This company shouldn't have put all it's eggs in one basket. They should have considered platforms other than iOS. There are probably a lot of other things they should have done.
However, they did encounter some very real challenges, especially being a small company. Often times a smaller company is operating at thinner margins. So Apple comes along demands 30% and what are they going to do? Raise their prices accordingly, risking alienating customers, or do they eat the difference and hope to make it up on volume? A small company doesn't always have the luxury of just raising prices.
If they provided a unique and/or compelling service they might be have been able to weather this. But this is part of the of the risk of doing business in a space that's already filled by established players.
I don't imagine any kind of moderation system, on a news site, will go very far for a simple reason: people don't stick around long enough to engage in discussions. A couple of people comment but the discussion rarely reaches critical mass. News sites are constantly deluged with content so people will be jumping onto the next story fairly quickly. Slashdot's pace is a bit more deliberate, but even here, if you're not on the ball you'll comment late and your post will just end up buried and unnoticed.
Group think is always going to be a problem. Slashdot has one of the best moderation systems out there, and is definitely one of the most balanced in terms of discussion, but even here, the issue arises, especially during campaign season and with certain touchy topics. Still, short of simply letting people post anything they want I've yet to see a better system.
One absolutely crucial element, however, to ensuring the success of the discussion forum is design. Most sites treat commenting as a secondary element. This is not conducive to maintaining a discussion. Slashdot has one of the best approaches because the comments are front and center, and more prominent than the story. It's more of a forum format and each post is very distinct. You don't have them all blurring together like happens on other sites.
Of course, the common issue is that people read only the summary. But the thing is, if you want people to comment you've got to get them into the action right from the start. A compromise may be to make the story collapsible. Arrive at the article and you get the first paragraph, followed by comments. Click on the "more" button to get the rest of the story which expands the whole thing and simply pushes comments down. This way you're not redirected elsewhere for the story.
I find it rather interesting that this claim is being made when I've found it to be quite the opposite to my experiences overseas, especially in Asia.
In the US, someone gets the cold or even the flu and they just deal it. There's a massive selection of over-the-counter drugs to help deal with so many basic illnesses.
In Taiwan, as an example, feel a bit off and people start insisting you visit the doctor. And why wouldn't they when, thanks to their social healthcare system, it only costs a few dollars for a visit? So people go in constantly for things like simply colds and then get prescribed a ton of medication that aggressively deals with all the symptoms. Of course, the flip side is that their equivalent to our pharmacies are lacking in any real medication.
So doctors end up being overburdened and are underpaid when practicing for the state. Visit those clinics and the routine consists of describing your symptoms, the doctor makes a few assumptions about what you've got and prescribes something for it. I've had visits where they don't even bother measuring heart rate. The expectation is that if you've got something serious it will be apparent when your condition doesn't improve or even worsens. Many doctors open private practices where they can charge whatever they want. It's more expensive but for people willing to spend the money they can get the care they want right from the start.
And it isn't something unique to Taiwan, I've observed similar things in Japan and some parts of Europe. Who the hell isn't going to take advantage of something if it's cheap? In my experience the US is the opposite. Unless you're well-off or have a low co-pay you're going to put a visit off until you really need it.
On the other hand, I have found American doctors to be excessively cautious. But then, I've always attributed that to a fear of lawsuits. They don't want to risk overlooking something that a patient will then come back and blame them for. As always, this is a complicated issue which isn't being properly addressed.
Well, based on that guy's tweets and what I've read of another guy who lives in the town it seems they heard the second pair of helicopters, not the first. In both cases they hear the helicopters shortly followed by an explosion. That implies they heard nothing related to the initial raid.
This is one of the reasons why on all the devices and computers I use I disable animations when I'm permitted.
I think the real problem, however, is that we've grown increasingly impatient. I notice it in myself. Some application takes over 3 seconds to open and I start getting agitated, wondering what the hell is taking so long.
Think back to the earlier days of computing when it might take 30 seconds or more to get an application started. I recall on my PCjr booting up games and sitting there for a good minute while the drive ground away. That said, some games nowadays have some rather appalling load times. But look at what has to be loaded compared to those games from the 80s.
I also recall trying to play games that were more demanding than my computer could handle. I'd hit a key and get an action a fraction of a second later. I got used to it, but it's something that would be intolerable today.
Even using early versions of Windows and Mac OS was an exercise in patience, especially if something was going on in the background. And what about waiting for a simple website to load, especially over 56kbps? Hell, what about loading up text-only menus on your favorite BBS via 2400 baud?
