I've found Metacritic's scores to be pretty good when it's pulling from a large number of reviews. It's further enhanced by the inclusion of a separate user score. Score inflation is a problem with nearly all reviews so it isn't like Metacritic is really suffering from any inconsistency. I think at this point your average person is well aware of that and assesses scores accordingly.
My problem isn't so much that most scores float above 75 except when they're exceptionally bad. My problem is with blatant inflation and herd mentality, a problem that is especially prevalent in gaming; movie critics seem to generally be more demanding. Game critics, however, while generally less forgiving with small time and indie developers, are far too generous with anything from the big publishers. Grand Theft Auto 4 is probably one of the most egregious examples of this. It's got a 98 average on Metacritic. While it's a good game, it's far from deserving a 98. But this is where those user scores provide better balance. Amongst the 1300+ users the game only averages a sensible 7.6.
In general I can't say I've disagreed too much with Metacritic's scores. But then I also tend to pick out reviews across the scoring range to get a more detailed assessment.
This reminds me of the asshole I came across yesterday at Home Depot. I had a question about whether or not dimmable LED bulbs would work with 3-way lamps. He starts on this thing about 3-way switches just so he could make a big deal about correcting me. What I meant, he reminds me thrice over the course of our conversation, was 3-state switches. If I had done a better job of thinking on my feet I would have asked him to walk with me to the lighting department and see if all that packaging used my term or his precious little electrician's in-crowd term. He may have been technically correct, but for the vast majority of the population, Wikipedia included, I was correct.
This is the same nonsense. For most people web and internet mean the same thing. If there is any difference at all it's semantics. All those distinctions matter within spheres of expertise. Highlighting those distinctions to outsiders stinks of arrogance; of a desire to aggrandize oneself. "I'm an expert and you're not."
It's obnoxious. What term I use is irrelevant as long as most people understand me. How many terms has this guy botched? Perhaps someone should call him out on all that.
Looks like a lot of wishful thinking. I think the reality is that collectives eventually form into a hierarchy with a figurehead at the top. I think it's a natural tendency for humans to organize into some sort of bureaucratic structure and follow a leader. I'd argue it's even instinctual. There will always be those who want to lead and the majority are happy to be led, let someone else do the thinking for them.
And outside of oppression collectives will inevitably splinter. Either people will be discontent with the majority or they'll be ambitious in their own right and see no room for growth within the organization.
People like to delude themselves into thinking they've discovered something new, that technology is going to inherently bring about a new form of thinking. But the fact is that we're still dealing with humans and they're still driven by the same forces they've always been.
If you don't think there have been advancements in automotive technology you obviously haven't been paying attention. A lot of the advancement is in manufacturing processes which go unnoticed by the average person because they're so subtle. Some of it is technology what was originally only found in luxury cars but is now available in the cheapest economy cars.
Let's see what I can think of... 1) Engine control systems 2) Hybrid technology 3) Somewhat practical all-electric technology 4) Tighter tolerances in bodywork including more complex shapes 5) LED headlights 6) Sophisticated in-car entertainment systems 7) Suspension and handling control systems, in same cases actually enabling the car to perform better than it could with a driver alone 8) Extensive use of carbon fiber and other composites 9) Airless tires
I could go on, but those are the more significant ones I've seen. If you're going to argue that a car is a car and in principle hasn't changed, then the same rationale would apply to a computer. The most powerful desktop today is essentially the same thing as a Commodore 64.
A person has to be quite ignorant to not see how technology is advancing at a quicker rate than any time in the past. The thing is that it isn't all going to be bold, obvious advancements, the majority comprises refinements of existing technology, maximizing it's full potential. At which point it becomes economically feasible to jump to find a replacement. It's economic forces which have stifled the process of supersonic transport. But that doesn't mean technology is advancing. It means they're focus on things like efficiency. And all that work will eventually improve and enable future progress in a new direction.
Unfortunately, the impatient amongst us want the flying car tomorrow and are convinced we don't yet have one because of some idiotic conspiracy theory.
Japanese go in with more realistic expectations. They know they might not win, but their give it their all anyway.
Americans, on the other hand, are all taught they're special, that they're all destined for greatness. So they bank everything on that expectation of greatness and then come out the other side bitter because they couldn't achieve it. It's strongly reflected in entitlement mentality.
These divergent attitudes make for a difference in how the two cultures approach life. Japanese, like most Asians, will take the more pragmatic approach to life. Americans, especially the youth, have the unrealistic expectation that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can do something fun, hip and exciting AND earn a great living doing it.
And of course it's popular culture is responsible for perpetuating these expectations. In American movies the hard-working individual is depicted has having a dysfunctional life and the freeloading slacker is the sage who's got it all figured out. This attitude is virtually non-existent in Japanese film. So then you've got American game shows that glorify the victory and present the challenge as almost a footnote. And when conflict is present, it's depicted in the standard, cartoonish, us-versus them manner. Think American Gladiator.
Now, the nice thing about the American philosophy is that people will strive for greatness, at least, when they don't believe they're entitled to it. They're less likely to be unquestioning drones.
