Here we have a bunch of jerks whining about the 6-figure salaries they earn. I wish I were earning what these guys earn. If they have a problem they can go find a job elsewhere. Or do what everyone else has to do, rise through the ranks of the company and get promoted to the point where you're earning the kind of salary you want to see.
While I agree it's quite insane what some in management are earning they also have the responsibility of the entire company on their shoulders. I have a friend who's a programmer at a billion dollar firm that does business related with the stock market and the upper management is comprised of middle aged guys who's entire life is work. The majority are single or divorced and don't even have time for a girlfriend. But anyway, my point is that pay isn't based on what management is earning. It's based on your perceived value to the company. There are probably countless other programmers lined up behind these guys hoping to take their jobs. Not all are qualified but some are.
The whole point of having employees is so that they generate more income, directly or indirectly, than is expended on them. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping them employed? Again, it's rare that you're going to earn a lot more than you do now at the same job you're doing now. So the two best avenues to seeing your income increase is to get promoted or to start your own business.
Real audiophiles don't buy Monster Cables and know full well it's a scam. There are countless respected cable companies out there that offer high quality cables and substantially cheaper prices.
I'm convinced that if California weren't so scenic, enjoyed such appealing weather, and didn't have established industries, making it difficult to pick up and leave, the state would be a wasteland by now. All those idiots in government may have the best of intentions, but that doesn't always translate to what's best for the state and it's people.
If they had any common sense they would be looking at this Volt, taking note that it's made by an American automaker and a significant portion of it is manufactured here, features all the right ingredients for being a clean vehicle, doing so in an ingenious fashion, and make the effort to have it qualify as a zero-emissions vehicle. Or, at least compromise for some partial benefit. How about a modicum of national pride here?
This is flat out wrong. Did you just make it up? The Volt was developed in the US. An Opel version of the Volt is going to be offered, but that's something that was introduced long after development began in the US. The initial run of Volts will feature an Opel engine, but then they could stick anything in there and it would have nothing to do with where the car was developed. The batteries are supplied by LG, does that make the car Korean as well? Regardless of where the individual components come from the car was indeed developed in the US.
That heavy lump of metal is what gives the Volt a dramatic increase in range over the Leaf. It will be interesting to see how many Leaf owners end up stranded because they misjudged range. From what I've read over the years of reviews of various electric only vehicles is that they inevitably end up not being able to go as far as they had expected.
It's great that companies are introducing electric vehicles, but battery technology isn't anywhere near a point that it's a viable option for most people, but hybrids are.
The components might be cheap, but I'm guessing it requires a lot of effort and development to actually make something that works. The companies making cheap electronic games aren't going to spend the money, if they even have the resources to devote to this. Most are just designing new shells for whatever crap Chinese companies have pumped out for the domestic market. The company with the money and interest are going at higher end markets.
That said, toy technology is at an impressive state compared to 20 years ago. Sometimes I'm taken aback by the level of technology and sophistication found in a lot of toys. Ironically, quality isn't what it used to be in a lot of cases.
Are they serious? There are more avid collectors of classic gaming than there have every been at any time in the past. I have a friend who owns quite a few rather obscure consoles and I can assure you they aren't rotting away. There are countless resources out there for getting old units repaired. We've got eBay, but visit Japan and it doesn't take a lot of effort to find some obscure stuff. There are quite a few stores in Japan that specialize in used electronics and it's possible to find some amazing deals on old stuff. And that's for actual, physical original consoles and games.
Then you've got emulation. It's still relatively easy to find ROMs although it certainly is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. But even with these crackdowns on emulation it's not like collections have suddenly disappeared. There are tons of countless collections out there. This is best evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of people still building arcade cabinets for emulation-dedicated PCs.
Given that these claims have been made by researchers in Vienna I suppose Europeans are less interested in classic gaming than Americans and so not much effort has been put into preserving anything. If the issue is that museums or governments haven't put the effort into preserving games that they have with other media, we'll that's another story altogether. But the article doesn't discuss that issue at all.
Japan has a strong cultural preference for simplicity in design? Who is this hack Jeffrey Zeldman? Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't know the first thing about Japan outside of the tired old stereotypes. Visit Japan and tell me Japanese prefer simple design. They prefer clean design about as much as American or European designers do. I'd say Europeans, in fact, are the kings of minimalist design with everyone else inevitably copying their style, including the Japanese. Simply walking the streets of Japan you're greeted to a massive clutter of architecture with all kinds of markings and signs fighting for attention. Japan is the antithesis of minimalism.
Japan does have artistic styles founded in minimalism, but then so do the Chinese and no one accuses them of minimalist design. Contemporary Japanese design is actually quite busy and can be, at times, rather loud. Take a look at the busy lines, odd compound shapes, and fussy taillight and headlight design of Japanese cars over the past decade or so and tell me they favor simple design.
The reason why Japanese sites have been a mess for so long is because they simply don't care about the web. Management doesn't see the value and just gets someone to throw a site together just to have a presence. So if they don't get employees to build the site, they'll find a nephew and worst case probably hire some design company to do it on the cheap. And regardless of who built the site originally inevitably some employee will be responsible for maintain it and there will be no attempt whatsoever to preserve the original look and feel.
And frankly, I can't blame them for not focusing on the web. Their internet browsing habits differ dramatically from much of the rest of the world. They've been heavy mobile phone users for over a decade now. Most of their web browsing has been on that. So web design, if you can call it that, has been focused on providing an optimized experience on phones, conventional websites have languished.
