The key word was *automatically* – although it is not always clear in the press what you are supposed to do. So confusion will abound. No surprise there.
In the end, you can still use PGP, but you have to do more work to be safe. I think, if you understand how to use PGP to begin with, you can probably help yourself for now. If not, well....
In your terms: keep your locks. But disable the remote locking feature (take the battery out) and don't use your app to lock your house - use your good old key you stored away in a box a long time ago. Yes, you will have to do actual work. And yes, someone can still break in - probably through the window. Or by kicking in the door...
What you want at the helm of NASA is someone who is enthusiastic about the agency, who knows how to schmooze the right people (especially Congress – and yes, you can take this as a pun, presently), who can advertise NASA, who respects the input from the scientific community (he said he would do that), who does not get too much in the way of the inner workings but recognises when NASA screws up and helps set the ship right (yes, NASA screws up more than you think).
Being a scientist is most of the time not a good qualification in itself – those guys sit already one level down. Listening to and accepting advice from scientists (internal and external), on the other hand, is vital for that position. You also do not want a bean counter (if that's all they do), or someone who does not care.
Even if I don't agree with Bridenstine, he is definitely enthusiastic about the job and really wanted it. NASA administrator is not the jumping board to become the next president (or senator). Bridenstine is fairly young. Wanting to lead a 20+ billion USD agency that is full of people smarter than you is a bit nuts. But, because of that, it's also the #1 federal agency in terms of employee satisfaction, and it's still "cool".
NASA could have done a lot worse. This will be nothing like the EPA or CDC, for example. I would predict that NASA will mostly continue on its path (which is having to do too much with too little money to do it). Maybe it even helps that he comes from Congress. Congress holds the purse strings, and one of the worst problems of NASA, which needs to engage in long term projects, is the eternal budget uncertainty.
I'd give him a chance. Just imagine it would not be him but Rick Perry...
Not that this is overly practical or ultimately secure. But the problem is that the *original* can now easily be altered by too many evil monkeys (not that this is a surprise).
One counter measure that offers some–if not even nearly perfect–protection would be to go back to analog/analogue. Sure, photographic film has always been retouched and altered for ill reasons (seems all totalitarian regimes are experts in that – hey, Russia...). But altering movie film is fairly painful, especially on smaller formats (lots of really small pictures like Super 8). And at least right now it would have to be done by hand.
I have no doubt that technologies can be created to alter photographic movie film automatically, and maybe even do so convincingly (i.e., scrutiny of the original film does not reveal the changes). And you could certainly copy a film (or digitize and "re-film") and inject changes in the copying process. But doing all this takes more and different (!!) hardware, skill, and general resources than are required to perform video editing of digital film files on a computer. It certainly takes much longer. At some point you can fake almost anything, some kind of trust and/or "system" would be needed to create a reasonably well "non-faked" film. Still, not entirely impossible.
Not that all this is a long term solution. But I have been wondering for a while whether some photo journalists would go back to shooting analog film just so that they can more believably claim that what they show has not been doctored with.
I shoot film (again) because it makes me do photography. Digital cameras let me take pictures. I do not say this to flaunt a snobbish attitude, it's just how it works for me. Film is cumbersome, in many ways limiting, but also strangely liberating and most certainly easier to archive long term. And it takes more effort to fake.
Independent book stores can do well, Amazon or not. They can do very well indeed if they serve the local community, if they are book lovers/book worms (at least to some reasonable degree) and not just mere brainless peddlers of books. You don't need a large inventory to make this a good experience. Provide a good user/customer experience, add value. Don't sell candles. I actually think good board games are ok, but then know your games, too.
Go, for example, to the Book People in Austin, Texas, in the U.S. (hey, this is slashdot, stop by when you go to SXS next time). It's actually a rather large store, by square footage, but the number of different books is not all that large by comparison. A fair percentage of the books there have been read by staff and they talk about these books. Lot's of hand-written cards telling you about the books, and all those books they recommend/have read are displayed with their front page, not their spines. In fact, I'd say that close to 1/2 their display space shows the fronts of books on the shelves, not their spines. Tells you how many fewer books per linear yard of shelf space they present. You'll find a good book every time you go. I do. (I don't live there, but I visit the store when I do go.). I know, this is Austin, and Austin is weird. Still, loose the pink hair and some of your tattoos/piercing, and this works wherever you want this to work.
In Germany one of the most well-known chains (Hugendubel) went almost bankrupt when they went the way of B&N (or more precisely, Borders). The next generation took over the leadership of the chain, and it now looks like they will actually make it and do well again. Why? Store respond to the local needs, stores got more independence, they started selling books knowledgeably again, in fact, they make their new stores smaller again (you guessed it, fewer candles, cards and videos), etc. etc. Yes, they all have a café now (why not??), which they own and operate (no chain Joe there).
Same with Blackwell in the UK. Although the Oxford store is crazy large and friggin' amazing... Same problems here not too long ago, and a very similar solution. Amazon does not need to kill your business. But you *do* need to adapt.
But people are right: if management sucks, they will take the business down sooner or later. Which is why B&N may well die –or rediscover its roots in NYC. We shall see, I wish them luck. I hope they reinvent themselves, which they can if they fire management and hire people who really *want* to sell books the right way.
