You don't get these if you get your degree by doing online courses and from libraries.
Given the above, I don't think longish courses are doomed, they have their places, but one has to have the ability to judge which ones do, retain them, and complement them with some others which have shorter periods and get you more diversified knowledge, which don't necessarily require face-to-face presence or on-site experience. They have to find the proper balance.
I wouldn't support to give total control in the hand of the students when preparing their courses and modules, since that might result in a too diverse graduate pool - some which have very narrow and deeper knowledge, and some who only have very shallow knowledge in several areas but none actually usable for anything. They simply don't have the necessary experience to be their own guides.
Hehh :) while I agree, I can't easily place my version in the list, so here it goes: I'd like it to not be bigger than a regular watch, to have looks closer to some jewelry than some nerdy toy thingy (i.e., no plastic, not rectangular), to be waterproof (at least to the extent as regular waterproof watches are), and the battery to last at least 24 hours straight (normally don't need that much, but I'm also thinking about long flights, e.g. LHR-SIN-SYD).
I don't even care if it's just a 'dumb' watch relaying every and each function and command to the phone and displaying notifications, don't need it to be any smarter than that, but until the above properties are met, I couldn't care less.
Yeah, rumors are above $200 [1] so good luck with that.
I've been wearing watches all my life, and no phone could change my habit of checking the time on my wrist. The first thing I'd expect from any watch (smart or not) is to last at least a semi-comfortable 4-6 weeks on a charge. I just want to use it more than I charge it, I don't think that's unfair to ask, and be able to go on extended trips without worrying that I won't be able to tell the freaking time.
Also, I'd never want a smartwatch that's dumb - i.e., it doesn't really do anything, it's just a clunky extension of your phone... thanks, but keep it.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/5...
If it were an add-on, I'd have nothing against it. Do not integrate unnecessary crap into the browser, history has made it clear it's not going to end well.
"human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy."
Very roughly, IMHO, believing in someting based on available provable facts, data and information stands closer to science, and believing in something even without (or despite of) them stands closer to religion [*]. However, without definitive proof for the quoted statement, if only yes-no can be chosen one might answer 'no' even when not being a religious fanatic. Thus, I'd say not asking the question is a good compromise (vs. starting yet another religion-science debate).
That said, the above question could've been left to be part of the test, if formulated more correctly [i.e. scientifically, yes], e.g. including something like 'based on currently available scientific data and information, human beings, as we know them today, likely developed/originated from earlier species of animals' - or something similar, you hopefully you get my point.
"the modern Web does not incentivize quality"
No, people do. And it shows. Enough said.
If it's J.J. Abrams, then the central theme will be around time travel. Maybe Luke will become evil and travel back in time to kill himself. There you have it :P
"a novel 3:2 aspect ratio"
Yeah, it's so invigorating to see what novelties this new age of innovation in computing produces.
Next they will present the novel larger version of it, that you can put on your desk for viewing stuff.
"'problem' was on the list as well"
:))
Well, as everyone knows, there are no problems, only challenges
Or a rather huge rock of salt. If lots of people are interested in a subject, create pages that link to pages dealing with it, tweet about it, post about it, etc, that will - or should, at least - create a change in ranking, regardless of it being about politicians, or snakes (oh, sorry, they just might be the same :P). Calling the changes in rankings that reflect people's interest - or lack of it - about a certain subject 'influencing' sounds to me very largely misinterpreted. Anyway, if some people can really be influenced by the rankings of a search engine, that's more a testament of those people's intellect or ignorance, than anything else. Plus, the numbers in the mentioned study, and how they were obtained, can't convince me of any 'science' behind them, let alone make me even consider their significance - if any. Especially this one: 'Biased search rankings also changed the extent to which participants indicated they trust the candidates' - which, to me at least, simply sounds crazy stupid.
I know sleep loss and/or sleeping for unregular length and time can lead to all kinds of problems, but since I can't even remember when I've slept more than 6 hours at a time, and I have to pull all-nighters from time to time, and I'm still alive and kicking, I have to say I believe that eating habits (type and quantity) and regular exercising can help a lot in balancing the scale. Of course, people having circulatory, blood pressure or heart problems might have a different story to tell.
They can demand all they want. What I demand is, that if a show is supposed to present scientific results about what we know about the universe at this point, then it should not feed religious issues into the topic. Make a different show, name it differently, and talk about religious issues all you want. But demanding all scientific publications (tv or not) also include all kinds of religious and creativist ideas as well is plainly idiotic. If you feel offended by that view, then at least you know how other people feel when you demand them to be fed religious issues everywhere they turn. And that comes from a person (yes, me) who has been regularly going to church since early childhood. Religion has its place, and I don't believe Cosmos is that. Neither is our children's biology class for that matter.