The simple fact is that we've been spoiled and as such have grown increasingly impatient over shrinking timescales. That said, given all the computing power at the tips of my fingers I do expect everything to be instant.
The problem is that we wouldn't know how to build something like that.
In a small city in northern Portugal there was this stone wall (maybe 50ft high) that was erected during the Roman era. Several years ago part of it finally collapsed. So they decided to rebuild it. That bit collapsed within a year. I don't know what's happened since, but I suspect it involves concrete and rebar.
It's the libertarian way? How about the liberal and conservative way? Everyone in the United States is at fault in some way or another.
The liberals want to cut programs like these because they're incapable of seeing the benefits provided. They don't realize they should be thanking the space program for their precious iPhones. They're the ones claiming that the money should be directed towards every little social entitlement program.
The conservatives are more likely to support these kinds of programs but fail to realize their ideology makes it an impossible goal. You can't have a robust space program with a small government and low taxes. Compounding the problem is their eagerness to waste money on a bloated defense program and a lack of accountability for corporations.
Like anything, too much of any one approach is a very bad thing. And the problems certainly are more complex that what I've presented. Just look at the American educational system.
I agree with your assessment of Super Mario Bros Wii. But it's not a new thing at all. That design principle has applied to Super Mario Bros going back to the days of SMB3.
Apple somehow continues to capture the consumer's imagination. When people think smartphone they generally think iPhone. I've seen it happen so many times, when someone asks for recommendations inevitably everyone parrots the same answer: iPhone!
For that reason Apple's model is very low risk. At this point it's exceedingly difficult for them to put out a smartphone that will fail. They've already mastered integration, it's simply a matter of keeping up on the technology. I wouldn't call them innovators so much as being able to choose the right time at which to exploit a technology.
There are two things Apple offers that so far others have been incapable of matching. The first is the app store. The second is the interface.
The app store is a great selling point. The funny thing is that I bet the vast majority of iPhone users rarely venture there, outside of maybe a few popular apps.
I'd argue that Android's interface is every bit as good as Apple's. However, Apple's is more consistent and at this point more familiar. More importantly, the iPhone's interface hasn't been ruined by carriers like Android's has. And it's not just the carriers, but the hardware companies making a mess of things. HTC has done a great job, but Motorola and Samsung have mostly ruined the experience. So right from the start there's that level of inconsistency to contend with.
The bigger threat to Apple is that someone, someday will finally match Apple. Someone will finally manage to not only put out a product every bit as good as the iPhone but will also market it effectively. The problem is that I don't see anyone really capable of pulling it off. Too many companies seem to be stupidly fixated on the wrong thing. Very few companies out there are good at software and hardware and are able to integrate them both. Microsoft is probably one of the few with the resources to pull it off, but they've got other problems preventing them from actually accomplishing that feat. And the fact is that most companies don't seem intent on focusing resources on a single great product. Instead, they pump out a random smartphone every few months.
The competition is running around in circles and lack long term vision. The ones who do have more of a vision are focused on other markets and don't invest enough effort in this particular market. And everyone's coming into this with the inherent stigma that they're not an iPhone. Which is sad, because I think my Android phone is every bit as good as any iPhone but it will never get the credit it deserves. And AT&T's meddling certainly hasn't helped.
The problem with going after speeders is that we're faced with a confluence of public safety and outright greed. What we've got is a money-making machine and the justification to keep it operating.
The problem I've observed with speed cameras is that they do their job too well once drivers have gotten used to them. I've been in Asia where they have them installed and everyone does the limit. And it's frustrating to experience, everyone plodding along at 60mph. But if everyone is obeying the limit it means no revenue for the locality. In fact, they're probably operating at a loss since they've got to run and maintain those cameras.
How do they address the problem? By doing what we're reading about here. They start tampering with the system in a way that it will catch more drivers. And because there's photographic evidence, valid or not, people are less likely to fight.
But I'm convinced that this is one of the reasons why speed cameras haven't been implemented in my state. That and very likely police unions who would lose a lot of work as a result of these cameras.
Either way it's nonsense. Speeding has been turned into this bogeyman. Any time there's an accident speeding is indicated as a contributing factor. Hell, I saw a news report this morning where a truck ran a red light and got into an accident and an officer on the scene actually claimed that speed was a factor. No, speed was not a factor, going through the red was.
But that's how it goes and so people look at the statistics and see speeding as the biggest cause of accidents, by far. This is not to discount the danger of excessive speeding, but certainly it's not the massive problems it's made out to seem.