BTW, I always laugh at all the comments about Amazon. Don't get me wrong, they are too large, the know too much, they suck in many parts, yada yada yada. All true. Nonetheless, we buy a lot at Amazon. When do we do it? The price has to be right, it has to be much easier than to drive around town to get the item I need, and there is no need whatsoever that I inspect/try on/evaluate the item in person before I buy it. Which is one of the reasons why I basically stopped buying books at Amazon. They treat books like crap. Books arrive damaged so often that it is not funny. On top of that, Amazon has stopped being all that cheap to begin with. No books, no electronics, no clothing (God no!), no groceries (sorry, that's just plain silly), and many others. Nice to have Amazon if you break a leg, though. I often wind up at specialty retailers (brick and mortar or online) instead. I go window shopping at Amazon a lot and then buy elsewhere (the reverse of what many stores complain about...). And yes, you can do this anonymously if you care to, even if that means you get a different price than the next Jane doing it – but that is true no matter what you do. Amazon games us. Game back as much as you can.
On a side: if Amazon deploys high end AI to make shopping recommendations to me, I'd rather rely on the stray cat my partner feeds outside at the moment. Can't be worse than what the cat picks. Amazon's recommendations are just so utterly, utterly useless.
If you are a nerd/engineer, it *is* fun to see the tech of their delivery chain in the warehouses.
A few months back I read in a European newspaper (sorry, forgot where) that Tesla is experiencing an unsurprising problem. They transition from manufactory (small series production) to industrial manufacturing – for cars, which makes the problem worse. In essence, all "traditional" car factories have spent years (if not decades) devleoping and honing their production processes. Building a car 1,000's of times at a consisten high quality (fit and finish, let alone reliability) is a difficult business. It was said that the car companies felt almost sorry for Tesla, because they all know how hard it is. They also were confident that Tesla would figure it out. To me the question is really, will they still be around by the time they have figured it out? With Musk leading (and his deep pockets), maybe.
Think of it that way: Tesla is a bit like Rolls Royce. They have a production line, they can produce nice, high margin cars (ok, maybe frumpy, overpriced, and all that, but they are still "nice"), and now they want to produce 1,000's of car a week. Virtually nothing they do now would scale to those proportions, it's like starting form scratch. Tesla has been in a similar position. They have come a long way. And they have a long way to go. I'd give them a 50% chance they make it.
BTW, if they fail, they have at least served humanity by jump starting the switch to electric cars. And I would not be surprised that, even if their car business ultimately may fail, their battery business may not.
At any rate, I would not buy one now. I drive a lot, my vehicles need to last 300,00 miles/12 years, and that does not seem like a winning proposition with a Tesla at the moment. Although the Tesla range would be good enough for me, so it's a bit of a shame. I'll reconsider when the first Tesla 3 hit 200,000 miles.
I use a Fitbit Charge 2. Why? Because I one of my kids wanted one, so I tried it too. We liked it becuase the battery lasts a couple of days (convenience), it tracks sleep (as questionable as some of the conclusions may be), and you can track hikes via GPS/phone (there may be better solutions, but hey). Did it make me healthier? Yes and no. - I am more conscious about getting enough sleep. I think the Fitbit underestimates my sleep (I am not usually awake 1 hour at night as it claims). - I walk around more at work. I do my 250 steps per hour most hours, and that's a good thing. Not for health/fitness, but to rest my eyes and let my brain rest (I usually walk around the building once). - it's nice to find out that some things I do actually produce a lot of steps => do more of those. - it was nice and easy to check progress when we trained for a long summer hike. - it's ok as a workout tracker in my case. I mostly rely on heart rate to see whether I did an effective workout or not. Automatic tracking does not work well enough for me (I box, row, and hike, once in a while ride a bike), and I often forget to start it manually.
Still, when things got tough and I had no time to work out for 3 months, I did not get heathier - but at least I tore myself off my work every hour and I slept enough most of the time. That has been worth it for me.
But in the end, it is up to you to get healthier. I changed my diet (not drastically: more fiber, no more sugar, limited carbs) and that did as much to make me healthier than the Fitbit.
Advice: buy the fitness tracker that measures what you really want to measure, and that is convenient for your life style. I really need the ability to run on multiple days w/o recharging, and I really wanted to track my sleep. Don't care about REM vs deep vs light, just shut eye.
BTW, I did not wear any watch since high school, I still pull out my phone to check time, not my tracker. I think they all make lousy watches (a watch that runs for a day or a week only???), so I kinda refuse to use it as such. Actually, I wish I would not have to wear it around my wrist.
Depends on your definition of "soon". I don't plan on sticking around for it. But you are right, it's overdue - and it would last about as long as China is old now. Wouldn't worry about this at the moment unless your next research grant depends on it...
First suggestion: Python. Lot's of nice stuff for science (NumPy, SciPy), lots of other goodies, easy to learn, many people to ask or places to get help from. Plus you can explore data interactively ("Yes Wedesday, play with your data!").
Beyond that: CERN uses a lot of Java (sorry folks, true), they have good (and fast) tools I do a project right now where I am using Jython since it is supported by the main (Java) software I have to use. I like jhepwork/SCaVis quite a bit, if you are into plotting stuff on Java.
If you have extra free time and want to learn how to program well? I'd learn something like Smalltalk (for OOP concepts) and/or Haskell (functional programming). Scientists are often lousy programmers because they often do not learn programming properly, and/or the language allows them to get away with bad programming (I know, every language allows bad programmers to write bad code, but some make it easier than others).
