Textbooks are often well illustrated. And the old style of textbook is a dinosaur that could do better. The idea is interactive game like lesson plans with quizzes and work areas to help practice the skills or memorize the lessons.
I took a licensing course online this weekend to pass a certification course (which it also tested for online) and without broadband it would have been painfully slow waiting to advance to the next page. There were also video sections... and if a kid has to wait a minute to watch a minute long video--we're wasting a lot of school resources (teachers, librarians etc.) to have kids sitting around looking at waiting bars.
Maybe. On the other hand if you could get some sort of dedicated fiber line that delivered 100+mbps speeds to every unit for less than 10mbps cable then it can make sense to buy bandwidth in bulk and run it without caps etc. A micro-municipal ISP if you will. We had to do that at our office in order to convince the internet company to run last mile fiber to our building. Now we have 50mbps internet. It's just comcast but if we could have convinced more tenants it probably would have been cheaper to run dedicated fiber.
Nvidia is great at drivers for *video cards* in my experience with nforce drivers they are useless for anything else.
I have periodically gotten 'cheap' and switched over to ATI for performance per $ reasons but every single time I end up with some crippling driver error and wishing I had bought an Nvidia GPU.
But similarly I will never be persuaded to switch over to an Nvidia chipset again.
Not only that, but releasing 'out of band' patches on a regular basis was probably a huge drag on their responsiveness. If you have a deadline for a new driver patch EVERY SINGLE MONTH regardless if the patch is ready then you are either testing inconsequential releases and wasting your QA resources on releases that aren't important in order to meet some arbitrary deadline or you are releasing insufficiently tested patches to meet some arbitrary quota. Neither is a recipe for efficient allocation of your resources. It's either a distraction from what's important (fixing critical bugs) or it's forcing you to release bug fixes that are insufficiently tested.
They are innovating. People stopped buying CDs so they are going to make their money off of licensing their work out to as many venues as possible.
What's a scam is to expect someone to *work*, creating a product you want and then get all snooty when they ask you to pay them for it. And $10 is very reasonable.
The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.
But suddenly you're offended that artists also want to be paid!? Fuck you. Yes, I should be more diplomatic but I'm sick and tired of being told that I shouldn't expect any compensation for my talents as an artist because it doesn't involve physical labor. It's bad enough that many fields of art have little to no revenue source--but to take one of the few that actually can make money (sometimes) and say that they are scams because they want to get paid for their work is really offensive. I do get well paid in my field for which I'm grateful--but creativity is like writing code, it's hard mental labor and is no less valid of a product than digging a ditch.
I am always baffled how it is that those who make a living off of intellectual property somehow were persuaded to be the loudest and most vocal advocates for their jobs being destroyed. Do you want to dig ditches? Do you think your intellect and intelligence has no value? Innovation is *WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR*, that's what creativity is, innovation. If you call innovation a scam then you're saying innovation isn't valuable and nobody who makes the work work a little better should profit from their work.
Microsoft doesn't want it both ways. These lawsuits have been going on for ages. A company will avoid licensing something if it doesn't have to. Now Microsoft has to pay $0.50 per Xbox or whatever. Motorola will fight calendar sync as long as it can and then eventually pay $0.60 per phone.
It's all part of the negotiating process. Microsoft doesn't really care. Nor does Motorola. They don't take personal offense nor do they think it mean that intellectual property is moot. They just are going to bend the rules until they break--which most of the time means they save money and every now and then means they have to pay-up.
*This*, IT loves to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Software is cheap. All software is practically free. If your employees are bringing in $100-$200 an hour then if the infrastructure costs $200 per employee it's.1% of their revenue. If it costs then 1 minute per *WEEK* then the difference between a free and $100 program pays for itself over the course of a year.
Ughhhh... a company I worked with had Zimbra and it was terrible. It kind of did all of the things exchange did poorly.
Then they got bought out and now they use an ancient version of Exchange... which isn't much better.
I have no personal preference for exchange. I prefer Gmail. And I don't see why the OP can't mix it up.