There's another factor here, and that's enforcement. It's far, far easier to catch people for speeding than anything else. So the authorities go after the low-hanging fruit. A couple of weeks ago state police set up a new trap on this stretch of highway. I've traveled this road for years and have never seen a problem here. But there they are, predictably located at the bottom of this relatively steep hill. So this cop decides to pull out into the midst of fairly heavy traffic, causing some panicked braking. This asshole's antics were a much greater danger to other drivers than the speeding driver, a driver who while traveling above the limit wasn't moving at a speed anyone would consider unsafe.
If you want long term job security you damn well had better aspire to management.
The people I know who've stuck to the same roles for 10+ years have seriously stagnated. They haven't expanded their skill set and are so dependent on their current job that if they ever laid off they'd be seriously screwed. They're too expensive given their now limited set of skills.
It may be possible to thrive without ever getting into management or starting your own business, but it's certainly a challenge.
The problem is that most people arguing think they're being reasoned and that the other side is irrational. Regardless of the points actually being made. And into that inject self-righteousness and you get the garbage we see online, on both sides of any debate. Everyone thinks they're logical, reasonable and always right. They don't need to have their opinions challenges, in fact it's their duty to make everyone else change their minds.
To your third point, new Blu-Ray players should be very fast to start up. My father had a Sony player which was quite slow, significantly slower than my PS3. He recently replaced it and now it loads up movies within seconds. The impression I had was that movies started up even more quickly than on the PS3.
Simple: Blu-rays are too damn expensive. It's outrageous that movies should cost $25-$30 simply because they're on Blu-ray. And then in a lame attempt to justify the price they bundle the Blu-ray disc with a DVD. And all the features they stick on those Blu-Rays is just pointless fluff. It was neat, with earlier releases that you could get subtitles in quite a few languages, including Chinese. But more recently that seems to have been abandoned, only Spanish and French being the only options.
The improved image and sound quality can be impressive but the fact is that DVD on an HDTV is still decent. But a significant majority of movies are not the sort where improved image or sound enhances the experience. And most movies aren't particularly good. Outside of a miniscule handful of movies, none are worth collecting. They're not worth repeated viewings, so why waste money to own them?
Streaming video has played another significant factor in all this. Convenience has trumped image and sound quality. It's a pain in the ass to shop around for Blu-rays, not just because of price, but just trying to even find some place that carries that particular movie. And rentals, even with the convenience of Red Box, run into the same problem of availability. So why not just go online?
Most people don't have the money, time or inclination to invest in trying to get an entertainment system set up to enjoy the full experience a Blu-ray could provide. So now studios are banking on 3D to help sell the format. The problem is that most people don't have 3D capable TVs, and Blu-rays with 3D are even more outrageously overpriced. And 3D is an even more blatantly pointless gimmick.
I'd argue that it's people in the movie industry who are stupid. Because they don't get it they expect that the movie-going public doesn't get it either. And to that end movies depict what people in Hollywood think Americans are like, not what they're actually like. But I have noticed that people in other countries seem to buy into the stereotypes depicted in movies.
That's not to say there aren't a lot of stupid people out there.
My impression has been that those with money and those looking to acquire it are trying to do it the easy way. The challenging ways of building wealth have been abandoned in America. This is why we don't make much of anything. And when we do, it's often crap where someone in some other country is building it for cheap.
I've also come to the conclusion that the reason there is such an obsession with intellectual property is because people subconsciously know that nobody needs us. We're not much more than middlemen, still resting on the laurels of those who've come before who actually did innovate and build things. It's only a matter of time before the Chinese, like the Japanese, strike out on their own. This defense of IP is desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Although, admittedly, I'm not convinced that China has the culture and devotion that the Japanese have. From my experience Chinese entrepreneurs are primarily driven the same things as Americans, how to make the most money for the least amount of effort. I predict that eventually China will price itself out of cheap manufacturing and everyone will migrate to South East Asia and South America. I foresee a future where most manufacturing based in Africa; the Chinese interestingly are already moving in that direction.
Either way, I'm pessimistic on America's future. And while it's fun to blame someone else it's really everybody's fault; starting with the government, management and ending with the worker.
What we've lost is the sensational: the Space Shuttle, Concorde and SR-71. How many people got to experience any of those three? A infinitesimal percentage of the population. Look at every other mode of transportation, however, and it becomes readily apparent that we're moving faster than ever before.
Cars are significantly faster than they used to be, even fuel efficient models. And, more importantly, they're much more stable at those higher speeds. Even subsonic aircraft are very fast, faster than what any of us would be traveling in 50 years ago. And actually, 50 years ago, most of us wouldn't even consider air travel because we couldn't afford it. Forget the disaster that passes for the American rail system, trains are extremely quick too. Even commuter rail which might hit 70mph+ on some stretches is faster than most of what's come before. And this is not to mention high speed rail running at speeds in excess of 150mph.