So, stick with Python, it works really well, is modern, and has good support. Plus you can read your code in 5 years time...
What do I program in? Python (and Jython), Perl, C, IDL (yickes!), Smalltalk, Matlab, Mathematica. I know some Lisp, but that's just for fun. And whatever allows me to load sketches on an Arduino. I like Python (get's stuff done) and Smalltalk (works actually like I think - passing messages between objects).
Whatever the role of father and son may be in the end, one thing does not surprise me:
There is a lot of "common knowledge" and many a "generally known fact" in many science fields that, under close examination, turn out to be conjecture or anecdotal evidence (= science lore) rather than proven fact. How do I know? I work in science myself, and I fell in that trap more than once.
That's not a sign of bad science, but rather of intellectual laziness, maybe of an occasional overzealous reverence to the grand figures in a given speciality, or sometimes even ignorance. Working in science means never to forget to ask "why?", even in places where the answer may seem so obvious.
Maybe it is a sing of the times (lots of data, pressure to publish and write/win proposals among them) that scientists don't have enough time any more to sit down and think - or at least they think they do not have that time.
But to me "missing the obvious" also offers hope: Even in the most obvious places there may be, and usually are, treasures to be found. So it's not always necessary to run after the latest science fad. Everywhere there may be cool things to discover, right under your nose.
Short answer: Producing hearing aids is not super cheap, but we are also getting massively overcharged. (So, small lot size production costs may play a role.)
When one of my kids needed aids, our ENT said: "If you know somebody in Hong Kong, or someone who travels there, have them buy the aids for you there. They are produced in Asia, and you can basically buy them at cost. All name brands, all genuine. The companies just mark them up that much when they sell them here."
I looked into it (have an uncle who flies to that area twice a year), and boy, would you be surprised! Markup of the actual devices when coming to Western markets (wholesale) is is around 100%-150%, and when adding services (which means fitting/programming them) 150%-200%, or even more. So, if you buy two digital ones, it may still be cheaper to vacation over there and get them yourself. Or pay up to triple price at home. I just checked - still true.
I wound up not doing that because I could get the service for free - so I got them wholesale (and did not bother my uncle who is a great businessman but rather technophobe - not the person to have buy expensive electronic equipment for you). I am sure my health insurance would not let me do even that, but at that time I had to pay for them myself anyways.
So, that was the advice from a well-connected and well-regarded ENT, and I found it to be true.
Recently started Ting ( http://www.ting.com/ , from venerable http://www.tucows.com/ ) is an interesting MVNO. Since it is backed by an "old" company, I expect them to stick around as long as it works out for them in the first place.
You pay what you use each month depending on what tier you fall in separately for voice, texts, and data. Each device you have registered is $6 a month, but you have to buy your device from them at pretty much full cost. But frankly, over time that comes out much cheaper (I have been doing this for many years - I tend not to break my phones, though).
Works great if you have variable usage patterns and are not a really heavy user. Their data is a bit expensive, but I have read that they are working it and point their fingers at Spring charging them too much to begin with. Use home/free other Wifi if you can, and it's all good. No iPhone, but Samsung S3.
Yes, I know it's Sprint, which many don't like. But so far (joined right when they started) it has worked great, and I have cut my monthly cell phone expenses (3 lines) to $60-$80, half of what I paid before. We are mid-level users, using home-wifi if we can.
Cellphone addicts are, of course, better served by an all-unlimited plan from the big firms. I just don't see the point of supporting their profit margins that much.
I would not be surprised to hear that they accidentally screwed up their systems all by themselves and are now just too afraid/ashamed (rightfully so) to admit that they had been really, really, really stupid. "Hey, we can't run a website (let alone a secure one?!), but give us all your money anyway". Next thing they will charge you for logging into their site. Just wait...
First a disclaimer: in my household we have to buy high-powered BTE every 4 years or so, so I am close to the subject.
So, let's see:
First off, we should discern between medically useful features and convenience features, realizing that there is no sharp line between them. We buy fully digital, high-power BTE aids with complex programming capabilities, and those aids (which are pretty much top of the line when it comes to their intended function, i.e., help the wearer hear as well as possible) do not cost $8000 a pair. Not even close - try about half that. We forego bluetooth (but not FM), a gazillion programs, microscopic sizes the size of a fly head (not available of you are profoundly deaf anyways) and God knows what else for pooling our resources (= $$$) into maximum power and amplification/programming capabilities. I suppose we get the Ferrari, not the Lamborghini, if you wish. A lot of cost goes into stuff you may not need (but may want just as much as you want an iPad you probably don't need).
Second, there is significant markup when you buy retail - because you cannot just buy the aid, you also buy the service to have the aid fitted to you. That cost is never broken out, but you would be surprised how much your audiologist might charge you there. Definitely an eye opener. Seems a bit like a cartel, really.
Third, I will give hearing aid companies that they (at least some of them) do a lot of R&D. As I said, we need to get cutting edge aids, and so far I have seen significant improvements over the years. Now that may change (soon??), thoguh I have to say there is still plenty to be done to make BTE aids better performing. Same goes for convenience, but I do not want to pay that price.
Fourth, there seems to be an uptick in insurance companies to pay for aids (ours has not in the past). At least for children and young adults I think it is flat out a crime not to pay for aids.