On the other hand, the Japanese approach leads to more productivity and less resentment. People have a more realistic outlook.
Innovation doesn't necessarily drive a successful business. Microsoft's success didn't come due to innovation, it came about because they consumerized the OS and did so at the right time, when there was a burgeoning need for such a thing. Whatever their faults, they got the important bits right. Windows offered a level of integration and usability previously unseen.
It's not different than Apple. They don't innovate, they take existing technologies at the point of ripeness, when they're truly ready for mass market. They integrate hardware and software in a way that provides an appealing user experience.
The innovators were companies like Xerox and others, who actually the developed the technology that goes into these devices. Manufacturers did the research into materials and manufacturing processes that enables Apple to build something like the MacBook Air.
Perhaps others could have done what Microsoft and Apple have done. There are even some who had a glimmer of potential. But at the end of the day they weren't able to pull it off like these guys did.
Looks to me like nearly 2 in 3 Republicans were in favor to killing the program, regardless of whether or not Democrats were in charge.
The fundamental problem is that Government in general is extremely myopic. What doesn't buy votes or enrich politicians always get cut.
They love cutting big flashy programs with big dollar amounts tied to them. But they probably could have found money for five super colliders, without directly cutting major programs, by cutting waste within the bloated bureaucracy that is our government.
Naturally occurring diamonds are rare. But the overall scarcity of diamonds is a man-made affair. It's easier, and cheaper, to produce diamonds artificially. Not only that, but lab produced diamonds can be made even more purely than what is normally found in nature. De Beers however, has managed to severely limit the production of artificial diamonds. Nearly a decade ago, De Beers even paid a paltry fine for colluding with GE to fix prices on industrial diamonds. Interestingly enough, diamonds have been discovered around the world in areas outside of De Beers control. So their decades long monopoly has eroded.
China, however, is not even close to being in the same situation when it comes to rare earths. Rare earths is relatively plentiful. Mining has stopped in the US moreso because of environmental regulation and cost than because of scarcity. China is gambling that it will be too difficult and costly for Western nations to reopen or start up new mines and that they'll eventually cave. The logistics of overseas manufacturing are getting to complex, inflexible and expensive. Given the rise to automated manufacturing the benefits of cheap labor are dwindling. This is giving rise to one of two scenarios: in-source manufacturing or move it where it's substantially cheaper. China is already trying to hedge its bets by expanding into Africa. But at that point why not just cut out the middle man?
The point being that China is getting too ambitious for it's own good; they're thinking too highly of their position in the world. Yes, the China owns a bit of American debt. What's the worst case scenario? The US defaults on it's debt? It's in China's best interest that the US continue to thrive. The US, on the other hand, just needs a cheap manufacturing base. That could be anywhere; Southeast Asia, India, Middle East, Africa, South America, Detroit.
The main thing China has going for it is experience and established infrastructure. But in the scheme of things those are easy challenges to address... I don't know about you, but I've been noticing an increasing number of products made some place other than China.
Apple offers such an incredible line of innovative products that they need to rest to lawsuits to maintain their edge. What it all sounds to me like is a company that realizes their edge is slipping, everyone is catching up and they aren't confident in their ability to continue coming up with new ideas.
I'm tired of everyone and their grandmother copying Apple's design. Sure, they've got nice looking products, but they're far from being the pinnacle of industrial design. If anything the Apple look has grown stale. But seeking a patent on design? And worse, actually having it granted? If every company that ever copied someone else's design were to be sued there would be total chaos.
If Apple's management is that concerned about copycats perhaps it's high time they lit a fire under the design department's ass and got them doing something a bit more innovative.
Within very specific environments computers and the like are indeed beneficial. But for education in general all these devices do is distract. Kids want toys, teachers mistakenly believe it will ease the burden of teaching and administrators are easily suckered by anything they think will make them look progressive.
Even in college, in a course which required computer use I had to be vigilant about my students dicking around on instead of paying attention. The temptation to partake in other activities is far too strong. And the question is if, even when they're used for their intended purpose, do they actually enhance learning over a printed book and a good teacher? Do they actually aid in the retention of knowledge? I think these questions need to be answered first. But I suspect no one wants them answered because it will reveal all this as the gimmick it is.
We can't afford anything because we own more stuff than we ever had before. Sixty years ago a person could afford a car and a house on a fairly menial job because that's all they were spending their money on. They weren't squandering money on big houses, multiple cars, flat screens, computers, mobile phones and appliances. And that's not to mention the numerous services people subscribe to.
People would be shocked at how much they could save if they lived the same kind of lifestyle people led all those decades ago. Of course, it could be argued that society today makes new demands of us. But then if a person were serious about living an economical life all they need is a decent smartphone and not much else. There are plenty of people able to pull it off, but most are unwilling.
There's no reason whatsoever for China to invade Taiwan. The only scenario in which I'd see that happening is if China were to collapse economically and the government were desperately trying to rally the people behind a cause. But Taiwan and China are too economically dependent on each other for any of this to come to pass outside of a nightmare scenario.