So this so-called journalist looks at a single snapshot in time and makes assumptions based on that. It's like watching a 5-year-old for 30 seconds and complaining that he's not growing quickly enough.
Why are genres restrictive? Adventure, first-person shooter, role-playing, platforming... Those are all extremely broad. They're as broad as genres in movies or novels might be. Just because Hollywood as chosen to restrict sci-fi to alien invasions the last few years doesn't mean the genre itself is limiting. What's limiting is the creativity of the developer.
But then the real problem is that those tired old themes evidently sell. We can harp on how derivative games have become but the fact is that as with Hollywood blockbusters, they sell. It's no secret developers and publishers are risk averse. These games cost a fortune to produce, with their bloated production values, but they're guaranteed to sell. And every couple of years someone takes the plunge and does try something different which turns out to be a big success. And that's inevitably followed by everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. However, the fact is that different and creative isn't always better, especially in gaming where gameplay should always be the core focus.
My fundamental problem with a lot of American gaming is the over-the-top machismo, guy with gun trope. I think it's this obnoxious ego-fueled culture which has inhibited real creativity. Although, Nintendo has been a nice balance to all that. However, I'm convinced that in Japan you'll find far more creative gaming because culturally they're not so fixated on ego. And it's certainly not restricted to gaming, look at popular music.
That said, there is a massive amount of variety out there, probably more than we've ever had before. We do get a lot of gaming from Japan. And indie gaming has dramatically expanded our gaming options.
Want to teach creationism or intelligent design? Go ahead, but do so in a theology class. Those concepts have no business whatsoever being taught in a science class.
If this thing passes anyone who cares about their child's education should move out of that state.
What a travesty. Between this, the fixation on celebrity culture and a total lack of work ethic America is truly doomed.
All these versions and frequent updates are good for one thing: marketing. Frequent releases keep the application on the minds of the consumer.
It keeps people engaged, like something's happening even if when it's not. It's not that dissimilar to the Twitter mindset. And with carefully metered feature implementations a company can ensure that there's something to offer in subsequent versions. And with others playing the same game they're probably thinking it's best to hold back on certain features until they know what the competition is up to.
It's inevitable that what we've seen with gadgets would spread to software. Except with an even more absurd timetable.
As someone who has little patience for most tv shows, I have to say you're quite hypersensitive if you're that bothered by Mythbusters. The experiments may be flawed but I don't ever recall seeing one that wasn't close enough to provide a satisfactory conclusion. And anyway, for me, the most entertaining aspect of the show is how ingenious and efficient they are with the builds that allow them to perform those experiments.
Don't take the job. You'd be surprised how much more you spend in electricity and other utilities by simply being at home all day. And, for me anyway, I like being able to get out of the house and having that physical separation between work and home life.
In my experience over the years telecommuting has been a disaster for corporate America. This is based on observations of friends who telecommute and experiences with clients. I realize there are exceptions, but far, far too often telecommuting has a dramatic negative impact on productivity. Everyone I know who's worked from home spends the bulk of the day on personal things. It might be good for that particular employee, but it sucks for everyone else.
Certainly, there are certain jobs where it's feasible. Developers and designers come to mind. It's very easy to quantify how productive they are: is the task they've been assigned complete? But even then, I think the loss of direct communication, being able to just walk into their office and ask a question, is very detrimental.
However, the real problem are managers who telecommute. If they're not present overseeing employees and projects then what good are they? I can't count the number of meetings that have had to been scheduled around some jerk who works from home a few days a week. And then, because they aren't around much, they have to get caught up on everything because they can actually do their job. These people routinely spend their time at the office not actually managing anything, but merely being updated. They contribute little but somehow manage to keep their jobs.
$1.35 million for this? Seriously? Building a custom Drupal template is trivial. It's not a bad-looking site, but it's basically a homepage design and a single template for all other pages. And navigating the site I'm not seeing a significant amount of content, in fact, a decent amount of it links off to other government sites. And there are some odd, inconsistent navigational elements here and there. I'm curious to know who was responsible for the content load, FCC employees or the developer.
Regardless, the cost is outrageous. In my experience, it's not difficult to find a good-sized corporation would balking at paying $50,000 for a site like this. I expect the US government to overspend, but I would have put the cost at $200k - $300k. Spending over $1 million on this is just idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
This company shouldn't have put all it's eggs in one basket. They should have considered platforms other than iOS. There are probably a lot of other things they should have done.