Fifth: If you really want to be upset you should ask what the production cost of those aids is, and what the resulting markup is. Would want you to become a maker of BTE aids in an instant. But, fo course, that is where capitalism sort of fails: this is a very high entry market. To play, you need to invest a lot of money and a lot of time. And once you made it, you can fleece (ahem, charge) your customers accordingly.
So, are they too expensive? A lot of them are, but if you are smart about it, you can save thousands of dollars or euros (the story is identical in Europe) and still get the aid you want with full warranty. BTW, I heard they are (much) cheaper in Asia.
I do agree,however, in that I wonder whether the "digital gains" are now starting to peter off, and the main advances will be in software only. Well, I suppose I will find out again next year...
But I have to give it to Zuckerberg. I am logging into Facebook much more often now - even if it is only to change my (new) privacy settings, again, and again, and again...
If I remember correctly, six months ago it was to cost 5 billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) for a 2014 launch date. If the launch slips (and believe me, it will), you can add a couple of $100M (that's several $100,000,000) before all is said and done. Just look at the Mars Science Laboratory rover to learn how it is done. $64M is peanuts when it comes to that.
Well, your uses of Facebook are all very good (same here, BTW). And, as is being pointed out by other posts, the fact that we all (typically) sign on with our real names has helped foster these uses.
From Facebook's perspective, though, this is a still a problem - it does not create any revenue. And revenue is what they need. And they will do pretty much anything they can do to make money, eventually. Anyway, I digress.
There is one point the article actually does not make, and an ironic one at that. Goldman Sachs, the epitome of a useless company (what tangible product do they really ultimately create other than wealth for themselves?) financing Facebook, which, economically speaking, is equally useless. I am not saying it's useless to you and me as a nice tool to stay/get in touch with people But economic value? Just factor in all those hours lost at work by people playing FarmVille...
Facebook has it's value (pun intended). But the all-emcompassing internet platform it strives to be?? Not a comforting thought, and likely (hopefully!) not a realistic one, either.
What is being said in the article is almost verbatim true for physics as well. Poorly taught, even more poorly understood by almost anyone (including teachers).
Mathematics is much more fundamental than physics, no doubt. Very good points are made here. But (ironically?), you could replace "math" with "physics" in the article and most of it would be true just as well.
I don't hold hope that especially Americans will ever get this, though, either for math, or for other STEM fields. Because it's "too hard". Being ignorant is just too damn easy, if you ask me.
Heck, I'd be happy if people at least would get math.
I don't have the feeling that ADHD is being swept under the rug. Quite the contrary. If your kid happens to have have something other than ADHD, it is now that kid that is being swept under the rug because it does not have the condition "en vogue".
Unfortunately that is my personal experience. This does neither do justice to the kids who really have ADHD and need help (I am not surprised if there are are many misdiagnosed cases) nor to the kids who have any other kind of condition or need, whatever they may be.
I do see parents, teachers, and schools all to easily (and often willingly) choose the convenient way of just handing out a pill without really trying to find what out is going on and what the best way is to address the situation. That often requires work, and lots of it. If your specific problem is easy to address, count your blessings - not all of us are so lucky.
It may well be that ADHD is misunderstood. Welcome to the club. But frankly, I get the feeling that most people don't understand what a "normal" childhood should/could look like, either.
Well, there are the "International Traffic in Arms Regulations" that regulate the export not only of defense articles (those seem obvious), but also of hardware that can be used to create space hardware (launchers, rockets, scientific experiments, the Space station, basically anything NASA builds and puts into space, including certain software). Export to any foreign national other than US citizens and US resident aliens is illegal without proper license. Violations carry heavy fines. To me working on a NASA (hardware) project and using a Google email account is probably highly problematic if not just plain stupid. So, in other words, any (!) country other than the US for those purposes is the wrong country.
Say what you want about Lomborg's books (and there is lot to say, no doubt), but there is at least one point he makes that is worth thinking about more carefully:
Wether we know or not how global warming really works, to me the bigger issue is that we are rapidly depleting resources and polluting/screwing up our planet - on so many levels that it is not funny. We have been doing so much crap at such a rapid pace that Lomborg is probably right when he says that we simply won't be able to pay our way out of this mess. And that includes all nations, not just the rich and/or polluting ones.
As a result, you have to do two things: reduce doing crap (again, on many levels), and pay for those solutions to reduce/reverse bad developments that make the most impact. And solutions making the most impact may not necessarily be the "feel good" solutions.
Even though this may seem wrong to many, adding some economic common sense to the whole debate (as Lomborg proposes) makes sense to me, if done right.
Frankly, I don't really care whether humankind is capable of changing the climate and generally screwing things up, because on a fundamental level I believe we simply should not. If we think/know that we are, we should get our act together and try the most effective ways of counteracting those developments. It will be hard. But we certainly know how not pollute etc., if we really wanted to.
Beyond that, the religious wars of who is right when and where really just bore me. All it does is giving people a reason not to do something sensible and productive. Such is humankind, I suppose...
"Privacy is no longer a social norm...". I suppose that's correct. Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it, among other things. But that's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice. Besides, those new "norms" can make for good entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
The key word was *automatically* – although it is not always clear in the press what you are supposed to do. So confusion will abound. No surprise there.
In the end, you can still use PGP, but you have to do more work to be safe. I think, if you understand how to use PGP to begin with, you can probably help yourself for now. If not, well ....
