I'm sure pretty much all of them can utilize technology much more effectively than their parents can.
I'm not so sure about that... I'm pretty sure most of them can utilize more technology than their parents, but I'm not at all sure that they can use it more effectively.
In terms of search (or in search terms, depending on how you look at it), a lot of older people are GREAT at using google effectively. After all, they used to have to manually search card catalogues at the library. The actual physical time spent searching the catalog meant that search strategies were optimized more so than by today's kids, who get instant search results.
I'm not knocking the tests themselves (though some do deserve it), I'm knocking teaching to the test. My 7th through 10th grade English Lit classes were just vocabulary classes, a complete waste of my time. One year our final exam was a friggin' crossword puzzle the teacher designed -- and a poor one, at that. I learned absolutely nothing from those classes, since I had an extensive vocabulary already.
I was fortunate to have parents and college professors that demanded I develop critical thinking skills -- there is no way I would have developed them otherwise. This is from someone who went to a school district regarded as one of the best in NJ (at the time).
The advantage of a free-market system is that, when large organizations get sufficiently bad, they fail and are replaced by other, presumably more efficient, ones. It is painful and takes years to happen, but they do.
Efficient == profitable. This does not necessarily mean a better quality of life for those affected (wrt healthcare, it usually means a lower standard of care).
That 'painful' period of adjustment? How many of those periods will we get, and how long will they last? Decades?
What about the cities where KP has a monopoly on hospitals (there are plenty)? What then? The consumer has no option but to go to a KP hospital... so there's no competition that can usurp KP's position in that city as the most efficient healthcare provider.
A Space Shuttle launch today costs about 200 to 500 million, and can only carry about 25 tonnes of material into orbit.
The Shuttle is not a vehicle optimized for delivering payload.
There is no way that constantly shipping manufactured materials from the bottom of Earth's gravity well is going to be less expensive in the long term.
Sure, but what's the long-term? It's quite possible that with today's needs and capabilities, we'd not recoup the cost. 200 years down the road? Possibly... but what's the life expectancy of the equipment you're sending out there? Plus the need for multiple mining facilities for the different materia needed.
Also, I think you underestimate the cost of maintaining a manned facility... I think we just disagree on that one. But we are nowhere near any kind of asteroid-based food production, so food'll need to be sent up... along with regular replacement staff.
Oh, I agree that once we have an infrastructure in space, asteroid mining is the way to go. I also believe that until we have that infrastructure, the costs will be too high (conjecture, of course). So it's partly a chicken-and-egg question -- use the mines to build the infrastructure, or use the infrastructure to make the mines feasible?
The key issue that an mission to an asteroid would need to resolve is the actual composition and concentration of valuable ores.
I think wrt asteroid missions, the first issue is determining what value of goods we'd need in order to make extraction and transport cost-effective. Refining ores is expensive... refining ores in space more so. Never mind the cost of having staff members on-site, unless the process is fully automated, that cost would get prohibitive.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that energy to get out of the gravity well is only one cost, and the other costs _may_ outweigh it (pardon the pun).
I guess they should just use TiO2 coatings on mirrors that are transparent in visible but very dark in UV (don't know xray region)
What, like glass?
Not making fun, it's just that there's a reason we use quartz or NaCl sample jars for UV spectroscopy... but I don't think regular glass blocks xrays, though.
Well, they do research and provide lots of data to industry. Their agenda is to make money, typically by selling the results of their research, and by providing consulting services.
Peter M. Jackson, one of the authors of the report, is (was?) a professor of economics at MIT... I believe it's the same Peter M. Jackson, anyway.
What can I do, short of keeping an eye on my credit and letting the school get away with yet another blunder?"
I don't think you want to do something "short of" that... I think you want to do something more than that ("long of"?).
Seeing as most of the administration sees information loss as nothing more than a potential liability to them, you need to make it clear to the University top administration that this gaffe is totally unacceptable. They need to understand how bad this is -- and that it will affect their alumni fund drives.
I'm assuming that you're fully aware of the potential problems, and how serious they are (why else would you be asking the question). You need to inform the administration, by letter (make sure you cc: your local newspapers and television station(s), and follow up with them to try to get somre more negative publicity for the U), just how serious it is.