However, they did encounter some very real challenges, especially being a small company. Often times a smaller company is operating at thinner margins. So Apple comes along demands 30% and what are they going to do? Raise their prices accordingly, risking alienating customers, or do they eat the difference and hope to make it up on volume? A small company doesn't always have the luxury of just raising prices.
If they provided a unique and/or compelling service they might be have been able to weather this. But this is part of the of the risk of doing business in a space that's already filled by established players.
According to this site that would be 9.57 billion Libraries of Congress. If you only consider the printed collection.
I don't imagine any kind of moderation system, on a news site, will go very far for a simple reason: people don't stick around long enough to engage in discussions. A couple of people comment but the discussion rarely reaches critical mass. News sites are constantly deluged with content so people will be jumping onto the next story fairly quickly. Slashdot's pace is a bit more deliberate, but even here, if you're not on the ball you'll comment late and your post will just end up buried and unnoticed.
Group think is always going to be a problem. Slashdot has one of the best moderation systems out there, and is definitely one of the most balanced in terms of discussion, but even here, the issue arises, especially during campaign season and with certain touchy topics. Still, short of simply letting people post anything they want I've yet to see a better system.
One absolutely crucial element, however, to ensuring the success of the discussion forum is design. Most sites treat commenting as a secondary element. This is not conducive to maintaining a discussion. Slashdot has one of the best approaches because the comments are front and center, and more prominent than the story. It's more of a forum format and each post is very distinct. You don't have them all blurring together like happens on other sites.
Of course, the common issue is that people read only the summary. But the thing is, if you want people to comment you've got to get them into the action right from the start. A compromise may be to make the story collapsible. Arrive at the article and you get the first paragraph, followed by comments. Click on the "more" button to get the rest of the story which expands the whole thing and simply pushes comments down. This way you're not redirected elsewhere for the story.
I find it rather interesting that this claim is being made when I've found it to be quite the opposite to my experiences overseas, especially in Asia.
In the US, someone gets the cold or even the flu and they just deal it. There's a massive selection of over-the-counter drugs to help deal with so many basic illnesses.
In Taiwan, as an example, feel a bit off and people start insisting you visit the doctor. And why wouldn't they when, thanks to their social healthcare system, it only costs a few dollars for a visit? So people go in constantly for things like simply colds and then get prescribed a ton of medication that aggressively deals with all the symptoms. Of course, the flip side is that their equivalent to our pharmacies are lacking in any real medication.
So doctors end up being overburdened and are underpaid when practicing for the state. Visit those clinics and the routine consists of describing your symptoms, the doctor makes a few assumptions about what you've got and prescribes something for it. I've had visits where they don't even bother measuring heart rate. The expectation is that if you've got something serious it will be apparent when your condition doesn't improve or even worsens. Many doctors open private practices where they can charge whatever they want. It's more expensive but for people willing to spend the money they can get the care they want right from the start.
And it isn't something unique to Taiwan, I've observed similar things in Japan and some parts of Europe. Who the hell isn't going to take advantage of something if it's cheap? In my experience the US is the opposite. Unless you're well-off or have a low co-pay you're going to put a visit off until you really need it.
On the other hand, I have found American doctors to be excessively cautious. But then, I've always attributed that to a fear of lawsuits. They don't want to risk overlooking something that a patient will then come back and blame them for. As always, this is a complicated issue which isn't being properly addressed.
Well, based on that guy's tweets and what I've read of another guy who lives in the town it seems they heard the second pair of helicopters, not the first. In both cases they hear the helicopters shortly followed by an explosion. That implies they heard nothing related to the initial raid.
This is one of the reasons why on all the devices and computers I use I disable animations when I'm permitted.
I think the real problem, however, is that we've grown increasingly impatient. I notice it in myself. Some application takes over 3 seconds to open and I start getting agitated, wondering what the hell is taking so long.
Think back to the earlier days of computing when it might take 30 seconds or more to get an application started. I recall on my PCjr booting up games and sitting there for a good minute while the drive ground away. That said, some games nowadays have some rather appalling load times. But look at what has to be loaded compared to those games from the 80s.
I also recall trying to play games that were more demanding than my computer could handle. I'd hit a key and get an action a fraction of a second later. I got used to it, but it's something that would be intolerable today.
Even using early versions of Windows and Mac OS was an exercise in patience, especially if something was going on in the background. And what about waiting for a simple website to load, especially over 56kbps? Hell, what about loading up text-only menus on your favorite BBS via 2400 baud?
The simple fact is that we've been spoiled and as such have grown increasingly impatient over shrinking timescales. That said, given all the computing power at the tips of my fingers I do expect everything to be instant.