I don't see the US having the will to defend Taiwan, but they probably would be forced to. By the time it got to that point, however, we would have long since been feeling the economic effects given that most manufacturing is located in China, not Taiwan. Even Taiwanese companies, Foxconn being the most prominent example, do the vast majority of their manufacturing in China.
But the fact of the matter is that China needs the US, and the West in general, far more than the US needs China. China cannot survive without all the manufacturing done there. If it starts to move out of the country they will collapse. And people are already looking elsewhere for their needs, for a variety of reasons.
Anyone who thinks American students are bad with reasoning obviously hasn't spent much time outside the country. Those people haven't seen anything, especially Asia. And the problem isn't just reasoning skills, it's simply entertaining your own opinion as opposed to trying to please a superior. I've been in situations where an employee was asked what they thought about something and they'd sheepishly avoid the answer. Even when pressed they seemed unable to come up with a response. Lack of creative and independent thinking continues to be a problem, even in Japan.
That said, I think America is moving too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes rote memorization essential. And you need standardized tests to glean some sort of progress. They might not be perfect, but there's no better alternative.
The fact of the matter is that you need the fundamentals before you can progress. It's similar to artistic technique. Too many people hide behind the label of modern art to excuse their lack of talent. In order to have flexibility you need underlying ability. It's essentially the same principle here. And the fact is that kids don't necessarily have the knack for reasoning that people acquire with age. So why waste excessive amounts of energy trying to drill that into them?
But certainly, Americans have the ability to think independently and creatively. And I find them to generally be better informed and less prone to falling for myths, urban legends and other such nonsense. I'll concede, it could be the part of the country where I live. But overseas and amongst immigrants I've found that the consensus is that the US has the best educational system in the world.
You've got it all wrong. China meddles extensively with their economy. While smaller businesses do enjoy a freer market than the US, big corporations are in bed with the government, reaping the benefits that come with it. Also, China needs the US far, far more than the US needs China. If things were to sour for one reason or another the US would simply look elsewhere for it's manufacturing needs. In fact, it's beginning to do so. For financial needs, the US already has countless options. If the US were to move most of it's manufacturing elsewhere, however, China would collapse spectacularly.
I'm fairly certain entities other than the UN are responsible for mail and international calls. Air traffic control, likewise, falls under the auspices of each nation, individually, not the UN. Yes, the UN does help with vaccines and aid, but then so do many nations and aid organizations. And they tend to mobilize much more quickly than the UN does. In fact, most of what you list, even with the pretense of UN oversight, it's work handled at a national level. In peace keeper role the UN is impotent. And given the multitude of scandals through the years it's probably not a good thing for them to have more authority.
Another concern is that the number of prominent member nations have authoritarian tendencies. At least with the United States there's the pretense of freedom, even if they tend towards corporatism. Nations like China pander to their own corporate interests AND don't hide their oppressive qualities. Given that this seems to be the prevailing mindset within the UN I'd say it's not a good thing to have them run the show.
I agree, they do provide value and should continue to exist. But we shouldn't be bound by anything they try to mandate.
There aren't many physical store where I'd go for my electronics needs, with the exception maybe Costco, the Apple store and a handful of stores in the NYC area. The rest over-charge and are staffed by feckless incompetents. I've gone into Best Buy, and like Circuit City or CompUSA before them, always had the impression that no one, including management cared about offering any kind of service or value. Walk into those stores and there's this persistent sense they're trying to scam people. It's something your average consumer can sense, numerous little details, and sometimes big ones, all rubbing them the wrong way.
Having worked with clients on the other side of the process, companies carrying product in these stores, it's evident they're also being screwed in much the same way. They've got all these little schemes, payment structures and whatnot for guaranteeing shelf space. And even then you're banking on employees actually investing any effort into keeping shelves neat and stocked.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the American retail model has some serious problems. Thinking back a decade or more, even before I knew what I know now, I could see that it was only a matter of time before these stores were out of business. What's surprising is that Best Buy has stuck around this long. They're losing money hand over fist, but they had the money to spend on a tacky commercial featuring big name internet entrepreneurs, playing up the same selection of mobile phones everyone else carries. Just think about it, they're so incompetent that they couldn't even capitalize on the failure of Circuit City and others.
Clearly, whoever wrote that article is not a designer. Capital letters are NOT inherently more difficult to read. They're more difficult when you've got a paragraph of text. But when you're talking about buttons and menu items they can aid in legibility and emphasis.
In my experience programmers make for the worst designers. Admittedly they have specific needs, but like anyone else they're slaves to habit. So just because they want something a certain way doesn't necessarily make it right. There's always backlash when someone deviates from the expected, even if it's for the better.
I actually like the all caps approach. The menu items are very clear and legible. They're a lot more distinct than in the traditional initial caps approach. Now, you could argue that it makes them too prominent. It may also have the side effect of de-emphasizing the Application title too far.
So to suggest that this approach somehow ignores usability is ridiculous.
I notice that the article also takes a jab at the all-grey interface. If they're going to knock Microsoft for this then they should take aim at the worst offender of all: Apple. I've always found that Windows provides enough contrast between windows, using distinct borders and colored headers, that it's fairly easy to pick them out. In OSX, however, everything blends together.