In your terms: keep your locks. But disable the remote locking feature (take the battery out) and don't use your app to lock your house - use your good old key you stored away in a box a long time ago. Yes, you will have to do actual work. And yes, someone can still break in - probably through the window. Or by kicking in the door ...
We haven't owned a TV nor "watched TV" in a decade (was a 15" blue night special, at that). Same with streaming.
We simply fail to see what is good, interesting, necessary or attractive about TV (or cable, or most other online shows and things you can watch).
All of us read, think, and talk instead. A bit like Fahrenheit 451 ...
What you want at the helm of NASA is someone who is enthusiastic about the agency, who knows how to schmooze the right people (especially Congress – and yes, you can take this as a pun, presently), who can advertise NASA, who respects the input from the scientific community (he said he would do that), who does not get too much in the way of the inner workings but recognises when NASA screws up and helps set the ship right (yes, NASA screws up more than you think).
Being a scientist is most of the time not a good qualification in itself – those guys sit already one level down. Listening to and accepting advice from scientists (internal and external), on the other hand, is vital for that position. You also do not want a bean counter (if that's all they do), or someone who does not care.
Even if I don't agree with Bridenstine, he is definitely enthusiastic about the job and really wanted it. NASA administrator is not the jumping board to become the next president (or senator). Bridenstine is fairly young. Wanting to lead a 20+ billion USD agency that is full of people smarter than you is a bit nuts. But, because of that, it's also the #1 federal agency in terms of employee satisfaction, and it's still "cool".
NASA could have done a lot worse. This will be nothing like the EPA or CDC, for example. I would predict that NASA will mostly continue on its path (which is having to do too much with too little money to do it). Maybe it even helps that he comes from Congress. Congress holds the purse strings, and one of the worst problems of NASA, which needs to engage in long term projects, is the eternal budget uncertainty.
I'd give him a chance. Just imagine it would not be him but Rick Perry ...
Not that this is overly practical or ultimately secure. But the problem is that the *original* can now easily be altered by too many evil monkeys (not that this is a surprise).
One counter measure that offers some–if not even nearly perfect–protection would be to go back to analog/analogue. Sure, photographic film has always been retouched and altered for ill reasons (seems all totalitarian regimes are experts in that – hey, Russia ...). But altering movie film is fairly painful, especially on smaller formats (lots of really small pictures like Super 8). And at least right now it would have to be done by hand.
I have no doubt that technologies can be created to alter photographic movie film automatically, and maybe even do so convincingly (i.e., scrutiny of the original film does not reveal the changes). And you could certainly copy a film (or digitize and "re-film") and inject changes in the copying process. But doing all this takes more and different (!!) hardware, skill, and general resources than are required to perform video editing of digital film files on a computer. It certainly takes much longer. At some point you can fake almost anything, some kind of trust and/or "system" would be needed to create a reasonably well "non-faked" film. Still, not entirely impossible.
Not that all this is a long term solution. But I have been wondering for a while whether some photo journalists would go back to shooting analog film just so that they can more believably claim that what they show has not been doctored with.
I shoot film (again) because it makes me do photography. Digital cameras let me take pictures. I do not say this to flaunt a snobbish attitude, it's just how it works for me. Film is cumbersome, in many ways limiting, but also strangely liberating and most certainly easier to archive long term. And it takes more effort to fake.
.. but probably will.
Couple of points:
Independent book stores can do well, Amazon or not. They can do very well indeed if they serve the local community, if they are book lovers/book worms (at least to some reasonable degree) and not just mere brainless peddlers of books. You don't need a large inventory to make this a good experience. Provide a good user/customer experience, add value. Don't sell candles. I actually think good board games are ok, but then know your games, too.
Go, for example, to the Book People in Austin, Texas, in the U.S. (hey, this is slashdot, stop by when you go to SXS next time). It's actually a rather large store, by square footage, but the number of different books is not all that large by comparison. A fair percentage of the books there have been read by staff and they talk about these books. Lot's of hand-written cards telling you about the books, and all those books they recommend/have read are displayed with their front page, not their spines. In fact, I'd say that close to 1/2 their display space shows the fronts of books on the shelves, not their spines. Tells you how many fewer books per linear yard of shelf space they present. You'll find a good book every time you go. I do. (I don't live there, but I visit the store when I do go.). I know, this is Austin, and Austin is weird. Still, loose the pink hair and some of your tattoos/piercing, and this works wherever you want this to work.
In Germany one of the most well-known chains (Hugendubel) went almost bankrupt when they went the way of B&N (or more precisely, Borders). The next generation took over the leadership of the chain, and it now looks like they will actually make it and do well again. Why? Store respond to the local needs, stores got more independence, they started selling books knowledgeably again, in fact, they make their new stores smaller again (you guessed it, fewer candles, cards and videos), etc. etc. Yes, they all have a café now (why not??), which they own and operate (no chain Joe there).
Same with Blackwell in the UK. Although the Oxford store is crazy large and friggin' amazing ... Same problems here not too long ago, and a very similar solution. Amazon does not need to kill your business. But you *do* need to adapt.
But people are right: if management sucks, they will take the business down sooner or later. Which is why B&N may well die –or rediscover its roots in NYC. We shall see, I wish them luck. I hope they reinvent themselves, which they can if they fire management and hire people who really *want* to sell books the right way.