The problem is that we wouldn't know how to build something like that.
In a small city in northern Portugal there was this stone wall (maybe 50ft high) that was erected during the Roman era. Several years ago part of it finally collapsed. So they decided to rebuild it. That bit collapsed within a year. I don't know what's happened since, but I suspect it involves concrete and rebar.
It's the libertarian way? How about the liberal and conservative way? Everyone in the United States is at fault in some way or another.
The liberals want to cut programs like these because they're incapable of seeing the benefits provided. They don't realize they should be thanking the space program for their precious iPhones. They're the ones claiming that the money should be directed towards every little social entitlement program.
The conservatives are more likely to support these kinds of programs but fail to realize their ideology makes it an impossible goal. You can't have a robust space program with a small government and low taxes. Compounding the problem is their eagerness to waste money on a bloated defense program and a lack of accountability for corporations.
Like anything, too much of any one approach is a very bad thing. And the problems certainly are more complex that what I've presented. Just look at the American educational system.
I agree with your assessment of Super Mario Bros Wii. But it's not a new thing at all. That design principle has applied to Super Mario Bros going back to the days of SMB3.
Apple somehow continues to capture the consumer's imagination. When people think smartphone they generally think iPhone. I've seen it happen so many times, when someone asks for recommendations inevitably everyone parrots the same answer: iPhone!
For that reason Apple's model is very low risk. At this point it's exceedingly difficult for them to put out a smartphone that will fail. They've already mastered integration, it's simply a matter of keeping up on the technology. I wouldn't call them innovators so much as being able to choose the right time at which to exploit a technology.
There are two things Apple offers that so far others have been incapable of matching. The first is the app store. The second is the interface.
The app store is a great selling point. The funny thing is that I bet the vast majority of iPhone users rarely venture there, outside of maybe a few popular apps.
I'd argue that Android's interface is every bit as good as Apple's. However, Apple's is more consistent and at this point more familiar. More importantly, the iPhone's interface hasn't been ruined by carriers like Android's has. And it's not just the carriers, but the hardware companies making a mess of things. HTC has done a great job, but Motorola and Samsung have mostly ruined the experience. So right from the start there's that level of inconsistency to contend with.
The bigger threat to Apple is that someone, someday will finally match Apple. Someone will finally manage to not only put out a product every bit as good as the iPhone but will also market it effectively. The problem is that I don't see anyone really capable of pulling it off. Too many companies seem to be stupidly fixated on the wrong thing. Very few companies out there are good at software and hardware and are able to integrate them both. Microsoft is probably one of the few with the resources to pull it off, but they've got other problems preventing them from actually accomplishing that feat. And the fact is that most companies don't seem intent on focusing resources on a single great product. Instead, they pump out a random smartphone every few months.
The competition is running around in circles and lack long term vision. The ones who do have more of a vision are focused on other markets and don't invest enough effort in this particular market. And everyone's coming into this with the inherent stigma that they're not an iPhone. Which is sad, because I think my Android phone is every bit as good as any iPhone but it will never get the credit it deserves. And AT&T's meddling certainly hasn't helped.
The problem with going after speeders is that we're faced with a confluence of public safety and outright greed. What we've got is a money-making machine and the justification to keep it operating.
The problem I've observed with speed cameras is that they do their job too well once drivers have gotten used to them. I've been in Asia where they have them installed and everyone does the limit. And it's frustrating to experience, everyone plodding along at 60mph. But if everyone is obeying the limit it means no revenue for the locality. In fact, they're probably operating at a loss since they've got to run and maintain those cameras.
How do they address the problem? By doing what we're reading about here. They start tampering with the system in a way that it will catch more drivers. And because there's photographic evidence, valid or not, people are less likely to fight.
But I'm convinced that this is one of the reasons why speed cameras haven't been implemented in my state. That and very likely police unions who would lose a lot of work as a result of these cameras.
Either way it's nonsense. Speeding has been turned into this bogeyman. Any time there's an accident speeding is indicated as a contributing factor. Hell, I saw a news report this morning where a truck ran a red light and got into an accident and an officer on the scene actually claimed that speed was a factor. No, speed was not a factor, going through the red was.
But that's how it goes and so people look at the statistics and see speeding as the biggest cause of accidents, by far. This is not to discount the danger of excessive speeding, but certainly it's not the massive problems it's made out to seem.