One resourceful alum dispensed with hints, threats and allegations,
and simply billed OU for the time she spent checking her credit
status. Calling the university "fully liable" for her outlay of time,
she e-mailed an invoice for three hours of work at her "usual billing
rate" of $165 an hour.
In its latest response, OU Legal Affairs Director John Burns has
contacted the firm the woman works for, asking for confirmation of her
hourly rate.
If you read the article, "at least eight or nine people" told him that they voted for him.
The guy's a bartender. Everyone he asked was probably sauced, and looking for a free one to boot.
I mean really, it's like the old Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin says he loves his haircut... because you never want to insult someone with sharp scissors at your neck. Except instead of scissors, this guy has beer/liquor he could potentially give you.
Who are you to determine what is the 'normal' amount of co2 in the atmosphere?
The 'normal' amount isn't the issue. The issue is the possibility of catastrophic change about which we do not know of the threshold. Preserving the status quo is the best course of action until we know more.
Put in simple terms, it says that the amount of Carbon in the can is fixed at the time the can is sealed.
Heating it, cooling it, or giving it a really good shake makes no difference.
That is true, of course, but what about the ratio of free CO2 to CO2(aq)? Or H2CO3(aq) to CO2(aq)? These do indeed depend upon temperature inside that can.
If I had to guess I would just say you read the title and picked out some of your favorite arguments that had nothing to do with TFA and strung them together to get a +5 insightful
No need to guess. It's the same with all his posts. I wouldn't mind so much if he could coherently defend his POVs, but his dicussions are predicated on faulty assumptions that he will never think critically about.
Ahh, fine poppycock you're spouting there. Have you ever worked in a lab with solutions in equilibrium? How about buffer solutions, simple high school chemistry stuff? Or indicator solutions? The effects of 1 mL reagent in 100L solution can indeed be drastic, depending on how much reagent is there already. Do you know for certain that 5.6 kg/m2 isn't the tipping point at which we face drastic climate change? I sure as hell don't, and I'm not sure I want to find out.
And your figure for rain scrubbing of 800kg/m2? Utter bullshit, on two counts -- 1) CO2 is simply not that soluble in H20 at atmospheric pressures. 2) That CO2 that does get "scrubbed" finds its way back into the air. It's not a one-way reaction, it's a global equilibrium.
When we add carbon into the cycle, we add atmospheric CO2. Plain and simple. The question is at what point the extra carbon disrupts our welfare to a degree that is unacceptable -- and the answer is based upon the magnitude of the effects and our tolerance for the effects. We're constantly learning more about the magnitude of the change, but our tolerance to change will be in debate as long as humans exist.
It's not corporate sponsored... it's just a fairly stock reponse. Notice how once again hif first post is just tangential the the article?
I could also write some pretty good posts, and then copy them into the submission form to reply to any tangentially-related article. Maybe a quick change or two to make it a little more on-topic.
If you look back a bit into his history, you'll see that he claims to be an entrepeneur, a writer, &c.
Mostly he's a blowhard and a gold speculator, though he sometimes has valid points.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with US economic/political history... but there are some pretty strong parallels between the 1920s and the past decade. Concentration of wealth, pro-business climate (Mellon was the original trickle-down Secty of the Treasury), reduced taxes for the wealthy to stimulate business investment/growth... extant monopolies...
What this has led to (as we saw in Tuesday's elections) is a rejection of these values as the middle class hasn't shared so much of the prosperity (the election wasn't really a referendum on the war). The recent Democratic victories show that the tide of popular opinion is turning, and that voters are starting to realize that the previous Congress(es) enacted policies that didn't benefit them. I'm not saying we're about to get a New Deal for the 21st century, but I also think it's not so far off -- I don't see govt spending reduced much in the near future, but I do see more of it spent domestically.
I know I'm kind of rambling here (it is Friday afternoon, after all) but another huge similarity are the sweeping changes in how economies function. The information age is having a similar effect on the US economy as the industrial age did -- a big boom, followed by a big bust, coupled with rampant speculation (the late 90s == the mid-to-late 20s).
Anyway, it's a thesis I haven't researched fully, it's been on my mind since I recently read AW Mellon's recent biography.
If greater detail is needed, it can simply be calculated from the texturing formula. As a result, a woodgrain will continue to look like a woodgrain (to the limits of the resolution), no matter how close or far away you get.