BTW, I always laugh at all the comments about Amazon. Don't get me wrong, they are too large, the know too much, they suck in many parts, yada yada yada. All true. Nonetheless, we buy a lot at Amazon. When do we do it? The price has to be right, it has to be much easier than to drive around town to get the item I need, and there is no need whatsoever that I inspect/try on/evaluate the item in person before I buy it. Which is one of the reasons why I basically stopped buying books at Amazon. They treat books like crap. Books arrive damaged so often that it is not funny. On top of that, Amazon has stopped being all that cheap to begin with. No books, no electronics, no clothing (God no!), no groceries (sorry, that's just plain silly), and many others. Nice to have Amazon if you break a leg, though. I often wind up at specialty retailers (brick and mortar or online) instead. I go window shopping at Amazon a lot and then buy elsewhere (the reverse of what many stores complain about ...). And yes, you can do this anonymously if you care to, even if that means you get a different price than the next Jane doing it – but that is true no matter what you do. Amazon games us. Game back as much as you can.
On a side: if Amazon deploys high end AI to make shopping recommendations to me, I'd rather rely on the stray cat my partner feeds outside at the moment. Can't be worse than what the cat picks. Amazon's recommendations are just so utterly, utterly useless.
If you are a nerd/engineer, it *is* fun to see the tech of their delivery chain in the warehouses.
A few months back I read in a European newspaper (sorry, forgot where) that Tesla is experiencing an unsurprising problem. They transition from manufactory (small series production) to industrial manufacturing – for cars, which makes the problem worse. In essence, all "traditional" car factories have spent years (if not decades) devleoping and honing their production processes. Building a car 1,000's of times at a consisten high quality (fit and finish, let alone reliability) is a difficult business. It was said that the car companies felt almost sorry for Tesla, because they all know how hard it is. They also were confident that Tesla would figure it out. To me the question is really, will they still be around by the time they have figured it out? With Musk leading (and his deep pockets), maybe.
Think of it that way: Tesla is a bit like Rolls Royce. They have a production line, they can produce nice, high margin cars (ok, maybe frumpy, overpriced, and all that, but they are still "nice"), and now they want to produce 1,000's of car a week. Virtually nothing they do now would scale to those proportions, it's like starting form scratch. Tesla has been in a similar position. They have come a long way. And they have a long way to go. I'd give them a 50% chance they make it.
BTW, if they fail, they have at least served humanity by jump starting the switch to electric cars. And I would not be surprised that, even if their car business ultimately may fail, their battery business may not.
At any rate, I would not buy one now. I drive a lot, my vehicles need to last 300,00 miles/12 years, and that does not seem like a winning proposition with a Tesla at the moment. Although the Tesla range would be good enough for me, so it's a bit of a shame. I'll reconsider when the first Tesla 3 hit 200,000 miles.
I use a Fitbit Charge 2. Why? Because I one of my kids wanted one, so I tried it too. We liked it becuase the battery lasts a couple of days (convenience), it tracks sleep (as questionable as some of the conclusions may be), and you can track hikes via GPS/phone (there may be better solutions, but hey). Did it make me healthier? Yes and no.
- I am more conscious about getting enough sleep. I think the Fitbit underestimates my sleep (I am not usually awake 1 hour at night as it claims).
- I walk around more at work. I do my 250 steps per hour most hours, and that's a good thing. Not for health/fitness, but to rest my eyes and let my brain rest (I usually walk around the building once).
- it's nice to find out that some things I do actually produce a lot of steps => do more of those.
- it was nice and easy to check progress when we trained for a long summer hike.
- it's ok as a workout tracker in my case. I mostly rely on heart rate to see whether I did an effective workout or not. Automatic tracking does not work well enough for me (I box, row, and hike, once in a while ride a bike), and I often forget to start it manually.
Still, when things got tough and I had no time to work out for 3 months, I did not get heathier - but at least I tore myself off my work every hour and I slept enough most of the time. That has been worth it for me.
But in the end, it is up to you to get healthier. I changed my diet (not drastically: more fiber, no more sugar, limited carbs) and that did as much to make me healthier than the Fitbit.
Advice: buy the fitness tracker that measures what you really want to measure, and that is convenient for your life style. I really need the ability to run on multiple days w/o recharging, and I really wanted to track my sleep. Don't care about REM vs deep vs light, just shut eye.
BTW, I did not wear any watch since high school, I still pull out my phone to check time, not my tracker. I think they all make lousy watches (a watch that runs for a day or a week only???), so I kinda refuse to use it as such. Actually, I wish I would not have to wear it around my wrist.
Depends on your definition of "soon". I don't plan on sticking around for it. But you are right, it's overdue - and it would last about as long as China is old now. Wouldn't worry about this at the moment unless your next research grant depends on it ...
First suggestion: Python. Lot's of nice stuff for science (NumPy, SciPy), lots of other goodies, easy to learn, many people to ask or places to get help from. Plus you can explore data interactively ("Yes Wedesday, play with your data!").
Beyond that: CERN uses a lot of Java (sorry folks, true), they have good (and fast) tools I do a project right now where I am using Jython since it is supported by the main (Java) software I have to use. I like jhepwork/SCaVis quite a bit, if you are into plotting stuff on Java.
If you have extra free time and want to learn how to program well? I'd learn something like Smalltalk (for OOP concepts) and/or Haskell (functional programming). Scientists are often lousy programmers because they often do not learn programming properly, and/or the language allows them to get away with bad programming (I know, every language allows bad programmers to write bad code, but some make it easier than others).