I do find it amusing that this I Programmer site is dumping on Microsoft for something so minor when the site itself looks like total shit. Look at that freaking logo of theirs.
From my experience there are three factors why companies get based in big cities: 1) Ego; people want to be somewhere trendy 2) Inspiration; some might argue this is irrelevant, but there's something to be said for being someplace where there's a palpable energy 3) Work force; the biggest selection of employees invariably exists where you have the greatest population density.
Additionally, companies tend to gravitate to where their particular industry is already established. It's not really all that different than what immigrants do. There's a better sense of understanding of challenges, sharing and specialization of resources and overall convenience. And going back to the point of labor, there's a stronger likelihood of finding someone suited to the job.
South Korea has a fairly strong Christian population. So I'm inclined to believe that there's a concerted global effort amongst certain Christian denominations. This can't be mere coincidence. My suspicion is that these groups are seeing religion's decreasing importance in modern society and these are last ditch efforts to keep themselves relevant.
Science, as always, is perceived as the threat so that's where the effort goes. They keep pushing religious beliefs to the forefront by suggesting that religious beliefs are as legitimate as scientific theory. It's the perpetuation of religion through ignorance.
Arguably there is a place in society for religion. And you might even be able to make a strong case for theology studies. But religion has no place in science. Not that they are mutually exclusive; you can be a scientist and religious. However, science is founded on principles other than faith.
I find this incredibly concerning, and yet another reason to take issue with organized religion. I will remind everyone, however, that the Vatican has accepted evolution as fully compatible with the Bible. So whoever is doing this, it's unlikely to be them. And anyway they've got more important things to worry about.
This is shock art. Do something outrageous, nonsensical or offensive as a way of grabbing attention; it's a gimmick. It's cheap and requires much less mental effort that creating a more creative method of conveying that concept. And the fact is that although the artist tries to append meaning to the piece the shock value ends up being a huge distraction. Instead of discussing what the piece is intended to represent everyone talks about the absurdity or offensiveness of the thing.
I enjoy modern art, but art school gave me the distinct impression that there are a lot of artists out there who use the stype as a coverup their lack of talent.
I have a few cats, and I have to say this Catcopter, as stupid as it is amused me. I don't see the reason to be offended. This is yet another gimmick that will be quickly forgotten except as an internet meme.
For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.
And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.
I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.
I use gas for heat and the stove. Everything else is electricity, including the water heater. I have individual A/C units. Every bulb in the house, except for a handful of dimmable bulbs is CFL. My monthly bill, being in an expensive part of the country, is always within spitting distance of $200 and fairly consistent regardless of season. My gas bill, however, goes from roughly $120 in the winter to $30 in the summer.
A year or two ago I looked at energy consumption on most of my appliances and electronics. I found that energy consumption for those items was small enough that any improvement in efficiency would result in insignificant savings. Even the old refrigerator didn't consume as much as I had expected.
Anything that uses electricity to heat, however, is a massive hog. That means dryers and the like. And my electric water heater is long overdue for replacement. Beyond that, I've found that the only way to make a meaningful impact on your utility bills is to be frugal to the point of discomfort. This means almost never running the A/C in summer, setting it at something like 80 degrees. And even then the savings wont necessarily be huge; you'll save more going with a bagged lunch for work instead of eating out.
I have a friend who cuts back on A/C use to that extreme and it isn't fun being there in the summer. People like him manage to save a lot not because they single out any one thing, like electricity, to cut. They apply that mindset to everything they do. That's where the savings add up. But unless you've got everything in your house running all the time, or you're especially concerned about the environment, there are a lot better places to cut.
Just because you can't be bothered to get every pixel just right doesn't mean it's not important. Those differences you consider irrelevant often make the difference between having a site that looks professional and intuitive and one that doesn't.
Being on the other side of this, as a designer, it's immensely frustrating to deal with developers who can't get things right. I'm not just talking about being pixel perfect, I mean being in the general ballpark. I'm not one to harass developers about every last pixel, but it's outrageous how sloppy these guys sometimes are.
I mean, I do a bit of my own development occasionally, and trying to follow best practices and keeping my code clean I can reproduce what I had in Photoshop almost exactly. So someone who's expertise this is can't do the same. And the fact is that I have worked with developers who are meticulous and do get things right. But those guys are few and far between. The rest, like most people, do just enough to get by, but then bitch when being given a hard time.
I will also agree that many, if not most, designers have no sensitivity towards the web. They produce work that is impractical and have unrealistic expectations for development. So it does go both ways. But then that's what education is for, inform the designer what works and what doesn't. It's something I try to do, although I admit it encounter a lot of stubbornness.
The IE limitation is for the backend, not the site itself. The actual site looks like they took something off the shelf and put minimal effort into customizing. So this is not a case of a demanding designer, by any stretch of the imagination. Judging from the design I don't expect much from this startup. Looks like a me-too kind of site.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found Metacritic's scores to be pretty good when it's pulling from a large number of reviews. It's further enhanced by the inclusion of a separate user score. Score inflation is a problem with nearly all reviews so it isn't like Metacritic is really suffering from any inconsistency. I think at this point your average person is well aware of that and assesses scores accordingly.