You mean fractal texturing? The difference here is that from different distances, you should be getting different images -- you shouldn't be able to recognize wood-grain from all distances. I.e., from 20 feet you should be able to see surface contours but not the fine wood-grain, from 10 feet you should be able to see the wood grain, from.2 inches the wood grain becomes a macrofeature, and appears to be a single stripe.
You really think that MS will be losing interest in computers with Windows pre-loaded?
No. As you said earlier, I see diminishing revenues from pre-loaded installs. Look at all the recent articles about $ENTITY eschewing Windows for Linux.
As you mention, interoperability is a big deal... MS does need to ensure that Office and other products are still dominant should Windows no longer be such a powerhouse.
From the slightly more realistic department, maybe Balmer is comfortable enough in MS's security on top that he doesn't see alternative OSes as a threat.
I highly doubt it. If they weren't a threat, he wouldn't have acquired SUSE.
One final note -- the anti-trust climate in Europe still exists, and will (I believe) grow in the US. I can't help but draw a parallel between the 1920s/30s and now in terms of politicoeconomic climate, and maybe MS is hedging against any possible issues with preinstallation.
I won't say I know what they are up to, but it is clear that they have a long term plan.
Not sure I follow. What is the different outcome you see?
For my part, I see an alternate distribution model in the works, as MS has come out and said -- but I think the business model doesn't change too much. The biggest change I expect is that MS will not have a near-monopoly on OS bundling by OEMs, and this is not a function of MS's recent actions, but instead of the market. The SUSE move simply allows MS to buy into the game -- and sorry for the poker analogy, but as holder of the big stack, MS can force out real competition and/or acquire them for their own portfolio.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of search (or in search terms, depending on how you look at it), a lot of older people are GREAT at using google effectively. After all, they used to have to manually search card catalogues at the library. The actual physical time spent searching the catalog meant that search strategies were optimized more so than by today's kids, who get instant search results.
I'm not knocking the tests themselves (though some do deserve it), I'm knocking teaching to the test. My 7th through 10th grade English Lit classes were just vocabulary classes, a complete waste of my time. One year our final exam was a friggin' crossword puzzle the teacher designed -- and a poor one, at that. I learned absolutely nothing from those classes, since I had an extensive vocabulary already.
I was fortunate to have parents and college professors that demanded I develop critical thinking skills -- there is no way I would have developed them otherwise. This is from someone who went to a school district regarded as one of the best in NJ (at the time).
That 'painful' period of adjustment? How many of those periods will we get, and how long will they last? Decades?
What about the cities where KP has a monopoly on hospitals (there are plenty)? What then? The consumer has no option but to go to a KP hospital... so there's no competition that can usurp KP's position in that city as the most efficient healthcare provider.
It's critical thinking skills.
This is nothing new. Decades of teaching to standardized tests and ignoring the thought process in favor of fact regurgitation has led to this.
Sure, but what's the long-term? It's quite possible that with today's needs and capabilities, we'd not recoup the cost. 200 years down the road? Possibly... but what's the life expectancy of the equipment you're sending out there? Plus the need for multiple mining facilities for the different materia needed.
Also, I think you underestimate the cost of maintaining a manned facility... I think we just disagree on that one. But we are nowhere near any kind of asteroid-based food production, so food'll need to be sent up... along with regular replacement staff.
Oh, I agree that once we have an infrastructure in space, asteroid mining is the way to go. I also believe that until we have that infrastructure, the costs will be too high (conjecture, of course). So it's partly a chicken-and-egg question -- use the mines to build the infrastructure, or use the infrastructure to make the mines feasible?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that energy to get out of the gravity well is only one cost, and the other costs _may_ outweigh it (pardon the pun).
Well, it was in perfect working condition, and this was before the bubble burst...
I even threw in my copy of Telengard (though the buyer had to have the cassette respooled to get it to work).
How about the PET 2001? The first one, without the on-board tape drive?
I've still got one... sold the other for $15k in 1999.
Not making fun, it's just that there's a reason we use quartz or NaCl sample jars for UV spectroscopy... but I don't think regular glass blocks xrays, though.
Well, they do research and provide lots of data to industry. Their agenda is to make money, typically by selling the results of their research, and by providing consulting services.
Peter M. Jackson, one of the authors of the report, is (was?) a professor of economics at MIT... I believe it's the same Peter M. Jackson, anyway.