So, stick with Python, it works really well, is modern, and has good support. Plus you can read your code in 5 years time ...
What do I program in? Python (and Jython), Perl, C, IDL (yickes!), Smalltalk, Matlab, Mathematica. I know some Lisp, but that's just for fun. And whatever allows me to load sketches on an Arduino. I like Python (get's stuff done) and Smalltalk (works actually like I think - passing messages between objects).
Use whatever works and you don't hate :-)
Whatever the role of father and son may be in the end, one thing does not surprise me:
There is a lot of "common knowledge" and many a "generally known fact" in many science fields that, under close examination, turn out to be conjecture or anecdotal evidence (= science lore) rather than proven fact. How do I know? I work in science myself, and I fell in that trap more than once.
That's not a sign of bad science, but rather of intellectual laziness, maybe of an occasional overzealous reverence to the grand figures in a given speciality, or sometimes even ignorance. Working in science means never to forget to ask "why?", even in places where the answer may seem so obvious.
Maybe it is a sing of the times (lots of data, pressure to publish and write/win proposals among them) that scientists don't have enough time any more to sit down and think - or at least they think they do not have that time.
But to me "missing the obvious" also offers hope: Even in the most obvious places there may be, and usually are, treasures to be found. So it's not always necessary to run after the latest science fad. Everywhere there may be cool things to discover, right under your nose.
Short answer: Producing hearing aids is not super cheap, but we are also getting massively overcharged. (So, small lot size production costs may play a role.)
When one of my kids needed aids, our ENT said: "If you know somebody in Hong Kong, or someone who travels there, have them buy the aids for you there. They are produced in Asia, and you can basically buy them at cost. All name brands, all genuine. The companies just mark them up that much when they sell them here."
I looked into it (have an uncle who flies to that area twice a year), and boy, would you be surprised! Markup of the actual devices when coming to Western markets (wholesale) is is around 100%-150%, and when adding services (which means fitting/programming them) 150%-200%, or even more. So, if you buy two digital ones, it may still be cheaper to vacation over there and get them yourself. Or pay up to triple price at home. I just checked - still true.
I wound up not doing that because I could get the service for free - so I got them wholesale (and did not bother my uncle who is a great businessman but rather technophobe - not the person to have buy expensive electronic equipment for you). I am sure my health insurance would not let me do even that, but at that time I had to pay for them myself anyways.
So, that was the advice from a well-connected and well-regarded ENT, and I found it to be true.
In the end: we get fleeced. Simple as that.
Recently started Ting ( http://www.ting.com/ , from venerable http://www.tucows.com/ ) is an interesting MVNO. Since it is backed by an "old" company, I expect them to stick around as long as it works out for them in the first place.
You pay what you use each month depending on what tier you fall in separately for voice, texts, and data. Each device you have registered is $6 a month, but you have to buy your device from them at pretty much full cost. But frankly, over time that comes out much cheaper (I have been doing this for many years - I tend not to break my phones, though).
Works great if you have variable usage patterns and are not a really heavy user. Their data is a bit expensive, but I have read that they are working it and point their fingers at Spring charging them too much to begin with. Use home/free other Wifi if you can, and it's all good. No iPhone, but Samsung S3.
Yes, I know it's Sprint, which many don't like. But so far (joined right when they started) it has worked great, and I have cut my monthly cell phone expenses (3 lines) to $60-$80, half of what I paid before. We are mid-level users, using home-wifi if we can.
Cellphone addicts are, of course, better served by an all-unlimited plan from the big firms. I just don't see the point of supporting their profit margins that much.
I would not be surprised to hear that they accidentally screwed up their systems all by themselves and are now just too afraid/ashamed (rightfully so) to admit that they had been really, really, really stupid. "Hey, we can't run a website (let alone a secure one?!), but give us all your money anyway". Next thing they will charge you for logging into their site. Just wait ...
Does this mean we can also create the next US President using Amazon? I mean, looking at the choices so far, how hard can that be?
First a disclaimer: in my household we have to buy high-powered BTE every 4 years or so, so I am close to the subject.
So, let's see:
First off, we should discern between medically useful features and convenience features, realizing that there is no sharp line between them. We buy fully digital, high-power BTE aids with complex programming capabilities, and those aids (which are pretty much top of the line when it comes to their intended function, i.e., help the wearer hear as well as possible) do not cost $8000 a pair. Not even close - try about half that. We forego bluetooth (but not FM), a gazillion programs, microscopic sizes the size of a fly head (not available of you are profoundly deaf anyways) and God knows what else for pooling our resources (= $$$) into maximum power and amplification/programming capabilities. I suppose we get the Ferrari, not the Lamborghini, if you wish. A lot of cost goes into stuff you may not need (but may want just as much as you want an iPad you probably don't need).
Second, there is significant markup when you buy retail - because you cannot just buy the aid, you also buy the service to have the aid fitted to you. That cost is never broken out, but you would be surprised how much your audiologist might charge you there. Definitely an eye opener. Seems a bit like a cartel, really.
Third, I will give hearing aid companies that they (at least some of them) do a lot of R&D. As I said, we need to get cutting edge aids, and so far I have seen significant improvements over the years. Now that may change (soon??), thoguh I have to say there is still plenty to be done to make BTE aids better performing. Same goes for convenience, but I do not want to pay that price.
Fourth, there seems to be an uptick in insurance companies to pay for aids (ours has not in the past). At least for children and young adults I think it is flat out a crime not to pay for aids.