Use Gmail for your mail service and use Microsoft Office for your word processing and Excel. The notion that your mail server and productivity software need to be the same seems misplaced.
If you really care about metrics though you shouldn't be looking at StatsCounter's global stats anyway. Most likely your demographic is going to be unique and particular to your subject matter.
Lots of corporate viewers? Expect lots of IE. Lots of gadgeteers? Expect lots of FF and Chrome. Lots of Linux geeks? Expect lots of FF and Opera.
Etc...
You really need stats for your specific genre of website to best target your users. I would imagine that Slashdot's view stats are skewed pretty dramatically off of global.
Matthew Alford, film researcher and author of Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, is even harsher in his critique. âoeThe Pentagon has a manual. Basically, it will only provide full cooperation to propaganda pieces,â he said in an interview.
Is this against the law?
Against the law? If anything it should be the law. Why should the military spend its time and money on projects which aren't relevant to recruitment or combat/training?
I think the other difference is that the company built the vehicle without providing the design spec. A private company built a product as best as it could instead of delivering a product 'to-spec'. Which admittedly to-spec has created some great vehicles like the Delta-IV. And a Delta-IV isn't *that* much more expensive to launch. We just didn't pay for its design and testing this time.
Yep, this. A photographer places cameras and lights to compose an image. A 3D artist places virtual cameras and virtual lights to compose an image.
The artistic skill-set is identical.
The large advantage of CG is that your stage is immortal and tweakable. To go back and do a reshoot of a product would cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. To open back up the scene and render off a slightly different angle takes seconds. And since you can do your "touchups" using data passes instead of hand tracing your touchups can 'travel' with product as it moves and turns.
H&M is already cutting models out of their product shoots. Everything is getting faster and cheaper and an astounding rate. Anyone who says "such and such will never happen" are either idiots or think "never" means within a a decade or two.
Live action photo shoots are going to go the way of using film. Photographers in 2000 said they would never shoot digital, now film is practically dead.
Yeah I have to agree with this. I don't think we'll see an end to insurance but we will most certainly see a reduction in vehicle *ownership*. If you can get vehicles on demand then the largest expense of a vehicle (the driver) will be gone.
There will always be problems with rush-hour peak demand but if a taxi was affordable to shuttle you to a central train station the suburbs could more cheaply integrated into mass transit. We already have this with "ride-and-park" the difference being again with the most expensive component of operating a bus being eliminated you can more efficiently organize transit routes and double the number of express routes.
Also it will also probably reduce cross-country car trips. Significantly reduce the price of a taxi and you are less likely to drive somewhere if it's a short trip and more likely to take something like a train for 2-4 hour car trips.
This would cause significant ripple effects though in car ownership. Cars are currently extremely fashionable and a significant portion of our economy since people's car payments are usually second after housing. If you have a car-on-demand style isn't a concern it's about the robo-taxi's reliability and efficiency. Electric vehicles are great for this with extremely simple mechanics and inexpensive energy. Where a normal car owner might not see the return on additional expense in 5 years for an electric vehicle an on-demand taxi would probably see it in a year or two so businesses would have an additional incentive.
Also most vehicles will be substantially smaller since you can 'on-demand' a larger vehicle (or bus) depending on party size. No need to own a large sedan when 99% of the time you're alone. So we can expect cars to shrink in an on-demand system.
If automated cars result in increased taxi usage we'll see the most substantial shift in transportation in the United States since Henry Ford.
I sometimes wonder if the voters aren't doing the same.
It seems like those who really hate government and don't think it can accomplish anything... find their way into government in such areas.
I can't imagine anyone in West Virginia is a "big government" liberal. Probably because they have absolutely no clue how to properly run a civic organization.
1) NBC creates product 2) NBC sells ads and makes a profit. 3) NBC sells program to local affiliate with some open ad space. 4) Local Affiliate builds towers and transmitters and inserts ads to fund transmission plus a profit. 5) Dish Network wants to act as a tower to spread the NBC and local affiliate ads but the local affiliate also wants a cut for... doing absolutely nothing. -- THIS is the problem.