Seeing as most of the administration sees information loss as nothing more than a potential liability to them, you need to make it clear to the University top administration that this gaffe is totally unacceptable. They need to understand how bad this is -- and that it will affect their alumni fund drives.
I'm assuming that you're fully aware of the potential problems, and how serious they are (why else would you be asking the question). You need to inform the administration, by letter (make sure you cc: your local newspapers and television station(s), and follow up with them to try to get somre more negative publicity for the U), just how serious it is.
One other thing you can do (from an OU mishap):
I mean really, it's like the old Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin says he loves his haircut... because you never want to insult someone with sharp scissors at your neck. Except instead of scissors, this guy has beer/liquor he could potentially give you.
That's all I'm saying.
Ahh, fine poppycock you're spouting there. Have you ever worked in a lab with solutions in equilibrium? How about buffer solutions, simple high school chemistry stuff? Or indicator solutions? The effects of 1 mL reagent in 100L solution can indeed be drastic, depending on how much reagent is there already. Do you know for certain that 5.6 kg/m2 isn't the tipping point at which we face drastic climate change? I sure as hell don't, and I'm not sure I want to find out.
And your figure for rain scrubbing of 800kg/m2? Utter bullshit, on two counts -- 1) CO2 is simply not that soluble in H20 at atmospheric pressures. 2) That CO2 that does get "scrubbed" finds its way back into the air. It's not a one-way reaction, it's a global equilibrium.
When we add carbon into the cycle, we add atmospheric CO2. Plain and simple. The question is at what point the extra carbon disrupts our welfare to a degree that is unacceptable -- and the answer is based upon the magnitude of the effects and our tolerance for the effects. We're constantly learning more about the magnitude of the change, but our tolerance to change will be in debate as long as humans exist.
No driver, got it... thanks.
It's not corporate sponsored... it's just a fairly stock reponse. Notice how once again hif first post is just tangential the the article?
I could also write some pretty good posts, and then copy them into the submission form to reply to any tangentially-related article. Maybe a quick change or two to make it a little more on-topic.
If you look back a bit into his history, you'll see that he claims to be an entrepeneur, a writer, &c.
Mostly he's a blowhard and a gold speculator, though he sometimes has valid points.
As to
Well, of course, unless you intend to watch a HD-DVD movie. The point isn't the games, it's the other HD-DVD content.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with US economic/political history... but there are some pretty strong parallels between the 1920s and the past decade. Concentration of wealth, pro-business climate (Mellon was the original trickle-down Secty of the Treasury), reduced taxes for the wealthy to stimulate business investment/growth... extant monopolies...
What this has led to (as we saw in Tuesday's elections) is a rejection of these values as the middle class hasn't shared so much of the prosperity (the election wasn't really a referendum on the war). The recent Democratic victories show that the tide of popular opinion is turning, and that voters are starting to realize that the previous Congress(es) enacted policies that didn't benefit them. I'm not saying we're about to get a New Deal for the 21st century, but I also think it's not so far off -- I don't see govt spending reduced much in the near future, but I do see more of it spent domestically.
I know I'm kind of rambling here (it is Friday afternoon, after all) but another huge similarity are the sweeping changes in how economies function. The information age is having a similar effect on the US economy as the industrial age did -- a big boom, followed by a big bust, coupled with rampant speculation (the late 90s == the mid-to-late 20s).
Anyway, it's a thesis I haven't researched fully, it's been on my mind since I recently read AW Mellon's recent biography.
As you mention, interoperability is a big deal... MS does need to ensure that Office and other products are still dominant should Windows no longer be such a powerhouse.
I highly doubt it. If they weren't a threat, he wouldn't have acquired SUSE.
One final note -- the anti-trust climate in Europe still exists, and will (I believe) grow in the US. I can't help but draw a parallel between the 1920s/30s and now in terms of politicoeconomic climate, and maybe MS is hedging against any possible issues with preinstallation.
Not sure I follow. What is the different outcome you see?
For my part, I see an alternate distribution model in the works, as MS has come out and said -- but I think the business model doesn't change too much. The biggest change I expect is that MS will not have a near-monopoly on OS bundling by OEMs, and this is not a function of MS's recent actions, but instead of the market. The SUSE move simply allows MS to buy into the game -- and sorry for the poker analogy, but as holder of the big stack, MS can force out real competition and/or acquire them for their own portfolio.