My problem isn't so much that most scores float above 75 except when they're exceptionally bad. My problem is with blatant inflation and herd mentality, a problem that is especially prevalent in gaming; movie critics seem to generally be more demanding. Game critics, however, while generally less forgiving with small time and indie developers, are far too generous with anything from the big publishers. Grand Theft Auto 4 is probably one of the most egregious examples of this. It's got a 98 average on Metacritic. While it's a good game, it's far from deserving a 98. But this is where those user scores provide better balance. Amongst the 1300+ users the game only averages a sensible 7.6.
In general I can't say I've disagreed too much with Metacritic's scores. But then I also tend to pick out reviews across the scoring range to get a more detailed assessment.
This reminds me of the asshole I came across yesterday at Home Depot. I had a question about whether or not dimmable LED bulbs would work with 3-way lamps. He starts on this thing about 3-way switches just so he could make a big deal about correcting me. What I meant, he reminds me thrice over the course of our conversation, was 3-state switches. If I had done a better job of thinking on my feet I would have asked him to walk with me to the lighting department and see if all that packaging used my term or his precious little electrician's in-crowd term. He may have been technically correct, but for the vast majority of the population, Wikipedia included, I was correct.
This is the same nonsense. For most people web and internet mean the same thing. If there is any difference at all it's semantics. All those distinctions matter within spheres of expertise. Highlighting those distinctions to outsiders stinks of arrogance; of a desire to aggrandize oneself. "I'm an expert and you're not."
It's obnoxious. What term I use is irrelevant as long as most people understand me. How many terms has this guy botched? Perhaps someone should call him out on all that.
Looks like a lot of wishful thinking. I think the reality is that collectives eventually form into a hierarchy with a figurehead at the top. I think it's a natural tendency for humans to organize into some sort of bureaucratic structure and follow a leader. I'd argue it's even instinctual. There will always be those who want to lead and the majority are happy to be led, let someone else do the thinking for them.
And outside of oppression collectives will inevitably splinter. Either people will be discontent with the majority or they'll be ambitious in their own right and see no room for growth within the organization.
People like to delude themselves into thinking they've discovered something new, that technology is going to inherently bring about a new form of thinking. But the fact is that we're still dealing with humans and they're still driven by the same forces they've always been.
If you don't think there have been advancements in automotive technology you obviously haven't been paying attention. A lot of the advancement is in manufacturing processes which go unnoticed by the average person because they're so subtle. Some of it is technology what was originally only found in luxury cars but is now available in the cheapest economy cars.
Let's see what I can think of...
1) Engine control systems
2) Hybrid technology
3) Somewhat practical all-electric technology
4) Tighter tolerances in bodywork including more complex shapes
5) LED headlights
6) Sophisticated in-car entertainment systems
7) Suspension and handling control systems, in same cases actually enabling the car to perform better than it could with a driver alone
8) Extensive use of carbon fiber and other composites
9) Airless tires
I could go on, but those are the more significant ones I've seen. If you're going to argue that a car is a car and in principle hasn't changed, then the same rationale would apply to a computer. The most powerful desktop today is essentially the same thing as a Commodore 64.
A person has to be quite ignorant to not see how technology is advancing at a quicker rate than any time in the past. The thing is that it isn't all going to be bold, obvious advancements, the majority comprises refinements of existing technology, maximizing it's full potential. At which point it becomes economically feasible to jump to find a replacement. It's economic forces which have stifled the process of supersonic transport. But that doesn't mean technology is advancing. It means they're focus on things like efficiency. And all that work will eventually improve and enable future progress in a new direction.
Unfortunately, the impatient amongst us want the flying car tomorrow and are convinced we don't yet have one because of some idiotic conspiracy theory.
I think you're right... But it isn't that simple.
Japanese go in with more realistic expectations. They know they might not win, but their give it their all anyway.
Americans, on the other hand, are all taught they're special, that they're all destined for greatness. So they bank everything on that expectation of greatness and then come out the other side bitter because they couldn't achieve it. It's strongly reflected in entitlement mentality.
These divergent attitudes make for a difference in how the two cultures approach life. Japanese, like most Asians, will take the more pragmatic approach to life. Americans, especially the youth, have the unrealistic expectation that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can do something fun, hip and exciting AND earn a great living doing it.
And of course it's popular culture is responsible for perpetuating these expectations. In American movies the hard-working individual is depicted has having a dysfunctional life and the freeloading slacker is the sage who's got it all figured out. This attitude is virtually non-existent in Japanese film. So then you've got American game shows that glorify the victory and present the challenge as almost a footnote. And when conflict is present, it's depicted in the standard, cartoonish, us-versus them manner. Think American Gladiator.
Now, the nice thing about the American philosophy is that people will strive for greatness, at least, when they don't believe they're entitled to it. They're less likely to be unquestioning drones.