If Dish could get the program directly from NBC they could cut out half the ads and broadcast it funded by subscription. That's fine. But the local ads are there to fund the *transmission* but I'm already paying for transmission if I have a cable or sat subscription. So why would I pay the local affiliate for the privilege of airing their ads!?
It would be like Mozilla having to pay Facebook for the right to display Facebook to its customers. Even though Facebook makes its money from ads already.
I think it's outrageous that Dish has to *pay* local companies for the right to broadcast what the Over-The-Air companies give away for free.
The local affiliates' demands for payment for acting as essentially a beneficial service was always an unreasonable accommodation. I fully support Dish giving the local channels the giant middle finger by cutting off their revenue stream for those customers.
They can either be happy that Dish is spreading their marketing sponsored content or they can charge Dish for the rights to broadcast it commercial free. I don't see why they get to do both.
I'll take the $250 billion deficit and continue working within the party to reduce that number over the $1500 billion with no chance of having any effect whatsoever. So tell me, who is the fool?
Ummm, the deficit is largely the result of an economic collapse preceded by said control of legislature and executive branch.
That's like blaming the firefighters for all of your property destruction when the arson is the one who lit the fire. "Water damage in my house has increased 500% since the firefighters showed up!"
You can attempt to solve a deep recession through stimulus and tax cuts. BOTH cause deficits and BOTH cost money.
The GOP lit the deficit fire and now they're blaming the people who are saddled with fixing it.
By my estimates Alcoa uses 22.4 billion kw/h per year smelting Aluminum. (One of the most electricity intensive industries).
All data-centers in the US used 66 billion kw/h and Microsoft has some of the largest data-centers in the world. I'm sure they're not up to Alcoa's standards but they also aren't insubstantial.
It comes down this. A technologically advanced society with a high population density *needs* regulation. The natural checks and balances in the world at this level of density start getting to the point of "just reduce the population back to equilibrium". So the only way to sustain a population such as ours is the introduction of technology.
We can't feed the world's population without industrial farming. We can't sustain population densities like we see without sewage and plumbing. We can't have a functioning economy without trade and massive transportation systems.
If you're walking you need no regulation. If you're driving you need a driver's license. If you're working by yourself you need no structure. If you're a part of a global supply chain with thousands of components you need schedules and order and precision.
If you live 30 miles from your neighbor you can fire your gun into the air and probably nothing bad will happen. Try that in Manhattan and you're bound to kill someone.
Density and industrialization necessitate collaboration and regulation. The problem is that the conservatives don't want it on ideological grounds. They physiologically don't want to be a social organism. Which is fine when you can live out in the woods by yourself or in a really small town. It doesn't work when you have a million people living in 3 square miles.
The reason Conservatives are targeting science is because science is the field of observation. The *reality* of the situation is that small government just empirically doesn't work. And when someone says that your belief empirically doesn't work you rightfully say that it is attacking your ideology. So if it's attacking your ideology it must be political. To quote Colbert "Reality has a well known liberal bias". The conservative war is a war on reality. Big government liberals just 'lucked out' and happened to be psychologically more in line with the direction society is leading.
Ironically conservatives are the hardest drivers of this change in reality. They don't believe in population regulation (Don't interfere with me), they are the largest proponents of industrialization (Don't interfere with my business) which is just accelerating our advancement to a world that needs regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Textbooks are often well illustrated. And the old style of textbook is a dinosaur that could do better. The idea is interactive game like lesson plans with quizzes and work areas to help practice the skills or memorize the lessons.
I took a licensing course online this weekend to pass a certification course (which it also tested for online) and without broadband it would have been painfully slow waiting to advance to the next page. There were also video sections... and if a kid has to wait a minute to watch a minute long video--we're wasting a lot of school resources (teachers, librarians etc.) to have kids sitting around looking at waiting bars.