There's another factor here, and that's enforcement. It's far, far easier to catch people for speeding than anything else. So the authorities go after the low-hanging fruit. A couple of weeks ago state police set up a new trap on this stretch of highway. I've traveled this road for years and have never seen a problem here. But there they are, predictably located at the bottom of this relatively steep hill. So this cop decides to pull out into the midst of fairly heavy traffic, causing some panicked braking. This asshole's antics were a much greater danger to other drivers than the speeding driver, a driver who while traveling above the limit wasn't moving at a speed anyone would consider unsafe.
If you want long term job security you damn well had better aspire to management.
The people I know who've stuck to the same roles for 10+ years have seriously stagnated. They haven't expanded their skill set and are so dependent on their current job that if they ever laid off they'd be seriously screwed. They're too expensive given their now limited set of skills.
It may be possible to thrive without ever getting into management or starting your own business, but it's certainly a challenge.
The problem is that most people arguing think they're being reasoned and that the other side is irrational. Regardless of the points actually being made. And into that inject self-righteousness and you get the garbage we see online, on both sides of any debate. Everyone thinks they're logical, reasonable and always right. They don't need to have their opinions challenges, in fact it's their duty to make everyone else change their minds.
To your third point, new Blu-Ray players should be very fast to start up. My father had a Sony player which was quite slow, significantly slower than my PS3. He recently replaced it and now it loads up movies within seconds. The impression I had was that movies started up even more quickly than on the PS3.
Simple: Blu-rays are too damn expensive. It's outrageous that movies should cost $25-$30 simply because they're on Blu-ray. And then in a lame attempt to justify the price they bundle the Blu-ray disc with a DVD. And all the features they stick on those Blu-Rays is just pointless fluff. It was neat, with earlier releases that you could get subtitles in quite a few languages, including Chinese. But more recently that seems to have been abandoned, only Spanish and French being the only options.
The improved image and sound quality can be impressive but the fact is that DVD on an HDTV is still decent. But a significant majority of movies are not the sort where improved image or sound enhances the experience. And most movies aren't particularly good. Outside of a miniscule handful of movies, none are worth collecting. They're not worth repeated viewings, so why waste money to own them?
Streaming video has played another significant factor in all this. Convenience has trumped image and sound quality. It's a pain in the ass to shop around for Blu-rays, not just because of price, but just trying to even find some place that carries that particular movie. And rentals, even with the convenience of Red Box, run into the same problem of availability. So why not just go online?
Most people don't have the money, time or inclination to invest in trying to get an entertainment system set up to enjoy the full experience a Blu-ray could provide. So now studios are banking on 3D to help sell the format. The problem is that most people don't have 3D capable TVs, and Blu-rays with 3D are even more outrageously overpriced. And 3D is an even more blatantly pointless gimmick.
I'd argue that it's people in the movie industry who are stupid. Because they don't get it they expect that the movie-going public doesn't get it either. And to that end movies depict what people in Hollywood think Americans are like, not what they're actually like. But I have noticed that people in other countries seem to buy into the stereotypes depicted in movies.
That's not to say there aren't a lot of stupid people out there.
My impression has been that those with money and those looking to acquire it are trying to do it the easy way. The challenging ways of building wealth have been abandoned in America. This is why we don't make much of anything. And when we do, it's often crap where someone in some other country is building it for cheap.
I've also come to the conclusion that the reason there is such an obsession with intellectual property is because people subconsciously know that nobody needs us. We're not much more than middlemen, still resting on the laurels of those who've come before who actually did innovate and build things. It's only a matter of time before the Chinese, like the Japanese, strike out on their own. This defense of IP is desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Although, admittedly, I'm not convinced that China has the culture and devotion that the Japanese have. From my experience Chinese entrepreneurs are primarily driven the same things as Americans, how to make the most money for the least amount of effort. I predict that eventually China will price itself out of cheap manufacturing and everyone will migrate to South East Asia and South America. I foresee a future where most manufacturing based in Africa; the Chinese interestingly are already moving in that direction.
Either way, I'm pessimistic on America's future. And while it's fun to blame someone else it's really everybody's fault; starting with the government, management and ending with the worker.
What we've lost is the sensational: the Space Shuttle, Concorde and SR-71. How many people got to experience any of those three? A infinitesimal percentage of the population. Look at every other mode of transportation, however, and it becomes readily apparent that we're moving faster than ever before.
Cars are significantly faster than they used to be, even fuel efficient models. And, more importantly, they're much more stable at those higher speeds. Even subsonic aircraft are very fast, faster than what any of us would be traveling in 50 years ago. And actually, 50 years ago, most of us wouldn't even consider air travel because we couldn't afford it. Forget the disaster that passes for the American rail system, trains are extremely quick too. Even commuter rail which might hit 70mph+ on some stretches is faster than most of what's come before. And this is not to mention high speed rail running at speeds in excess of 150mph.