On the other hand, the Japanese approach leads to more productivity and less resentment. People have a more realistic outlook.
Innovation doesn't necessarily drive a successful business. Microsoft's success didn't come due to innovation, it came about because they consumerized the OS and did so at the right time, when there was a burgeoning need for such a thing. Whatever their faults, they got the important bits right. Windows offered a level of integration and usability previously unseen.
It's not different than Apple. They don't innovate, they take existing technologies at the point of ripeness, when they're truly ready for mass market. They integrate hardware and software in a way that provides an appealing user experience.
The innovators were companies like Xerox and others, who actually the developed the technology that goes into these devices. Manufacturers did the research into materials and manufacturing processes that enables Apple to build something like the MacBook Air.
Perhaps others could have done what Microsoft and Apple have done. There are even some who had a glimmer of potential. But at the end of the day they weren't able to pull it off like these guys did.
Looks to me like nearly 2 in 3 Republicans were in favor to killing the program, regardless of whether or not Democrats were in charge.
The fundamental problem is that Government in general is extremely myopic. What doesn't buy votes or enrich politicians always get cut.
They love cutting big flashy programs with big dollar amounts tied to them. But they probably could have found money for five super colliders, without directly cutting major programs, by cutting waste within the bloated bureaucracy that is our government.
There was a Mexican Grand Prix at one point and currently there are plans to revive it.
Naturally occurring diamonds are rare. But the overall scarcity of diamonds is a man-made affair. It's easier, and cheaper, to produce diamonds artificially. Not only that, but lab produced diamonds can be made even more purely than what is normally found in nature. De Beers however, has managed to severely limit the production of artificial diamonds. Nearly a decade ago, De Beers even paid a paltry fine for colluding with GE to fix prices on industrial diamonds. Interestingly enough, diamonds have been discovered around the world in areas outside of De Beers control. So their decades long monopoly has eroded.
China, however, is not even close to being in the same situation when it comes to rare earths. Rare earths is relatively plentiful. Mining has stopped in the US moreso because of environmental regulation and cost than because of scarcity. China is gambling that it will be too difficult and costly for Western nations to reopen or start up new mines and that they'll eventually cave. The logistics of overseas manufacturing are getting to complex, inflexible and expensive. Given the rise to automated manufacturing the benefits of cheap labor are dwindling. This is giving rise to one of two scenarios: in-source manufacturing or move it where it's substantially cheaper. China is already trying to hedge its bets by expanding into Africa. But at that point why not just cut out the middle man?
The point being that China is getting too ambitious for it's own good; they're thinking too highly of their position in the world. Yes, the China owns a bit of American debt. What's the worst case scenario? The US defaults on it's debt? It's in China's best interest that the US continue to thrive. The US, on the other hand, just needs a cheap manufacturing base. That could be anywhere; Southeast Asia, India, Middle East, Africa, South America, Detroit.
The main thing China has going for it is experience and established infrastructure. But in the scheme of things those are easy challenges to address... I don't know about you, but I've been noticing an increasing number of products made some place other than China.
Apple offers such an incredible line of innovative products that they need to rest to lawsuits to maintain their edge. What it all sounds to me like is a company that realizes their edge is slipping, everyone is catching up and they aren't confident in their ability to continue coming up with new ideas.
I'm tired of everyone and their grandmother copying Apple's design. Sure, they've got nice looking products, but they're far from being the pinnacle of industrial design. If anything the Apple look has grown stale. But seeking a patent on design? And worse, actually having it granted? If every company that ever copied someone else's design were to be sued there would be total chaos.
If Apple's management is that concerned about copycats perhaps it's high time they lit a fire under the design department's ass and got them doing something a bit more innovative.
Within very specific environments computers and the like are indeed beneficial. But for education in general all these devices do is distract. Kids want toys, teachers mistakenly believe it will ease the burden of teaching and administrators are easily suckered by anything they think will make them look progressive.
Even in college, in a course which required computer use I had to be vigilant about my students dicking around on instead of paying attention. The temptation to partake in other activities is far too strong. And the question is if, even when they're used for their intended purpose, do they actually enhance learning over a printed book and a good teacher? Do they actually aid in the retention of knowledge? I think these questions need to be answered first. But I suspect no one wants them answered because it will reveal all this as the gimmick it is.
We can't afford anything because we own more stuff than we ever had before. Sixty years ago a person could afford a car and a house on a fairly menial job because that's all they were spending their money on. They weren't squandering money on big houses, multiple cars, flat screens, computers, mobile phones and appliances. And that's not to mention the numerous services people subscribe to.
People would be shocked at how much they could save if they lived the same kind of lifestyle people led all those decades ago. Of course, it could be argued that society today makes new demands of us. But then if a person were serious about living an economical life all they need is a decent smartphone and not much else. There are plenty of people able to pull it off, but most are unwilling.
There's no reason whatsoever for China to invade Taiwan. The only scenario in which I'd see that happening is if China were to collapse economically and the government were desperately trying to rally the people behind a cause. But Taiwan and China are too economically dependent on each other for any of this to come to pass outside of a nightmare scenario.