Maybe. On the other hand if you could get some sort of dedicated fiber line that delivered 100+mbps speeds to every unit for less than 10mbps cable then it can make sense to buy bandwidth in bulk and run it without caps etc. A micro-municipal ISP if you will. We had to do that at our office in order to convince the internet company to run last mile fiber to our building. Now we have 50mbps internet. It's just comcast but if we could have convinced more tenants it probably would have been cheaper to run dedicated fiber.
Nvidia is great at drivers for *video cards* in my experience with nforce drivers they are useless for anything else.
I have periodically gotten 'cheap' and switched over to ATI for performance per $ reasons but every single time I end up with some crippling driver error and wishing I had bought an Nvidia GPU.
But similarly I will never be persuaded to switch over to an Nvidia chipset again.
I fail to see a choice that reduces performance *all* the time as opposed to *some* of the time as the "sensible" solution.
It's not "buggy" but it seems overly strict if the alternative can also work.
Not only that, but releasing 'out of band' patches on a regular basis was probably a huge drag on their responsiveness. If you have a deadline for a new driver patch EVERY SINGLE MONTH regardless if the patch is ready then you are either testing inconsequential releases and wasting your QA resources on releases that aren't important in order to meet some arbitrary deadline or you are releasing insufficiently tested patches to meet some arbitrary quota. Neither is a recipe for efficient allocation of your resources. It's either a distraction from what's important (fixing critical bugs) or it's forcing you to release bug fixes that are insufficiently tested.
They are innovating. People stopped buying CDs so they are going to make their money off of licensing their work out to as many venues as possible.
What's a scam is to expect someone to *work*, creating a product you want and then get all snooty when they ask you to pay them for it. And $10 is very reasonable.
The dress maker expects to get paid. The caterer expects to get paid. The photographer expects to get paid. The bartender expects to get paid. The band expects to get paid. The DJ expects to get paid. And why shouldn't they? They are all working and using skills they have spent years and decades training in. They have overhead, they have expenses, they have employees... music isn't free to make. Even a simple indie album will often cost about $8k-10k on the low end to produce and that ignores everyone's time and energy to write, rehearse and perform.
But suddenly you're offended that artists also want to be paid!? Fuck you. Yes, I should be more diplomatic but I'm sick and tired of being told that I shouldn't expect any compensation for my talents as an artist because it doesn't involve physical labor. It's bad enough that many fields of art have little to no revenue source--but to take one of the few that actually can make money (sometimes) and say that they are scams because they want to get paid for their work is really offensive. I do get well paid in my field for which I'm grateful--but creativity is like writing code, it's hard mental labor and is no less valid of a product than digging a ditch.
I am always baffled how it is that those who make a living off of intellectual property somehow were persuaded to be the loudest and most vocal advocates for their jobs being destroyed. Do you want to dig ditches? Do you think your intellect and intelligence has no value? Innovation is *WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR*, that's what creativity is, innovation. If you call innovation a scam then you're saying innovation isn't valuable and nobody who makes the work work a little better should profit from their work.
Microsoft doesn't want it both ways. These lawsuits have been going on for ages. A company will avoid licensing something if it doesn't have to. Now Microsoft has to pay $0.50 per Xbox or whatever. Motorola will fight calendar sync as long as it can and then eventually pay $0.60 per phone.
It's all part of the negotiating process. Microsoft doesn't really care. Nor does Motorola. They don't take personal offense nor do they think it mean that intellectual property is moot. They just are going to bend the rules until they break--which most of the time means they save money and every now and then means they have to pay-up.
This is the system working.
*This*, IT loves to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Software is cheap. All software is practically free. If your employees are bringing in $100-$200 an hour then if the infrastructure costs $200 per employee it's .1% of their revenue. If it costs then 1 minute per *WEEK* then the difference between a free and $100 program pays for itself over the course of a year.
Would you also be amazed to discover that Microsoft holds a monopoly because its products are better than the competition's?
Ughhhh... a company I worked with had Zimbra and it was terrible. It kind of did all of the things exchange did poorly.
Then they got bought out and now they use an ancient version of Exchange... which isn't much better.
I have no personal preference for exchange. I prefer Gmail. And I don't see why the OP can't mix it up.