Fifth: If you really want to be upset you should ask what the production cost of those aids is, and what the resulting markup is. Would want you to become a maker of BTE aids in an instant. But, fo course, that is where capitalism sort of fails: this is a very high entry market. To play, you need to invest a lot of money and a lot of time. And once you made it, you can fleece (ahem, charge) your customers accordingly.
So, are they too expensive? A lot of them are, but if you are smart about it, you can save thousands of dollars or euros (the story is identical in Europe) and still get the aid you want with full warranty. BTW, I heard they are (much) cheaper in Asia.
I do agree,however, in that I wonder whether the "digital gains" are now starting to peter off, and the main advances will be in software only. Well, I suppose I will find out again next year ...
I mean, after all, it is called Facebook.
But I have to give it to Zuckerberg. I am logging into Facebook much more often now - even if it is only to change my (new) privacy settings, again, and again, and again ...
If I remember correctly, six months ago it was to cost 5 billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) for a 2014 launch date. If the launch slips (and believe me, it will), you can add a couple of $100M (that's several $100,000,000) before all is said and done. Just look at the Mars Science Laboratory rover to learn how it is done. $64M is peanuts when it comes to that.
Sorry, can't resist:
"I am the machine that makes bing."
Well, your uses of Facebook are all very good (same here, BTW). And, as is being pointed out by other posts, the fact that we all (typically) sign on with our real names has helped foster these uses.
From Facebook's perspective, though, this is a still a problem - it does not create any revenue. And revenue is what they need. And they will do pretty much anything they can do to make money, eventually. Anyway, I digress.
There is one point the article actually does not make, and an ironic one at that. Goldman Sachs, the epitome of a useless company (what tangible product do they really ultimately create other than wealth for themselves?) financing Facebook, which, economically speaking, is equally useless. I am not saying it's useless to you and me as a nice tool to stay/get in touch with people But economic value? Just factor in all those hours lost at work by people playing FarmVille ...
Facebook has it's value (pun intended). But the all-emcompassing internet platform it strives to be?? Not a comforting thought, and likely (hopefully!) not a realistic one, either.
What is being said in the article is almost verbatim true for physics as well. Poorly taught, even more poorly understood by almost anyone (including teachers).
Mathematics is much more fundamental than physics, no doubt. Very good points are made here. But (ironically?), you could replace "math" with "physics" in the article and most of it would be true just as well.
I don't hold hope that especially Americans will ever get this, though, either for math, or for other STEM fields. Because it's "too hard". Being ignorant is just too damn easy, if you ask me.
Heck, I'd be happy if people at least would get math.
I don't have the feeling that ADHD is being swept under the rug. Quite the contrary. If your kid happens to have have something other than ADHD, it is now that kid that is being swept under the rug because it does not have the condition "en vogue".
Unfortunately that is my personal experience. This does neither do justice to the kids who really have ADHD and need help (I am not surprised if there are are many misdiagnosed cases) nor to the kids who have any other kind of condition or need, whatever they may be.
I do see parents, teachers, and schools all to easily (and often willingly) choose the convenient way of just handing out a pill without really trying to find what out is going on and what the best way is to address the situation. That often requires work, and lots of it. If your specific problem is easy to address, count your blessings - not all of us are so lucky.
It may well be that ADHD is misunderstood. Welcome to the club. But frankly, I get the feeling that most people don't understand what a "normal" childhood should/could look like, either.
Well, there are the "International Traffic in Arms Regulations" that regulate the export not only of defense articles (those seem obvious), but also of hardware that can be used to create space hardware (launchers, rockets, scientific experiments, the Space station, basically anything NASA builds and puts into space, including certain software). Export to any foreign national other than US citizens and US resident aliens is illegal without proper license. Violations carry heavy fines. To me working on a NASA (hardware) project and using a Google email account is probably highly problematic if not just plain stupid. So, in other words, any (!) country other than the US for those purposes is the wrong country.
Say what you want about Lomborg's books (and there is lot to say, no doubt), but there is at least one point he makes that is worth thinking about more carefully:
Wether we know or not how global warming really works, to me the bigger issue is that we are rapidly depleting resources and polluting/screwing up our planet - on so many levels that it is not funny. We have been doing so much crap at such a rapid pace that Lomborg is probably right when he says that we simply won't be able to pay our way out of this mess. And that includes all nations, not just the rich and/or polluting ones.
As a result, you have to do two things: reduce doing crap (again, on many levels), and pay for those solutions to reduce/reverse bad developments that make the most impact. And solutions making the most impact may not necessarily be the "feel good" solutions.
Even though this may seem wrong to many, adding some economic common sense to the whole debate (as Lomborg proposes) makes sense to me, if done right.
Frankly, I don't really care whether humankind is capable of changing the climate and generally screwing things up, because on a fundamental level I believe we simply should not. If we think/know that we are, we should get our act together and try the most effective ways of counteracting those developments. It will be hard. But we certainly know how not pollute etc., if we really wanted to.
Beyond that, the religious wars of who is right when and where really just bore me. All it does is giving people a reason not to do something sensible and productive. Such is humankind, I suppose ...
Nah, they'll use frog DNA and we'll all be safe.
"Privacy is no longer a social norm ...". I suppose that's correct. Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it, among other things. But that's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice. Besides, those new "norms" can make for good entertainment.