I don't see the US having the will to defend Taiwan, but they probably would be forced to. By the time it got to that point, however, we would have long since been feeling the economic effects given that most manufacturing is located in China, not Taiwan. Even Taiwanese companies, Foxconn being the most prominent example, do the vast majority of their manufacturing in China.
But the fact of the matter is that China needs the US, and the West in general, far more than the US needs China. China cannot survive without all the manufacturing done there. If it starts to move out of the country they will collapse. And people are already looking elsewhere for their needs, for a variety of reasons.
Anyone who thinks American students are bad with reasoning obviously hasn't spent much time outside the country. Those people haven't seen anything, especially Asia. And the problem isn't just reasoning skills, it's simply entertaining your own opinion as opposed to trying to please a superior. I've been in situations where an employee was asked what they thought about something and they'd sheepishly avoid the answer. Even when pressed they seemed unable to come up with a response. Lack of creative and independent thinking continues to be a problem, even in Japan.
That said, I think America is moving too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes rote memorization essential. And you need standardized tests to glean some sort of progress. They might not be perfect, but there's no better alternative.
The fact of the matter is that you need the fundamentals before you can progress. It's similar to artistic technique. Too many people hide behind the label of modern art to excuse their lack of talent. In order to have flexibility you need underlying ability. It's essentially the same principle here. And the fact is that kids don't necessarily have the knack for reasoning that people acquire with age. So why waste excessive amounts of energy trying to drill that into them?
But certainly, Americans have the ability to think independently and creatively. And I find them to generally be better informed and less prone to falling for myths, urban legends and other such nonsense. I'll concede, it could be the part of the country where I live. But overseas and amongst immigrants I've found that the consensus is that the US has the best educational system in the world.
You've got it all wrong. China meddles extensively with their economy. While smaller businesses do enjoy a freer market than the US, big corporations are in bed with the government, reaping the benefits that come with it. Also, China needs the US far, far more than the US needs China. If things were to sour for one reason or another the US would simply look elsewhere for it's manufacturing needs. In fact, it's beginning to do so. For financial needs, the US already has countless options. If the US were to move most of it's manufacturing elsewhere, however, China would collapse spectacularly.
I'm fairly certain entities other than the UN are responsible for mail and international calls. Air traffic control, likewise, falls under the auspices of each nation, individually, not the UN. Yes, the UN does help with vaccines and aid, but then so do many nations and aid organizations. And they tend to mobilize much more quickly than the UN does. In fact, most of what you list, even with the pretense of UN oversight, it's work handled at a national level. In peace keeper role the UN is impotent. And given the multitude of scandals through the years it's probably not a good thing for them to have more authority.
Another concern is that the number of prominent member nations have authoritarian tendencies. At least with the United States there's the pretense of freedom, even if they tend towards corporatism. Nations like China pander to their own corporate interests AND don't hide their oppressive qualities. Given that this seems to be the prevailing mindset within the UN I'd say it's not a good thing to have them run the show.
I agree, they do provide value and should continue to exist. But we shouldn't be bound by anything they try to mandate.
There aren't many physical store where I'd go for my electronics needs, with the exception maybe Costco, the Apple store and a handful of stores in the NYC area. The rest over-charge and are staffed by feckless incompetents. I've gone into Best Buy, and like Circuit City or CompUSA before them, always had the impression that no one, including management cared about offering any kind of service or value. Walk into those stores and there's this persistent sense they're trying to scam people. It's something your average consumer can sense, numerous little details, and sometimes big ones, all rubbing them the wrong way.
Having worked with clients on the other side of the process, companies carrying product in these stores, it's evident they're also being screwed in much the same way. They've got all these little schemes, payment structures and whatnot for guaranteeing shelf space. And even then you're banking on employees actually investing any effort into keeping shelves neat and stocked.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the American retail model has some serious problems. Thinking back a decade or more, even before I knew what I know now, I could see that it was only a matter of time before these stores were out of business. What's surprising is that Best Buy has stuck around this long. They're losing money hand over fist, but they had the money to spend on a tacky commercial featuring big name internet entrepreneurs, playing up the same selection of mobile phones everyone else carries. Just think about it, they're so incompetent that they couldn't even capitalize on the failure of Circuit City and others.
Clearly, whoever wrote that article is not a designer. Capital letters are NOT inherently more difficult to read. They're more difficult when you've got a paragraph of text. But when you're talking about buttons and menu items they can aid in legibility and emphasis.
In my experience programmers make for the worst designers. Admittedly they have specific needs, but like anyone else they're slaves to habit. So just because they want something a certain way doesn't necessarily make it right. There's always backlash when someone deviates from the expected, even if it's for the better.
I actually like the all caps approach. The menu items are very clear and legible. They're a lot more distinct than in the traditional initial caps approach. Now, you could argue that it makes them too prominent. It may also have the side effect of de-emphasizing the Application title too far.
So to suggest that this approach somehow ignores usability is ridiculous.
I notice that the article also takes a jab at the all-grey interface. If they're going to knock Microsoft for this then they should take aim at the worst offender of all: Apple. I've always found that Windows provides enough contrast between windows, using distinct borders and colored headers, that it's fairly easy to pick them out. In OSX, however, everything blends together.