Use Gmail for your mail service and use Microsoft Office for your word processing and Excel. The notion that your mail server and productivity software need to be the same seems misplaced.
If you really care about metrics though you shouldn't be looking at StatsCounter's global stats anyway. Most likely your demographic is going to be unique and particular to your subject matter.
Lots of corporate viewers? Expect lots of IE.
Lots of gadgeteers? Expect lots of FF and Chrome.
Lots of Linux geeks? Expect lots of FF and Opera.
Etc...
You really need stats for your specific genre of website to best target your users. I would imagine that Slashdot's view stats are skewed pretty dramatically off of global.
Matthew Alford, film researcher and author of Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, is even harsher in his critique. âoeThe Pentagon has a manual. Basically, it will only provide full cooperation to propaganda pieces,â he said in an interview.
Is this against the law?
Against the law? If anything it should be the law. Why should the military spend its time and money on projects which aren't relevant to recruitment or combat/training?
I think the other difference is that the company built the vehicle without providing the design spec. A private company built a product as best as it could instead of delivering a product 'to-spec'. Which admittedly to-spec has created some great vehicles like the Delta-IV. And a Delta-IV isn't *that* much more expensive to launch. We just didn't pay for its design and testing this time.
I bought a linux device (android phone) and it came chock full of crapware: telenav, T-Mobile TV etc...
Yep, this. A photographer places cameras and lights to compose an image. A 3D artist places virtual cameras and virtual lights to compose an image.
The artistic skill-set is identical.
The large advantage of CG is that your stage is immortal and tweakable. To go back and do a reshoot of a product would cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. To open back up the scene and render off a slightly different angle takes seconds. And since you can do your "touchups" using data passes instead of hand tracing your touchups can 'travel' with product as it moves and turns.
H&M is already cutting models out of their product shoots. Everything is getting faster and cheaper and an astounding rate. Anyone who says "such and such will never happen" are either idiots or think "never" means within a a decade or two.
Live action photo shoots are going to go the way of using film. Photographers in 2000 said they would never shoot digital, now film is practically dead.
Edit Slashdot stories.
Yeah I have to agree with this. I don't think we'll see an end to insurance but we will most certainly see a reduction in vehicle *ownership*. If you can get vehicles on demand then the largest expense of a vehicle (the driver) will be gone.
There will always be problems with rush-hour peak demand but if a taxi was affordable to shuttle you to a central train station the suburbs could more cheaply integrated into mass transit. We already have this with "ride-and-park" the difference being again with the most expensive component of operating a bus being eliminated you can more efficiently organize transit routes and double the number of express routes.
Also it will also probably reduce cross-country car trips. Significantly reduce the price of a taxi and you are less likely to drive somewhere if it's a short trip and more likely to take something like a train for 2-4 hour car trips.
This would cause significant ripple effects though in car ownership. Cars are currently extremely fashionable and a significant portion of our economy since people's car payments are usually second after housing. If you have a car-on-demand style isn't a concern it's about the robo-taxi's reliability and efficiency. Electric vehicles are great for this with extremely simple mechanics and inexpensive energy. Where a normal car owner might not see the return on additional expense in 5 years for an electric vehicle an on-demand taxi would probably see it in a year or two so businesses would have an additional incentive.
Also most vehicles will be substantially smaller since you can 'on-demand' a larger vehicle (or bus) depending on party size. No need to own a large sedan when 99% of the time you're alone. So we can expect cars to shrink in an on-demand system.
If automated cars result in increased taxi usage we'll see the most substantial shift in transportation in the United States since Henry Ford.
I sometimes wonder if the voters aren't doing the same.
It seems like those who really hate government and don't think it can accomplish anything... find their way into government in such areas.
I can't imagine anyone in West Virginia is a "big government" liberal. Probably because they have absolutely no clue how to properly run a civic organization.
I don't understand what you're objecting to.
1) NBC creates product
2) NBC sells ads and makes a profit.
3) NBC sells program to local affiliate with some open ad space.
4) Local Affiliate builds towers and transmitters and inserts ads to fund transmission plus a profit.
5) Dish Network wants to act as a tower to spread the NBC and local affiliate ads but the local affiliate also wants a cut for... doing absolutely nothing. -- THIS is the problem.
If Dish could get the program directly from NBC they could cut out half the ads and broadcast it funded by subscription. That's fine. But the local ads are there to fund the *transmission* but I'm already paying for transmission if I have a cable or sat subscription. So why would I pay the local affiliate for the privilege of airing their ads!?
It would be like Mozilla having to pay Facebook for the right to display Facebook to its customers. Even though Facebook makes its money from ads already.
Yeah I think advertising has a place: free TV.
I think it's outrageous that Dish has to *pay* local companies for the right to broadcast what the Over-The-Air companies give away for free.
The local affiliates' demands for payment for acting as essentially a beneficial service was always an unreasonable accommodation. I fully support Dish giving the local channels the giant middle finger by cutting off their revenue stream for those customers.
They can either be happy that Dish is spreading their marketing sponsored content or they can charge Dish for the rights to broadcast it commercial free. I don't see why they get to do both.
Flamewar or Global Warming, either way it's about to get hot!
What's different is it was reworded to try and avoid another GOP obstruction-- or at least sneak in under the radar.
I'll take the $250 billion deficit and continue working within the party to reduce that number over the $1500 billion with no chance of having any effect whatsoever. So tell me, who is the fool?
Ummm, the deficit is largely the result of an economic collapse preceded by said control of legislature and executive branch.
That's like blaming the firefighters for all of your property destruction when the arson is the one who lit the fire. "Water damage in my house has increased 500% since the firefighters showed up!"
You can attempt to solve a deep recession through stimulus and tax cuts. BOTH cause deficits and BOTH cost money.
The GOP lit the deficit fire and now they're blaming the people who are saddled with fixing it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DTVAKoOCx_A/TmeDk3PCsqI/AAAAAAAAEI8/Jn-l5tyOcI0/s1600/Fiscal%2BMess%2Bwith%2BBush%2BTax%2BCuts.JPG
By my estimates Alcoa uses 22.4 billion kw/h per year smelting Aluminum. (One of the most electricity intensive industries).
All data-centers in the US used 66 billion kw/h and Microsoft has some of the largest data-centers in the world. I'm sure they're not up to Alcoa's standards but they also aren't insubstantial.
It comes down this. A technologically advanced society with a high population density *needs* regulation. The natural checks and balances in the world at this level of density start getting to the point of "just reduce the population back to equilibrium". So the only way to sustain a population such as ours is the introduction of technology.
We can't feed the world's population without industrial farming. We can't sustain population densities like we see without sewage and plumbing. We can't have a functioning economy without trade and massive transportation systems.
If you're walking you need no regulation. If you're driving you need a driver's license. If you're working by yourself you need no structure. If you're a part of a global supply chain with thousands of components you need schedules and order and precision.
If you live 30 miles from your neighbor you can fire your gun into the air and probably nothing bad will happen. Try that in Manhattan and you're bound to kill someone.
Density and industrialization necessitate collaboration and regulation. The problem is that the conservatives don't want it on ideological grounds. They physiologically don't want to be a social organism. Which is fine when you can live out in the woods by yourself or in a really small town. It doesn't work when you have a million people living in 3 square miles.
The reason Conservatives are targeting science is because science is the field of observation. The *reality* of the situation is that small government just empirically doesn't work. And when someone says that your belief empirically doesn't work you rightfully say that it is attacking your ideology. So if it's attacking your ideology it must be political. To quote Colbert "Reality has a well known liberal bias". The conservative war is a war on reality. Big government liberals just 'lucked out' and happened to be psychologically more in line with the direction society is leading.
Ironically conservatives are the hardest drivers of this change in reality. They don't believe in population regulation (Don't interfere with me), they are the largest proponents of industrialization (Don't interfere with my business) which is just accelerating our advancement to a world that needs regulation.