So this so-called journalist looks at a single snapshot in time and makes assumptions based on that. It's like watching a 5-year-old for 30 seconds and complaining that he's not growing quickly enough.
Why are genres restrictive? Adventure, first-person shooter, role-playing, platforming... Those are all extremely broad. They're as broad as genres in movies or novels might be. Just because Hollywood as chosen to restrict sci-fi to alien invasions the last few years doesn't mean the genre itself is limiting. What's limiting is the creativity of the developer.
But then the real problem is that those tired old themes evidently sell. We can harp on how derivative games have become but the fact is that as with Hollywood blockbusters, they sell. It's no secret developers and publishers are risk averse. These games cost a fortune to produce, with their bloated production values, but they're guaranteed to sell. And every couple of years someone takes the plunge and does try something different which turns out to be a big success. And that's inevitably followed by everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. However, the fact is that different and creative isn't always better, especially in gaming where gameplay should always be the core focus.
My fundamental problem with a lot of American gaming is the over-the-top machismo, guy with gun trope. I think it's this obnoxious ego-fueled culture which has inhibited real creativity. Although, Nintendo has been a nice balance to all that. However, I'm convinced that in Japan you'll find far more creative gaming because culturally they're not so fixated on ego. And it's certainly not restricted to gaming, look at popular music.
That said, there is a massive amount of variety out there, probably more than we've ever had before. We do get a lot of gaming from Japan. And indie gaming has dramatically expanded our gaming options.
Want to teach creationism or intelligent design? Go ahead, but do so in a theology class. Those concepts have no business whatsoever being taught in a science class.
If this thing passes anyone who cares about their child's education should move out of that state.
What a travesty. Between this, the fixation on celebrity culture and a total lack of work ethic America is truly doomed.
All these versions and frequent updates are good for one thing: marketing. Frequent releases keep the application on the minds of the consumer.
It keeps people engaged, like something's happening even if when it's not. It's not that dissimilar to the Twitter mindset. And with carefully metered feature implementations a company can ensure that there's something to offer in subsequent versions. And with others playing the same game they're probably thinking it's best to hold back on certain features until they know what the competition is up to.
It's inevitable that what we've seen with gadgets would spread to software. Except with an even more absurd timetable.
Can't we just have a separate dictionary for slang? Does every stupid fad term have to be added to the dictionary? Who even uses leet anymore?
Apparently Oxford's standards for inclusion of new words is rather low. But then I'm guessing they're desperate to keep themselves relevant.
As someone who has little patience for most tv shows, I have to say you're quite hypersensitive if you're that bothered by Mythbusters. The experiments may be flawed but I don't ever recall seeing one that wasn't close enough to provide a satisfactory conclusion. And anyway, for me, the most entertaining aspect of the show is how ingenious and efficient they are with the builds that allow them to perform those experiments.
Don't take the job. You'd be surprised how much more you spend in electricity and other utilities by simply being at home all day. And, for me anyway, I like being able to get out of the house and having that physical separation between work and home life.
In my experience over the years telecommuting has been a disaster for corporate America. This is based on observations of friends who telecommute and experiences with clients. I realize there are exceptions, but far, far too often telecommuting has a dramatic negative impact on productivity. Everyone I know who's worked from home spends the bulk of the day on personal things. It might be good for that particular employee, but it sucks for everyone else.
Certainly, there are certain jobs where it's feasible. Developers and designers come to mind. It's very easy to quantify how productive they are: is the task they've been assigned complete? But even then, I think the loss of direct communication, being able to just walk into their office and ask a question, is very detrimental.
However, the real problem are managers who telecommute. If they're not present overseeing employees and projects then what good are they? I can't count the number of meetings that have had to been scheduled around some jerk who works from home a few days a week. And then, because they aren't around much, they have to get caught up on everything because they can actually do their job. These people routinely spend their time at the office not actually managing anything, but merely being updated. They contribute little but somehow manage to keep their jobs.
$1.35 million for this? Seriously? Building a custom Drupal template is trivial. It's not a bad-looking site, but it's basically a homepage design and a single template for all other pages. And navigating the site I'm not seeing a significant amount of content, in fact, a decent amount of it links off to other government sites. And there are some odd, inconsistent navigational elements here and there. I'm curious to know who was responsible for the content load, FCC employees or the developer.
Regardless, the cost is outrageous. In my experience, it's not difficult to find a good-sized corporation would balking at paying $50,000 for a site like this. I expect the US government to overspend, but I would have put the cost at $200k - $300k. Spending over $1 million on this is just idiotic.