Do I agree? I've been using AStudio since the first preview came out after I/O, and after using it for 5 minutes it became clear to me that I'll never go back to frustrate myself with eclipse, ever. I don't mean to offend to good people who develop eclipse, but the damn thing gave me so many headaches over the time I had to use it, that dropping it felt like recovering from a long illness, honestly. Of course, there are lots of people who like it, obviously I'm not one of them. Regarding AStudio, if you didn't try it up to now, I think it's time, since it really matured from its first preview release, and while there can be some big changes between updates causing some minor trouble, it's already pretty good, and I think it's pretty clear it'll be the best IDE for android development.
It'll take you some time to switch from eclipse though, getting used to doing things a bit differently, so don't plan to do it overnight. First I kept using eclipse for existing projects, and using AS for new ones, then at some point I moved everything to AS and never looked back.
"This is good news for replicating experiments, building on past results, and science in general."
It is, unless the data can't be made "publicly available, without restriction" (very important emph. added), in which case you can't publish there. Yes, there are others, but demanding dropping all restrictions in all cases is simply an approach blind to reality. Also, if they demand so, they must provide free storage, which in some cases could range to multiple gb of data - and you won't want to pay for indefinite storage of large datasets, for certain.
Also, I wish to repeat my hatred towards the kind of open access publication methods most (if not all) major sci outlets use, namely charging the author many thousands of USD/EUR for publication, costs which most grants don't cover (e.g. my institute mandates open access publications, but of course they don't provide the financial resources to do so). This in turn shifts the focus, since now it's in the best interest of a publisher to accept as many as they can (keep the money flowing), instead of accepting the best ones and get the money from interested readers (and yes, if it's good, they come). Of course politician-scientists like the publicity they get from folks for trying to 'set science free'. I just wish they'd do a bit more thinking, they are scientists after all (or so they claim to be).
" cited reliability problems with Windows and lower licensing costs for the switch to the classic realtime OS"
Just say it, there's no shame in it: qnx is better. I'd welcome the change even if it were more expensive.
Well, come back when you find a network security guy who accomplished more then Einstein.
"Calling that "multi-user" is stretching it a little..."
Well, do what I do, each user can use the portable version, self-contained and easily movable to wherever they want to store it. And you just need to copy the database file over to the android, etc. clients. I checked other solutions, but there's just no other that is offline + easy to move, port and backup + cheap (free is pretty cheap).
"Compare this to the engineers who aren't as strong, and use the opportunity to move up as a way to get their voice heard."
No need to go very far, most of us experience this every day. And suffer the consequences. Also, these people are often good survivors as well, masters in shifting the blame and pointing fingers when they cause trouble, never admitting their fault. Like the best politicians.
"But when the 'expert' turns out to be the wrong person how do you tell the client (or boss) that you just can't work with that individual?"
Here's how: Boss, I just can't work with that individual.
You're welcome.
"People get angry at Glass. They get angry at you for wearing Glass. They talk about you openly. It inspires the most aggressive of passive aggression. ... Wearing Glass separates you. It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the âoeexplorerâ program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected). Glass is a class divide on your face." [emph. added]
I agree and disagree with many of the above statements, but overall, I just think he simply doesn't get it.
People start talking about you openly because, hello, you are there with a device that can record their every action and every word they say, and you wear the device knowing what it can do, and without caring about whether other people like that or not. So if you allow yourself the liberty to disregard everyone else, why would you expect to be treated any differently? Maybe they think talking about you will make you stop, since for legal reasons they might not have any other way to stop you at most public spaces - besides common sense and basic social etiquette which you might consider learning about sometime.
And yes, wearing it might set you apart, but not because we might think you are 'special', or that Google thought you're 'special', but because it makes an obvious statement that you don't care about other people's opinion of being monitored and recorded without notice, which makes you a jerk (at least).
When meeting with GGlass-wearing people, I ask them to put it away while having a conversation. If they don't, then I shouldn't be talking to them anyway.
I'd like to make mandatory to post the age of a submitter alongside any 'news' item. Why? Because if the poster of this item is a 10 year old, then I'd say OK, someone getting into the game is looking around, good job. However, I don't think this is the case here, I even thought first that it was a joke, which it doesn't seem so. I'd suggest redirecting noobies into other forums instead of posting their totally useless submissions on /.
"Ever since tablets got popular, it's been almost impossible to find a decent notebook."
So right. There are some good ones, but much less to choose from then we could a few years ago. Thats why I'm happy I got an xps13 when it came out, still using it, especially when I'm travelling since I'm much more productive with it than with any tablet. I just hope that when I'll have to ditch it there will still be some decent notebooks to pick from (I'm not too optimistic though).