Also important is the demographic of web designers in Japan. This is something I heard from a few people who've lived in Japan. Men in Japan very rarely get into design, like much of Asia actually. Guys tend to get into interior or product design, and those that get into graphic design still tend to focus on branding and maybe print. Web design, as a consequence is primarily a female-driven field. And culturally in Japan there's a heavy emphasis on cute. So inevitably those kinds of elements find their way into designs. It could be subtle, the generous use of color, or more direct in the form of cutesy cartoons.
There is also a tendency to make everything dramatic and overdone. With everything fighting for attention. And that is today's Japanese design aesthetic, not minimalism.
If this thing truly costs $35 it's likely not much better than a calculator. Anything more than that and it didn't actually cost $35. Either someone's eating the cost or the government is subsidizing it.
And for this sort of thing it's always smarter and cheaper to go with something off the shelf. The money wasted on the OLPC project would have been better finding an existing cheap computer. Better yet, that money should have been used improving the quality of schools and education. Computers aren't some kind of panacea. Internet access isn't some kind of magical wonder that will provide instant education. It's not going to help at all if you don't know what you're looking for. From my experience the first thing everyone goes for is social networking. You could drop a dead computer in front of a kid and they'll start playing with it instead of paying attention.
India would be better served buying $50-$100 desktops and keeping them locked away in labs at school and used only for computer-specific classes. Computers are awesome tools with a ton of potential when applied correctly. Otherwise they're nothing but a massive and expensive distraction which I'm convinced which I'm far more likely to be a distraction in the classroom.
Get over it already. The religious conspiracy to force you to stop believing in science exists only in your mind. Every time a scientific story is posted dealing with the nature of the universe somehow, someone has to inevitably drag out the tired stereotype that anyone who's religious, well specifically a christian is an uneducated moron who believes in the 6000 year old universe.
The Vatican has specifically stated that science and Christianity can co-exist. One doesn't refute the other. There have been discussions and debates on all kinds of scientific discoveries and in the end they choose to accept them. They've embraced evolution for example.
This is not to say there aren't religious idiots out there and even some odd denominations somewhere preaching garbage. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people probably don't care about science nearly as much as people here seem to think they do, admittedly that's not necessarily a good thing. Most people aren't ever questioning the veracity of scientific discovers so there isn't even a conflict of science contradicting anything they believe.
Of course, don't let that stop you from stereotyping. I've dealt with a few programmers who were elitist jerks not nearly as talented as they liked to believe they were. I suppose it's safe to say all programmers are like that.
I hate to break it to you but all humans copy. If you believe otherwise you're either delusional or racist.
There are, however, cultural difference. Westerners tend to be more subtle, or at least they try to convince you that what they've copied is somehow different. No doubt the fear of lawsuits factors into this, especially for Americans.
Chinese tend to have a win-at-any-cost attitude. If that means copying, so be it. Also, keep in mind that many, if not most, Chinese can't afford all the popular stuff we take for granted. So inevitably a Chinese company comes along and makes a cheap knockoff. This is the stuff that sells in China. What matters is cost, not quality and the majority of Chinese companies don't have the resources to produce higher quality products anyway.
Then you've got the Japanese who seem to have the only culture capable of producing copies that are routinely as good, if not better, than the original
The big irony is that Asian nations enjoy a freer and far more competitive marketplaces. When you're a leader everyone is trying to copy you. If you rest on your laurels, which seems to be what American companies are content to do, you're inviting failure.
I've worked with people who've used crowdsourcing. I've found that the quality of work ranges from decent to awful. Predictably the most professional work seems to come from the US and Europe. The problem is, that you're dealing with a serious hive mentality. You provide some simple details and choose from overly simplistic definitions to describe what you're looking for. Outside rare exceptions the concepts are contrived, frequently overly literal depictions of what you're looking for. And once you start narrowing down the selection then everything goes to hell because people start copying those chosen designs. So you end up with dozens of designs featuring only minor variations. There are other problems, like general lack of refinement and poor font selection. Then you've got larger risks, like the possibility that the work you selected was copied. I've seen quite a few samples that were heavily derivative of other work.
I'll concede it's a good resource to have if you run a small time business and don't have the money to hire a proper designer. Of course, you run the risk of getting only low quality work because you haven't put up enough of a reward. But it might not be any worse than you'll get from some unskilled, but cheap, designer.
The big issue I have as a designer is that it undermines my work. It's already a huge source of frustration trying to convince business idiots of the value of proper design. I frequently encounter consultants and middle-managers who are so-called experts on web design. They know all the buzz words. They know how to basically copy the layout of a site they frequently visit and force it on a client. But they suck at implementation. That's where the value of a good designer comes in.
Not convinced? Look at Apple. Regardless of your opinion of the company it's undeniable that they know how to design a reasonably intuitive interface and they've managed to do an excellent job of integrating software and hardware. But try convincing some idiot of that fact when they want everything done on the cheap.
Anyone who thinks designers are overpaid doesn't really know the first thing about the industry. Even ensuring job security is a struggle. The big trend I've been seeing over the past decade is a big push towards freelancing. Companies would rather not deal with all the taxes and expenses of a full-time employee and it's a lot easy to let them go if there isn't enough work to go around. Crowdsourcing only makes things worse because you're doing work at the risk of not being paid. It's like when a potential client expects detailed design work and an expensive proposal for a pitch. Although that scenario is still more promising than crowdsourcing because you're usually only dealing with a handful of competitors and there's a chance of on-going work with this client. With crowdsourcing once you've done that piece you're done with that client, no long term relationships to form.
This is why it's important for designers, like anyone in any profession, to provide more value than just design. A lot of people can produce good design. Not everyone can apply real substance to their work, a real understanding of the client, the audience, strategy and implementation. Of course, the trick is being able to convince potential clients of your value.
I've been considering getting a smartphone recently and one of the things that turned me off from Android phones was all the reports of bloatware. And some carriers, like AT&T, don't even allow the user to delete that crap. The HTC Aria, for example, is stuck with 4 or 5 different AT&T navigation applications, in addition to the one provided by Google. People have managed to hack the phone and are providing clean installs. Years ago I might have done that, but nowadays I don't have the time or patience to deal with that sort of thing.
This kind of crap automatically leaves me seriously considering an iPhone. Why in the hell is a company like Apple more successful in keeping bloatware off their phones? Why are Google and Microsoft incapable of demanding their products be free of this stuff? It's in their best interests.
I want something designed well, that just works without and doesn't require me screwing around with the device to get it just right. And this is coming from someone who used to spend a lot of time obsessing over getting icons and tools set up just right. I've designed my own themes for Windows and even found an application that let me create unique themes for my old Sony Ericsson. I like some level of customization but if things are design properly the need for it is diminished.
It's bad enough having to go through and delete junk that's installing only to try to convince me to waste my money. It's offensive that I can't even remove that crap from the phone.
For now I'm not getting any smartphone. I'll wait to see how things play out. A regular old phone does the job just fine and I'm in front of a computer all day anyway/
Let's face it, news and journalism today is not about disseminating information, it's about entertainment. But ultimately the problems journalists are facing are no different than what anyone else has experienced. Many people enter the working world with plenty of idealism and ambition. Unfortunately reality doesn't work as they had hoped and it turns out people have to work a lot hard than they had expected to get ahead. Sometimes things just aren't fair.
I'd say that many journalists probably start out with the particularly naive expectation that they're going to educate the world. Hell, it looks like a lot of professionals have this attitude, that their jobs are to educate. Their jobs are to inform us, to tell us what happened and nothing more. I don't want inconvenient details ignored, other aspects over-emphasized, or personal commentary. This is not to say there's no place for commentaries, but that's what editorials and talk shows are for. You know what you're getting with Jon Stewart or Glen Beck. But I sure as hell better not be getting opinion from Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric, but of course they can't help themselves. I can't stand it when they try to deliver a story in a dramatic manner, which is pretty much all Foxnews does.
Ultimately this is the fault of the consumer. They're the ones who eat up the crap they're fed. Journalism wouldn't be the way it is if it weren't for consumer demand. I do have a problem with news aggregators when they reap the benefits of someone else's work. But I've found that the most successful of these provide their own unique content. It's the only way to ensure loyalty. So what this means is that the landscape is changing.
Like I've said before, it's ultimately the responsibility of the individual journalist to find a way to thrive. I have to do the same in my career, why shouldn't a journalist be expected to do the same? What are we going to do? Start giving them bailouts like some are proposing?
The real concern I have is the rise of rampant bias. It's gotten for too easy for people to only expose themselves to the news they want to hear, that which agrees with their worldview.
As a somewhat avid reader I've seriously considered one of these readers. But I just can't bring myself to spend $150 on the device and then pay for an electronic book that isn't significantly cheaper than a paperback. I realize that the bulk of the price doesn't come from printing costs, but the fact is that the $150 spent on the reader could go to 10 to 15 additional books. Of course, if I really wanted to save some money I'd just borrow books from the library.
Additionally, I like having a bookshelf stocked with books. I like having those books within easy reach. I'm sure these readers can hold quite a few books, but I'm still bound by DRM and the device itself. The reader might last me a good 10 years, or it might not. And what happens when it does fail? It's safe to assume that I'm not going to be able to just go online and download all those books I've already purchased onto a new device. Even if I crack the DRM, it's not guaranteed future devices will be compatible and it's only a matter of time before all this turns into more trouble than it's worth. And if a friend wants to borrow a book all I have to do is pull it off the shelf and hand it to them.
Of course people talk about the convenience of buying books online. Like every last second is a precious commodity. It's like people can't wait an extra day to get something they want, or they can't devote 30 minutes to head down to the local library. It's unreal how wasteful people can be for the sake of a little convenience.
So I'll stick with paper books. They'll last my lifetime at least and the biggest inconvenience I'll face is moving them and finding enough shelf space. Probably one of the bigger asset of these readers is easy access to magazines and newspapers. But then there are a million and one ways to get this content another way and also get a complete web experience.
Very neat, but the generated sounds seemed a bit flat to me compared to the real thing. It's like they were missing some amount of reverberation at the end, like the sound was cut short. It is, nevertheless, impressive especially coupled with visuals that look very convincing. Modeling this stuff might be nothing new, but I'm always a sucker for this sort of thing.
I'm guessing the key advantage of this unit over HAL is that it doesn't merely augment movement, it is able to support a person in standing position. Very cool, but the thing is far too slow. I'm guessing that in many cases the operator is going to choose to just stick to a wheelchair because they'll be able to get around a lot more quickly. This thing, in it's current form, is probably only suitable for specialized tasks that require standing. You could argue that most tasks require standing, but I'm sure that most who are wheelchair bound already have their home optimized for their condition.
I suppose these guys have to start somewhere. We're seeing exoskeletons in their infancy so you can't really knock this technology. It would be like criticizing the Wright Brothers for not being able to keep a plane aloft for a useful length of time. Give this technology a couple of decades.
I'm almost positive Apple is going to announce that they've screwed up and will address the problem. The response may range from offer free rubber bumpers all the way to replacing the phone. It's not that I have any special adoration for Apple, it's that they've done similar things in the past. They blame the end user first, drag things on, presumably in the hope they blow over, and eventually give in and address the problem. Apple seems to know it's base amazingly well. They know that the fans will drop to their knees and worship Jobs like a god. It will make them even more devoted than if the iPhone had never had a defect.
And regarding the problem itself, I'm almost positive it wasn't a matter of insufficient testing. I'm not an engineer, but I'm almost positive that anyone who does work with antennas who took a look at the design would immediately know there's a problem. But design to priority and concerns were dismissed. And it was probably easy for them to dismiss the concerns because they went around the office, saw the way people held their phones and assumed few enough people held it the "wrong" way that it wouldn't be an issue. It's kind of like their mouse which requires you to lift your index finger if you want to right click. Usually, it's not a problem, but occasionally is it. They're basically playing Russian roulette with usability, designing certain elements around how they expect most users to interact with them.
I like that Apple is obsessive about design and usability because other companies are not obsessive enough. But proper engineering is equally important. I'd say Apple's designers are seriously overpaid if they can't take basic engineering concerns into account. Might as well hire a bunch of design school students for cheap if they want pretty, but impractical and flawed product design.
Well, there are emails that have been disclosed where concerned about the antenna were voiced. One of Apple's antenna engineers warned them about the problem at least as far back as a year before launch. And it's claimed that people from a service provider, presumably AT&T, warned them as well.
The reasons why China wouldn't want this guy to speak are clear. It wouldn't be an issue for Taiwan except that current Taiwanese administration has been expanding ties with China at a fairly rapid pace. I'm sure they wanted to avoid ruffling feathers in China. We all know how ridiculous China is with any negative press, how they have to make a big show of dissatisfaction over every little thing. The Chinese leadership soils itself whenever some Taiwanese official travels to Japan or the States. So the Taiwanese, particularly those in the KMT party, are working pretty hard to keep China happy. There have been claims of censorship in Taiwan the Taiwanese media for this same reason.
There's some strong opposition in Taiwan to these expanding ties, but my impression is that people there aren't all that troubled by this. They're far more concerned in the almighty dollar than they are principles.
A keyboard is something I feel requires tactile feedback, a mouse is not. Tactile feedback with a keyboard provides an intuitive reference for where your fingers are placed. You don't need to look down at your keyboard to be sure your fingers are properly aligned before you start typing. Typing on a touchscreen requires constant visual checks and a ton of practice on that particular screen and layout before muscle memory can kick it. Also important is the feedback of a key being depressed. The amount of effort to register a key input is consistent. I don't think we need the tall keys of traditional keyboards. I much prefer laptop or Apple's keyboards in particular because your fingers aren't reaching over neighboring keys and the amount of travel is minimal per key so it allows for fast, efficient typing.
A mouse, on the other hand, is all visual feedback. Where the mouse is sitting is completely irrelevant because it's constantly changing relative to the screen. All that matters is that a certain amount of movement in your hand corresponds to a set amount of movement on-screen. The only physical feedback I would probably miss button presses because that raises a similar issue to touchscreen keyboards.
I do have a few questions. Everyone in this video is using the claw grip. How does this system work with someone who uses the fingertip grip? The claw grip is far too imprecise for the design work that I do. Also, how does this work with click and drag? I don't see an example of that in the video, although I suppose that may be a non-issue. And the third question I have is how it deals with repositioning your hand. My cursor moves at a somewhat slow speed relative to mouse movement requiring me to reposition my mouse from time to time. Will this system allow for that without freaking out every time I place my hand in a new position.
If someone gets serious about turning this into a consumer product I hope they do some research with all kinds heavy mouse users. And in the end it might turn out that nobody likes this. I tend to think gesture control is a bit overrated. It certainly looks flashy. It feels like something from the future. But I'm not convinced it's particularly efficient. And more importantly, a lot of those gesture controls are likely to be exhausting over prolonged use. I think we need a physical object as a counterbalance to our movements, at least at this level.
Even mind control probably isn't as easy at it looks. I can imagine using your mind to control a cursor within a traditional OS environment would require too much concentration to be worthwhile. Try to visualize drawing something with your mind; I don't think it's as easy as you'd expect because you'd have to focus on every little movement. Drawing with an implement of any kind is a lot more instinctive.
Tablet PCs have been around for nearly a decade. Before the iPad came along Sony was amongst the last few companies still offering them in the US up until 2005 or so. They've continued producing them overseas. I remember that other tablet promised by some company out of California which looked promising but never really materialized. I think what's happened in the intervening years is that the original makers of tablet PCs were pretty much scared off and took the more conventional approaches of netbooks and smartphones.
The very same idiot "experts" who are soiling themselves over how wonderful the iPad completely dumped on the tablet PC market, deeming them pointless. I happened to have one of those Sony tablets which I acquired through my old company. About 4 years ago I was on a subway in Taiwan browsing the web on that thing and it was apparent, at that point, that these things are the future. I found it to be a better experience than lugging around a laptop, although even those have gotten smaller since then.
There were a few problems, however, that kept them from catching on. I think their makers saw them as laptop replacements before the hardware and software was ready. My Sony ran Windows XP which was great. I could do anything I wanted as opposed to the compromised experience you get with an iPad. On the other hand, they didn't feature any kind of custom interface. So navigating the thing was a clumsy affair. And worse, the device featured a 5" to 6" screen running 800x600 which meant everything was tiny. It could be eye-straining. Another problem was input. It was expected everyone was going to interact with these devices using a stylus, so text input was slow and cumbersome. Sony offered a folding keyboard, but that defeated the purpose of having a portable device. With later models they got fixated on integrating sliding keyboards instead of addressing the interface itself. But without question, the potential was there, it's the integration that was lacking.
And that's what Apple got right. Apple constantly gets credit it doesn't deserve for being an innovator. I'm convinced people confuse pretty industrial design with innovation. The reality is that Apple is amazing at two things: taking advantage of technology when its reached maturity and more importantly, integration. Other companies, Microsoft included amongst them, are the real innovators. The problem is, that when you bring immature technology to the market you risk damaging your brand with a potentially problematic product. But I suppose someone has to take the risk because you never truly know how something will work until it's out in the hands of consumers.
As I've said, integration is the thing that Apple has gotten right for years now. They just know how to marry hardware and software in a way that works seamlessly. It helps that they're uncompromising and not afraid about building walled gardens. Without question, Apple products are designed for mass market appeal, but they aren't trying to be everything for everybody. The huge advantage Apple has is that it's a hardware and software company in generally equal parts. I can't think of a single competitor with the same breadth of capabilities. Microsoft has some experience with hardware, but they're a software company first. Google is software only. Sony is heavily focused on hardware and I'd say any software development they do is generally crap.
Ballmer can talk all he wants about tablets, but in the end Microsoft is always going to be left at the whim of whichever vendor they go with for hardware. The first Zune was basically a Toshiba. Their Smartphones are all made by someone else. They don't have hardware designers and engineers they can work with directly. I suppose if they took the same approach they took with the Xbox360 they might have a real chance. But in that case I'd say it would make sense for them to established a separate division for mobile devices. And they need to develop a more intuitive OS that doesn't overwhelm users. At the very least the people at Microsoft should already have plenty of experience with what not to do with Tablet PCs.
Are actors getting screwed out of money by these companies? When these stories come up it seems like it's always writers, directors or the original owners of the property who get screwed. I'm guessing actors and film crews either know how to work the system or they've got unions protecting them. And I'm guessing big name actors hold some influence over the studios, given their ability to draw in viewers, so it's in their best interested not to screw with them.
Either way, I'm guessing there are so many people dying to get into the business that for anyone who's principled and prudent there are 10 suckers waiting in line right behind them. I'm also certain that Hollywood has enough lobbyists and close ties with some politicians to ensure that they can get away with quite a lot of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Cheating. You mean like quite a few European nations where cheating is actually taken into account when scoring tests?
Here we have a bunch of jerks whining about the 6-figure salaries they earn. I wish I were earning what these guys earn. If they have a problem they can go find a job elsewhere. Or do what everyone else has to do, rise through the ranks of the company and get promoted to the point where you're earning the kind of salary you want to see.
While I agree it's quite insane what some in management are earning they also have the responsibility of the entire company on their shoulders. I have a friend who's a programmer at a billion dollar firm that does business related with the stock market and the upper management is comprised of middle aged guys who's entire life is work. The majority are single or divorced and don't even have time for a girlfriend. But anyway, my point is that pay isn't based on what management is earning. It's based on your perceived value to the company. There are probably countless other programmers lined up behind these guys hoping to take their jobs. Not all are qualified but some are.
The whole point of having employees is so that they generate more income, directly or indirectly, than is expended on them. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping them employed? Again, it's rare that you're going to earn a lot more than you do now at the same job you're doing now. So the two best avenues to seeing your income increase is to get promoted or to start your own business.
Real audiophiles don't buy Monster Cables and know full well it's a scam. There are countless respected cable companies out there that offer high quality cables and substantially cheaper prices.
I'm convinced that if California weren't so scenic, enjoyed such appealing weather, and didn't have established industries, making it difficult to pick up and leave, the state would be a wasteland by now. All those idiots in government may have the best of intentions, but that doesn't always translate to what's best for the state and it's people.
If they had any common sense they would be looking at this Volt, taking note that it's made by an American automaker and a significant portion of it is manufactured here, features all the right ingredients for being a clean vehicle, doing so in an ingenious fashion, and make the effort to have it qualify as a zero-emissions vehicle. Or, at least compromise for some partial benefit. How about a modicum of national pride here?
This is flat out wrong. Did you just make it up? The Volt was developed in the US. An Opel version of the Volt is going to be offered, but that's something that was introduced long after development began in the US. The initial run of Volts will feature an Opel engine, but then they could stick anything in there and it would have nothing to do with where the car was developed. The batteries are supplied by LG, does that make the car Korean as well? Regardless of where the individual components come from the car was indeed developed in the US.
That heavy lump of metal is what gives the Volt a dramatic increase in range over the Leaf. It will be interesting to see how many Leaf owners end up stranded because they misjudged range. From what I've read over the years of reviews of various electric only vehicles is that they inevitably end up not being able to go as far as they had expected.
It's great that companies are introducing electric vehicles, but battery technology isn't anywhere near a point that it's a viable option for most people, but hybrids are.
The components might be cheap, but I'm guessing it requires a lot of effort and development to actually make something that works. The companies making cheap electronic games aren't going to spend the money, if they even have the resources to devote to this. Most are just designing new shells for whatever crap Chinese companies have pumped out for the domestic market. The company with the money and interest are going at higher end markets.
That said, toy technology is at an impressive state compared to 20 years ago. Sometimes I'm taken aback by the level of technology and sophistication found in a lot of toys. Ironically, quality isn't what it used to be in a lot of cases.
Are they serious? There are more avid collectors of classic gaming than there have every been at any time in the past. I have a friend who owns quite a few rather obscure consoles and I can assure you they aren't rotting away. There are countless resources out there for getting old units repaired. We've got eBay, but visit Japan and it doesn't take a lot of effort to find some obscure stuff. There are quite a few stores in Japan that specialize in used electronics and it's possible to find some amazing deals on old stuff. And that's for actual, physical original consoles and games.
Then you've got emulation. It's still relatively easy to find ROMs although it certainly is nowhere near as easy as it used to be. But even with these crackdowns on emulation it's not like collections have suddenly disappeared. There are tons of countless collections out there. This is best evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of people still building arcade cabinets for emulation-dedicated PCs.
Given that these claims have been made by researchers in Vienna I suppose Europeans are less interested in classic gaming than Americans and so not much effort has been put into preserving anything. If the issue is that museums or governments haven't put the effort into preserving games that they have with other media, we'll that's another story altogether. But the article doesn't discuss that issue at all.
Japan has a strong cultural preference for simplicity in design? Who is this hack Jeffrey Zeldman? Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't know the first thing about Japan outside of the tired old stereotypes. Visit Japan and tell me Japanese prefer simple design. They prefer clean design about as much as American or European designers do. I'd say Europeans, in fact, are the kings of minimalist design with everyone else inevitably copying their style, including the Japanese. Simply walking the streets of Japan you're greeted to a massive clutter of architecture with all kinds of markings and signs fighting for attention. Japan is the antithesis of minimalism.
Japan does have artistic styles founded in minimalism, but then so do the Chinese and no one accuses them of minimalist design. Contemporary Japanese design is actually quite busy and can be, at times, rather loud. Take a look at the busy lines, odd compound shapes, and fussy taillight and headlight design of Japanese cars over the past decade or so and tell me they favor simple design.
The reason why Japanese sites have been a mess for so long is because they simply don't care about the web. Management doesn't see the value and just gets someone to throw a site together just to have a presence. So if they don't get employees to build the site, they'll find a nephew and worst case probably hire some design company to do it on the cheap. And regardless of who built the site originally inevitably some employee will be responsible for maintain it and there will be no attempt whatsoever to preserve the original look and feel.
And frankly, I can't blame them for not focusing on the web. Their internet browsing habits differ dramatically from much of the rest of the world. They've been heavy mobile phone users for over a decade now. Most of their web browsing has been on that. So web design, if you can call it that, has been focused on providing an optimized experience on phones, conventional websites have languished.
Also important is the demographic of web designers in Japan. This is something I heard from a few people who've lived in Japan. Men in Japan very rarely get into design, like much of Asia actually. Guys tend to get into interior or product design, and those that get into graphic design still tend to focus on branding and maybe print. Web design, as a consequence is primarily a female-driven field. And culturally in Japan there's a heavy emphasis on cute. So inevitably those kinds of elements find their way into designs. It could be subtle, the generous use of color, or more direct in the form of cutesy cartoons.
There is also a tendency to make everything dramatic and overdone. With everything fighting for attention. And that is today's Japanese design aesthetic, not minimalism.
If this thing truly costs $35 it's likely not much better than a calculator. Anything more than that and it didn't actually cost $35. Either someone's eating the cost or the government is subsidizing it.
And for this sort of thing it's always smarter and cheaper to go with something off the shelf. The money wasted on the OLPC project would have been better finding an existing cheap computer. Better yet, that money should have been used improving the quality of schools and education. Computers aren't some kind of panacea. Internet access isn't some kind of magical wonder that will provide instant education. It's not going to help at all if you don't know what you're looking for. From my experience the first thing everyone goes for is social networking. You could drop a dead computer in front of a kid and they'll start playing with it instead of paying attention.
India would be better served buying $50-$100 desktops and keeping them locked away in labs at school and used only for computer-specific classes. Computers are awesome tools with a ton of potential when applied correctly. Otherwise they're nothing but a massive and expensive distraction which I'm convinced which I'm far more likely to be a distraction in the classroom.
Get over it already. The religious conspiracy to force you to stop believing in science exists only in your mind. Every time a scientific story is posted dealing with the nature of the universe somehow, someone has to inevitably drag out the tired stereotype that anyone who's religious, well specifically a christian is an uneducated moron who believes in the 6000 year old universe.
The Vatican has specifically stated that science and Christianity can co-exist. One doesn't refute the other. There have been discussions and debates on all kinds of scientific discoveries and in the end they choose to accept them. They've embraced evolution for example.
This is not to say there aren't religious idiots out there and even some odd denominations somewhere preaching garbage. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people probably don't care about science nearly as much as people here seem to think they do, admittedly that's not necessarily a good thing. Most people aren't ever questioning the veracity of scientific discovers so there isn't even a conflict of science contradicting anything they believe.
Of course, don't let that stop you from stereotyping. I've dealt with a few programmers who were elitist jerks not nearly as talented as they liked to believe they were. I suppose it's safe to say all programmers are like that.
I hate to break it to you but all humans copy. If you believe otherwise you're either delusional or racist.
There are, however, cultural difference. Westerners tend to be more subtle, or at least they try to convince you that what they've copied is somehow different. No doubt the fear of lawsuits factors into this, especially for Americans.
Chinese tend to have a win-at-any-cost attitude. If that means copying, so be it. Also, keep in mind that many, if not most, Chinese can't afford all the popular stuff we take for granted. So inevitably a Chinese company comes along and makes a cheap knockoff. This is the stuff that sells in China. What matters is cost, not quality and the majority of Chinese companies don't have the resources to produce higher quality products anyway.
Then you've got the Japanese who seem to have the only culture capable of producing copies that are routinely as good, if not better, than the original
The big irony is that Asian nations enjoy a freer and far more competitive marketplaces. When you're a leader everyone is trying to copy you. If you rest on your laurels, which seems to be what American companies are content to do, you're inviting failure.
I've worked with people who've used crowdsourcing. I've found that the quality of work ranges from decent to awful. Predictably the most professional work seems to come from the US and Europe. The problem is, that you're dealing with a serious hive mentality. You provide some simple details and choose from overly simplistic definitions to describe what you're looking for. Outside rare exceptions the concepts are contrived, frequently overly literal depictions of what you're looking for. And once you start narrowing down the selection then everything goes to hell because people start copying those chosen designs. So you end up with dozens of designs featuring only minor variations. There are other problems, like general lack of refinement and poor font selection. Then you've got larger risks, like the possibility that the work you selected was copied. I've seen quite a few samples that were heavily derivative of other work.
I'll concede it's a good resource to have if you run a small time business and don't have the money to hire a proper designer. Of course, you run the risk of getting only low quality work because you haven't put up enough of a reward. But it might not be any worse than you'll get from some unskilled, but cheap, designer.
The big issue I have as a designer is that it undermines my work. It's already a huge source of frustration trying to convince business idiots of the value of proper design. I frequently encounter consultants and middle-managers who are so-called experts on web design. They know all the buzz words. They know how to basically copy the layout of a site they frequently visit and force it on a client. But they suck at implementation. That's where the value of a good designer comes in.
Not convinced? Look at Apple. Regardless of your opinion of the company it's undeniable that they know how to design a reasonably intuitive interface and they've managed to do an excellent job of integrating software and hardware. But try convincing some idiot of that fact when they want everything done on the cheap.
Anyone who thinks designers are overpaid doesn't really know the first thing about the industry. Even ensuring job security is a struggle. The big trend I've been seeing over the past decade is a big push towards freelancing. Companies would rather not deal with all the taxes and expenses of a full-time employee and it's a lot easy to let them go if there isn't enough work to go around. Crowdsourcing only makes things worse because you're doing work at the risk of not being paid. It's like when a potential client expects detailed design work and an expensive proposal for a pitch. Although that scenario is still more promising than crowdsourcing because you're usually only dealing with a handful of competitors and there's a chance of on-going work with this client. With crowdsourcing once you've done that piece you're done with that client, no long term relationships to form.
This is why it's important for designers, like anyone in any profession, to provide more value than just design. A lot of people can produce good design. Not everyone can apply real substance to their work, a real understanding of the client, the audience, strategy and implementation. Of course, the trick is being able to convince potential clients of your value.
I've been considering getting a smartphone recently and one of the things that turned me off from Android phones was all the reports of bloatware. And some carriers, like AT&T, don't even allow the user to delete that crap. The HTC Aria, for example, is stuck with 4 or 5 different AT&T navigation applications, in addition to the one provided by Google. People have managed to hack the phone and are providing clean installs. Years ago I might have done that, but nowadays I don't have the time or patience to deal with that sort of thing.
This kind of crap automatically leaves me seriously considering an iPhone. Why in the hell is a company like Apple more successful in keeping bloatware off their phones? Why are Google and Microsoft incapable of demanding their products be free of this stuff? It's in their best interests.
I want something designed well, that just works without and doesn't require me screwing around with the device to get it just right. And this is coming from someone who used to spend a lot of time obsessing over getting icons and tools set up just right. I've designed my own themes for Windows and even found an application that let me create unique themes for my old Sony Ericsson. I like some level of customization but if things are design properly the need for it is diminished.
It's bad enough having to go through and delete junk that's installing only to try to convince me to waste my money. It's offensive that I can't even remove that crap from the phone.
For now I'm not getting any smartphone. I'll wait to see how things play out. A regular old phone does the job just fine and I'm in front of a computer all day anyway/
That's because emails have shown that Hilliburton actually warned BP of potential dangers.
Let's face it, news and journalism today is not about disseminating information, it's about entertainment. But ultimately the problems journalists are facing are no different than what anyone else has experienced. Many people enter the working world with plenty of idealism and ambition. Unfortunately reality doesn't work as they had hoped and it turns out people have to work a lot hard than they had expected to get ahead. Sometimes things just aren't fair.
I'd say that many journalists probably start out with the particularly naive expectation that they're going to educate the world. Hell, it looks like a lot of professionals have this attitude, that their jobs are to educate. Their jobs are to inform us, to tell us what happened and nothing more. I don't want inconvenient details ignored, other aspects over-emphasized, or personal commentary. This is not to say there's no place for commentaries, but that's what editorials and talk shows are for. You know what you're getting with Jon Stewart or Glen Beck. But I sure as hell better not be getting opinion from Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric, but of course they can't help themselves. I can't stand it when they try to deliver a story in a dramatic manner, which is pretty much all Foxnews does.
Ultimately this is the fault of the consumer. They're the ones who eat up the crap they're fed. Journalism wouldn't be the way it is if it weren't for consumer demand. I do have a problem with news aggregators when they reap the benefits of someone else's work. But I've found that the most successful of these provide their own unique content. It's the only way to ensure loyalty. So what this means is that the landscape is changing.
Like I've said before, it's ultimately the responsibility of the individual journalist to find a way to thrive. I have to do the same in my career, why shouldn't a journalist be expected to do the same? What are we going to do? Start giving them bailouts like some are proposing?
The real concern I have is the rise of rampant bias. It's gotten for too easy for people to only expose themselves to the news they want to hear, that which agrees with their worldview.
As a somewhat avid reader I've seriously considered one of these readers. But I just can't bring myself to spend $150 on the device and then pay for an electronic book that isn't significantly cheaper than a paperback. I realize that the bulk of the price doesn't come from printing costs, but the fact is that the $150 spent on the reader could go to 10 to 15 additional books. Of course, if I really wanted to save some money I'd just borrow books from the library.
Additionally, I like having a bookshelf stocked with books. I like having those books within easy reach. I'm sure these readers can hold quite a few books, but I'm still bound by DRM and the device itself. The reader might last me a good 10 years, or it might not. And what happens when it does fail? It's safe to assume that I'm not going to be able to just go online and download all those books I've already purchased onto a new device. Even if I crack the DRM, it's not guaranteed future devices will be compatible and it's only a matter of time before all this turns into more trouble than it's worth. And if a friend wants to borrow a book all I have to do is pull it off the shelf and hand it to them.
Of course people talk about the convenience of buying books online. Like every last second is a precious commodity. It's like people can't wait an extra day to get something they want, or they can't devote 30 minutes to head down to the local library. It's unreal how wasteful people can be for the sake of a little convenience.
So I'll stick with paper books. They'll last my lifetime at least and the biggest inconvenience I'll face is moving them and finding enough shelf space. Probably one of the bigger asset of these readers is easy access to magazines and newspapers. But then there are a million and one ways to get this content another way and also get a complete web experience.
Very neat, but the generated sounds seemed a bit flat to me compared to the real thing. It's like they were missing some amount of reverberation at the end, like the sound was cut short. It is, nevertheless, impressive especially coupled with visuals that look very convincing. Modeling this stuff might be nothing new, but I'm always a sucker for this sort of thing.
I'm guessing the key advantage of this unit over HAL is that it doesn't merely augment movement, it is able to support a person in standing position. Very cool, but the thing is far too slow. I'm guessing that in many cases the operator is going to choose to just stick to a wheelchair because they'll be able to get around a lot more quickly. This thing, in it's current form, is probably only suitable for specialized tasks that require standing. You could argue that most tasks require standing, but I'm sure that most who are wheelchair bound already have their home optimized for their condition.
I suppose these guys have to start somewhere. We're seeing exoskeletons in their infancy so you can't really knock this technology. It would be like criticizing the Wright Brothers for not being able to keep a plane aloft for a useful length of time. Give this technology a couple of decades.
I'm almost positive Apple is going to announce that they've screwed up and will address the problem. The response may range from offer free rubber bumpers all the way to replacing the phone. It's not that I have any special adoration for Apple, it's that they've done similar things in the past. They blame the end user first, drag things on, presumably in the hope they blow over, and eventually give in and address the problem. Apple seems to know it's base amazingly well. They know that the fans will drop to their knees and worship Jobs like a god. It will make them even more devoted than if the iPhone had never had a defect.
And regarding the problem itself, I'm almost positive it wasn't a matter of insufficient testing. I'm not an engineer, but I'm almost positive that anyone who does work with antennas who took a look at the design would immediately know there's a problem. But design to priority and concerns were dismissed. And it was probably easy for them to dismiss the concerns because they went around the office, saw the way people held their phones and assumed few enough people held it the "wrong" way that it wouldn't be an issue. It's kind of like their mouse which requires you to lift your index finger if you want to right click. Usually, it's not a problem, but occasionally is it. They're basically playing Russian roulette with usability, designing certain elements around how they expect most users to interact with them.
I like that Apple is obsessive about design and usability because other companies are not obsessive enough. But proper engineering is equally important. I'd say Apple's designers are seriously overpaid if they can't take basic engineering concerns into account. Might as well hire a bunch of design school students for cheap if they want pretty, but impractical and flawed product design.
Well, there are emails that have been disclosed where concerned about the antenna were voiced. One of Apple's antenna engineers warned them about the problem at least as far back as a year before launch. And it's claimed that people from a service provider, presumably AT&T, warned them as well.
The reasons why China wouldn't want this guy to speak are clear. It wouldn't be an issue for Taiwan except that current Taiwanese administration has been expanding ties with China at a fairly rapid pace. I'm sure they wanted to avoid ruffling feathers in China. We all know how ridiculous China is with any negative press, how they have to make a big show of dissatisfaction over every little thing. The Chinese leadership soils itself whenever some Taiwanese official travels to Japan or the States. So the Taiwanese, particularly those in the KMT party, are working pretty hard to keep China happy. There have been claims of censorship in Taiwan the Taiwanese media for this same reason.
There's some strong opposition in Taiwan to these expanding ties, but my impression is that people there aren't all that troubled by this. They're far more concerned in the almighty dollar than they are principles.
A keyboard is something I feel requires tactile feedback, a mouse is not. Tactile feedback with a keyboard provides an intuitive reference for where your fingers are placed. You don't need to look down at your keyboard to be sure your fingers are properly aligned before you start typing. Typing on a touchscreen requires constant visual checks and a ton of practice on that particular screen and layout before muscle memory can kick it. Also important is the feedback of a key being depressed. The amount of effort to register a key input is consistent. I don't think we need the tall keys of traditional keyboards. I much prefer laptop or Apple's keyboards in particular because your fingers aren't reaching over neighboring keys and the amount of travel is minimal per key so it allows for fast, efficient typing.
A mouse, on the other hand, is all visual feedback. Where the mouse is sitting is completely irrelevant because it's constantly changing relative to the screen. All that matters is that a certain amount of movement in your hand corresponds to a set amount of movement on-screen. The only physical feedback I would probably miss button presses because that raises a similar issue to touchscreen keyboards.
I do have a few questions. Everyone in this video is using the claw grip. How does this system work with someone who uses the fingertip grip? The claw grip is far too imprecise for the design work that I do. Also, how does this work with click and drag? I don't see an example of that in the video, although I suppose that may be a non-issue. And the third question I have is how it deals with repositioning your hand. My cursor moves at a somewhat slow speed relative to mouse movement requiring me to reposition my mouse from time to time. