Mirrordot.org...then back to Slashdot...and so on...sometimes I'll view the google cache version of Slashdot and pretend like I found a bunch of dupe stories which makes me feel better about myself.
One of my coworkers bought an extra monitor so he could have three at work. He actually has an eight monitor set up at home that looks like the set up used in that uber realistic hacker movie password: swordfish. The difference being, I can actually see my coworker truly using all eight monitors because he's insane fast when working.
To me, it will mean that we can, with amazing efficiency, create useless trinkets that a sales person can give to a prospective client to say "look at this cool chain link, it was made using a printer!" as a leadin for "Now, since I've awed you with unrelated technology, can you please place an order for 5000 units of pancake batter?"
You're right. However, it's not reasonable to expect them to do that 24 hours a day. Even our landlines have a limitation whereby if too many people use their landline at once, someone is bound to not get a line out. Yet they offer "unlimited" local calling...
Well, not too many people would watch TV 24/7, but you could easily leave your TV on 24/7. And with Tivo you could conceivably be recording 24/7 which would consume that IPTV bandwidth. However, as the services offered to the average user increase the average expected bandwidth usage, the limits will go up.
Yeah...parent is NOT informative. Parent is disinformative. The enemy combatant classification (nor the non-enemy combatant which I think you probably meant) cannot be applied in this way. It's posts like these that make the "by line" so accurate.
For you first example, yes it has a programming languages that is built to allow people to learn it easier. It contains fundamentals of programming that can be applied elsewhere. This is a legitimate way to use SecondLife to teach a class something. It doesn't have anything really to do with CONDUCTING the class in SecondLife, it just happens to be the language environment of choice for the project.
Building products in SecondLife that act like RFID is interesting, but with what applicability? None fo the code or models they create can be used for anything. And you can simulate RFID many ways without dropping an entire virtual chat room on top of it. Besides, it's the same case as the first example. SecondLife just happens to be the tool of choice, not the tool of conducting the class.
Your last item relates pretty directly to what the poster was asking about, but it is no surprise that you have no detail there. This is VERY typical of everyone I know of who is looking at the learning applications for the SecondLife environment. It sure does look cool! And saying "Let's bring everyone together as a class virtually in SecondLife!" sounds really cool too. But no one yet has come up with any reason why SecondLife is the way to go. All I've seen are really great reasons NOT to. It is absolutely not the kind of platform I'd want to have ANYTHING critical based on, and if you take away SecondLife and replace it with any multi-user 3D simulation, it's been done many times.
SecondLife is not an innovative product because it brings together people in a 3D world allowing them to interact. If it were innovative for anything it would be the user created content side of things. And that went off the deep end LONG ago.
I do not think people should stop looking for great new ways to use widely available technology to support learning and other serious endeavors. I do think that when it comes to these serious endeavors that we should practice a bit more self-control with what we say so that we don't create a vaporware trail that ultimately prevents anybody from finding a truly good use of it. I was so NOT interested in implementing a PodCast-related solution for a particularly large client because NO ONE on the team that was chanting the buzzwords had ANY idea why we should do it. Yet they spent hours upon hours yammering back and forth about how we needed to dedicate resources to it.
Okay, so that reply strayed a bit, but I think it's all somewhat related.
Oh, and you're wrong. In the second election Bush received a 51% clear majority of the popular vote. A distinction his predecessor, Bill Clinton, did not have.
A popular vote that is completely suspect on many fronts in my estimation. How many fraudulent votes were cast by dead people? By people voting multiple times? By people who aren't citizens? At least with the electoral college we know who is voting and we can rest assured that the number and type of votes is accurate.
Well, you've proven the opposite of the article. I could have taken the time to be organized and proofed my own thoughts as they rolled off onto the keyboard, but I didn't deem them an important use of my time. As a result, my productivity in putting forth my views took a severe hit because I made one stupid grammatical mistake, a spelling mistake, and one HUGELY stupid grammar mistake that I have no excuse making considering my own stance on that (you're versus your).
I would reject the idea that due to your potential correct use of English that you have risen to the top. Please explain what "the top" is and cite specific examples where there is a causal relationship between your use of correct English and your rise towards this "top."
Your first sentence was not punctuated or capitalized correctly. Your use of the word "pathetic" to describe my communication skills was an aggrandizement based on the information you have. Perhaps just "Your communication skills when utilizing the English language in written form could use some work."
There are certainly people out there who can organize things effectively in their mind without organizing them anywhere else. However, even for those people, productivity is only improved if you take a very narrow view of that productivity. It would simply take that person being hit by a bus and someone else having to take over for that productivity scale to swing completely the other direction.
I will challenge any assertion that higher intelligence begets more clutter. Sure, someone who perceives themselves as being higher intelligence may then turn their nose up at what they perceive as "menial" tasks, but a truly brilliant person will know which of those "menial" tasks will be beneficial in the grand scheme of things. It is not, in my opinion, exhibiting higher intelligence to have such a short-term view of things to assume that all "menial" tasks are unnecessary. It's purely a factor of a larger ego.
Incidentally, I know a lot of smart people that are horribly unproductive. There was no connecting being drawn between actual intelligence and clutter. The article connects productivity with those who leave things less strictly organized.
So yes, the entire argument is that less time spent on anything but the direct task assigned will always add up to more productivity. And that is a false argument.
Interesting that your user name is "Sloth"...you're not biased are you? Three-toes = less productivity.
A neatnik would take 15 minutes to shower and 3 minutes to brush teeth. So the total time saved in a year would be about 4 and a half days of time. Eventually all the teeth would fall out of the slob, so pain would only be temporary on that front.
I completely agree that the shower/teeth brushing argument only cares about the immediate time savings, which is exactly what the article cares about. They honestly thing the time saved by not organizing is where the results of action end. No long term thinking...
It is not causitive relationship. It is a correlation. There are a high percentage of tech job workers that feel organization is lower priority than writing lines of code or whatever their job is. There are software engineers who feel that it is unnecessary neatness to use source control...and then the tower of half filled mt. dew cans topples over on their computer nuking everything and they take the day off because they no longer have anything to work on.
And yet they would apply the same thinking. Why take a shower or brush your teeth? That just wastes time! It is far more productive to use that time to conceive of wonderously creative ways to explain to your parents why you still live in their basement.
But I can't count the number of times that either being more of a neatnik about something has saved me a huge headache or if I had been more organized how much of a headache I could have avoided.
Yes, if everything goes well then NOT taking the time to follow proper procedures will save you loads of time. However, proper procedures are there because when things go wrong (and they always do) you save more than just time. While the study may try to account for the time saved by being neat as not overcoming the time lost, a straight time-to-time comparison just doesn't cut it. For example, on Project A the Project Manager ensures that everyone follows a strict quality assurance plan. On Project B they let everyone handle their own quality and just trust that it is happening. Project A takes two weeks longer to deliver than originally anticipated because of some random occurence. Project B was affected by the same random occurence but launched early because they didn't go through a quality assurance process. Client suddenly realizes that Project B only half works and fumes but there's time to fix it. Project B then launches on-time (instead of early) after fixes. Even assuming Project B doesn't require additional fixes, Project A is better off because the client received a quality product the first time.
And furthermore, saying neat squashes creativity is the true slobs excuse for not trying. If your creative process is so fragile that it requires things to be cluttered all over the place, you're creative value is NILL.
Anyway, I doubt there will be too many people here who agree with this study, though there can certainly be cases where neatness is taken too far.
Slashdot Mirror
Mirrordot.org...then back to Slashdot...and so on...sometimes I'll view the google cache version of Slashdot and pretend like I found a bunch of dupe stories which makes me feel better about myself.
One of my coworkers bought an extra monitor so he could have three at work. He actually has an eight monitor set up at home that looks like the set up used in that uber realistic hacker movie password: swordfish. The difference being, I can actually see my coworker truly using all eight monitors because he's insane fast when working.
To me, it will mean that we can, with amazing efficiency, create useless trinkets that a sales person can give to a prospective client to say "look at this cool chain link, it was made using a printer!" as a leadin for "Now, since I've awed you with unrelated technology, can you please place an order for 5000 units of pancake batter?"
You're right. However, it's not reasonable to expect them to do that 24 hours a day. Even our landlines have a limitation whereby if too many people use their landline at once, someone is bound to not get a line out. Yet they offer "unlimited" local calling...
Well, not too many people would watch TV 24/7, but you could easily leave your TV on 24/7. And with Tivo you could conceivably be recording 24/7 which would consume that IPTV bandwidth. However, as the services offered to the average user increase the average expected bandwidth usage, the limits will go up.
You hit 120GB a month? Do you remember what the outside looks like?
Are you the ZWarrior from Ravencrest realm?
It appears that appearing to appear in appearance it appears that way.
Mostly my ninja training.
Alas, I cannot comment on the topic of privileged information.
Yeah...parent is NOT informative. Parent is disinformative. The enemy combatant classification (nor the non-enemy combatant which I think you probably meant) cannot be applied in this way. It's posts like these that make the "by line" so accurate.
For you first example, yes it has a programming languages that is built to allow people to learn it easier. It contains fundamentals of programming that can be applied elsewhere. This is a legitimate way to use SecondLife to teach a class something. It doesn't have anything really to do with CONDUCTING the class in SecondLife, it just happens to be the language environment of choice for the project.
Building products in SecondLife that act like RFID is interesting, but with what applicability? None fo the code or models they create can be used for anything. And you can simulate RFID many ways without dropping an entire virtual chat room on top of it. Besides, it's the same case as the first example. SecondLife just happens to be the tool of choice, not the tool of conducting the class.
Your last item relates pretty directly to what the poster was asking about, but it is no surprise that you have no detail there. This is VERY typical of everyone I know of who is looking at the learning applications for the SecondLife environment. It sure does look cool! And saying "Let's bring everyone together as a class virtually in SecondLife!" sounds really cool too. But no one yet has come up with any reason why SecondLife is the way to go. All I've seen are really great reasons NOT to. It is absolutely not the kind of platform I'd want to have ANYTHING critical based on, and if you take away SecondLife and replace it with any multi-user 3D simulation, it's been done many times.
SecondLife is not an innovative product because it brings together people in a 3D world allowing them to interact. If it were innovative for anything it would be the user created content side of things. And that went off the deep end LONG ago.
I do not think people should stop looking for great new ways to use widely available technology to support learning and other serious endeavors. I do think that when it comes to these serious endeavors that we should practice a bit more self-control with what we say so that we don't create a vaporware trail that ultimately prevents anybody from finding a truly good use of it. I was so NOT interested in implementing a PodCast-related solution for a particularly large client because NO ONE on the team that was chanting the buzzwords had ANY idea why we should do it. Yet they spent hours upon hours yammering back and forth about how we needed to dedicate resources to it.
Okay, so that reply strayed a bit, but I think it's all somewhat related.
Oh, and you're wrong. In the second election Bush received a 51% clear majority of the popular vote. A distinction his predecessor, Bill Clinton, did not have.
A popular vote that is completely suspect on many fronts in my estimation. How many fraudulent votes were cast by dead people? By people voting multiple times? By people who aren't citizens? At least with the electoral college we know who is voting and we can rest assured that the number and type of votes is accurate.
Well, you've proven the opposite of the article. I could have taken the time to be organized and proofed my own thoughts as they rolled off onto the keyboard, but I didn't deem them an important use of my time. As a result, my productivity in putting forth my views took a severe hit because I made one stupid grammatical mistake, a spelling mistake, and one HUGELY stupid grammar mistake that I have no excuse making considering my own stance on that (you're versus your).
I would reject the idea that due to your potential correct use of English that you have risen to the top. Please explain what "the top" is and cite specific examples where there is a causal relationship between your use of correct English and your rise towards this "top."
Your first sentence was not punctuated or capitalized correctly. Your use of the word "pathetic" to describe my communication skills was an aggrandizement based on the information you have. Perhaps just "Your communication skills when utilizing the English language in written form could use some work."
You like that first line in replying to me...
There are certainly people out there who can organize things effectively in their mind without organizing them anywhere else. However, even for those people, productivity is only improved if you take a very narrow view of that productivity. It would simply take that person being hit by a bus and someone else having to take over for that productivity scale to swing completely the other direction.
I will challenge any assertion that higher intelligence begets more clutter. Sure, someone who perceives themselves as being higher intelligence may then turn their nose up at what they perceive as "menial" tasks, but a truly brilliant person will know which of those "menial" tasks will be beneficial in the grand scheme of things. It is not, in my opinion, exhibiting higher intelligence to have such a short-term view of things to assume that all "menial" tasks are unnecessary. It's purely a factor of a larger ego.
Incidentally, I know a lot of smart people that are horribly unproductive. There was no connecting being drawn between actual intelligence and clutter. The article connects productivity with those who leave things less strictly organized.
So yes, the entire argument is that less time spent on anything but the direct task assigned will always add up to more productivity. And that is a false argument.
Interesting that your user name is "Sloth"...you're not biased are you? Three-toes = less productivity.
A neatnik would take 15 minutes to shower and 3 minutes to brush teeth. So the total time saved in a year would be about 4 and a half days of time. Eventually all the teeth would fall out of the slob, so pain would only be temporary on that front.
I completely agree that the shower/teeth brushing argument only cares about the immediate time savings, which is exactly what the article cares about. They honestly thing the time saved by not organizing is where the results of action end. No long term thinking...
It is not causitive relationship. It is a correlation. There are a high percentage of tech job workers that feel organization is lower priority than writing lines of code or whatever their job is. There are software engineers who feel that it is unnecessary neatness to use source control...and then the tower of half filled mt. dew cans topples over on their computer nuking everything and they take the day off because they no longer have anything to work on.
And yet they would apply the same thinking. Why take a shower or brush your teeth? That just wastes time! It is far more productive to use that time to conceive of wonderously creative ways to explain to your parents why you still live in their basement.
Remember the johnson report you created three weeks ago? I WANT THAT ON MY DESK IN 5 MINUTES OR YOU ARE FIRED BECAUSE WE WILL BE SUED!
You have been WTFPWNED by messy-desk.
But I can't count the number of times that either being more of a neatnik about something has saved me a huge headache or if I had been more organized how much of a headache I could have avoided.
Yes, if everything goes well then NOT taking the time to follow proper procedures will save you loads of time. However, proper procedures are there because when things go wrong (and they always do) you save more than just time. While the study may try to account for the time saved by being neat as not overcoming the time lost, a straight time-to-time comparison just doesn't cut it. For example, on Project A the Project Manager ensures that everyone follows a strict quality assurance plan. On Project B they let everyone handle their own quality and just trust that it is happening. Project A takes two weeks longer to deliver than originally anticipated because of some random occurence. Project B was affected by the same random occurence but launched early because they didn't go through a quality assurance process. Client suddenly realizes that Project B only half works and fumes but there's time to fix it. Project B then launches on-time (instead of early) after fixes. Even assuming Project B doesn't require additional fixes, Project A is better off because the client received a quality product the first time.
And furthermore, saying neat squashes creativity is the true slobs excuse for not trying. If your creative process is so fragile that it requires things to be cluttered all over the place, you're creative value is NILL.
Anyway, I doubt there will be too many people here who agree with this study, though there can certainly be cases where neatness is taken too far.
So what you're saying is that Java is a language of child predators...
For magnet retrieval!! http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/07/plane.diverted.ap /index.html
Kashawak - NO FO!!!!