I do find it amusing that this I Programmer site is dumping on Microsoft for something so minor when the site itself looks like total shit. Look at that freaking logo of theirs.
From my experience there are three factors why companies get based in big cities:
1) Ego; people want to be somewhere trendy
2) Inspiration; some might argue this is irrelevant, but there's something to be said for being someplace where there's a palpable energy
3) Work force; the biggest selection of employees invariably exists where you have the greatest population density.
Additionally, companies tend to gravitate to where their particular industry is already established. It's not really all that different than what immigrants do. There's a better sense of understanding of challenges, sharing and specialization of resources and overall convenience. And going back to the point of labor, there's a stronger likelihood of finding someone suited to the job.
Sounds like people from NYC, especially Brooklyn.
South Korea has a fairly strong Christian population. So I'm inclined to believe that there's a concerted global effort amongst certain Christian denominations. This can't be mere coincidence. My suspicion is that these groups are seeing religion's decreasing importance in modern society and these are last ditch efforts to keep themselves relevant.
Science, as always, is perceived as the threat so that's where the effort goes. They keep pushing religious beliefs to the forefront by suggesting that religious beliefs are as legitimate as scientific theory. It's the perpetuation of religion through ignorance.
Arguably there is a place in society for religion. And you might even be able to make a strong case for theology studies. But religion has no place in science. Not that they are mutually exclusive; you can be a scientist and religious. However, science is founded on principles other than faith.
I find this incredibly concerning, and yet another reason to take issue with organized religion. I will remind everyone, however, that the Vatican has accepted evolution as fully compatible with the Bible. So whoever is doing this, it's unlikely to be them. And anyway they've got more important things to worry about.
This is shock art. Do something outrageous, nonsensical or offensive as a way of grabbing attention; it's a gimmick. It's cheap and requires much less mental effort that creating a more creative method of conveying that concept. And the fact is that although the artist tries to append meaning to the piece the shock value ends up being a huge distraction. Instead of discussing what the piece is intended to represent everyone talks about the absurdity or offensiveness of the thing.
I enjoy modern art, but art school gave me the distinct impression that there are a lot of artists out there who use the stype as a coverup their lack of talent.
I have a few cats, and I have to say this Catcopter, as stupid as it is amused me. I don't see the reason to be offended. This is yet another gimmick that will be quickly forgotten except as an internet meme.
For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.
And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.
I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.
I use gas for heat and the stove. Everything else is electricity, including the water heater. I have individual A/C units. Every bulb in the house, except for a handful of dimmable bulbs is CFL. My monthly bill, being in an expensive part of the country, is always within spitting distance of $200 and fairly consistent regardless of season. My gas bill, however, goes from roughly $120 in the winter to $30 in the summer.
A year or two ago I looked at energy consumption on most of my appliances and electronics. I found that energy consumption for those items was small enough that any improvement in efficiency would result in insignificant savings. Even the old refrigerator didn't consume as much as I had expected.
Anything that uses electricity to heat, however, is a massive hog. That means dryers and the like. And my electric water heater is long overdue for replacement. Beyond that, I've found that the only way to make a meaningful impact on your utility bills is to be frugal to the point of discomfort. This means almost never running the A/C in summer, setting it at something like 80 degrees. And even then the savings wont necessarily be huge; you'll save more going with a bagged lunch for work instead of eating out.
I have a friend who cuts back on A/C use to that extreme and it isn't fun being there in the summer. People like him manage to save a lot not because they single out any one thing, like electricity, to cut. They apply that mindset to everything they do. That's where the savings add up. But unless you've got everything in your house running all the time, or you're especially concerned about the environment, there are a lot better places to cut.
Just because you can't be bothered to get every pixel just right doesn't mean it's not important. Those differences you consider irrelevant often make the difference between having a site that looks professional and intuitive and one that doesn't.
Being on the other side of this, as a designer, it's immensely frustrating to deal with developers who can't get things right. I'm not just talking about being pixel perfect, I mean being in the general ballpark. I'm not one to harass developers about every last pixel, but it's outrageous how sloppy these guys sometimes are.
I mean, I do a bit of my own development occasionally, and trying to follow best practices and keeping my code clean I can reproduce what I had in Photoshop almost exactly. So someone who's expertise this is can't do the same. And the fact is that I have worked with developers who are meticulous and do get things right. But those guys are few and far between. The rest, like most people, do just enough to get by, but then bitch when being given a hard time.
I will also agree that many, if not most, designers have no sensitivity towards the web. They produce work that is impractical and have unrealistic expectations for development. So it does go both ways. But then that's what education is for, inform the designer what works and what doesn't. It's something I try to do, although I admit it encounter a lot of stubbornness.
The IE limitation is for the backend, not the site itself. The actual site looks like they took something off the shelf and put minimal effort into customizing. So this is not a case of a demanding designer, by any stretch of the imagination. Judging from the design I don't expect much from this startup. Looks like a me-too kind of site.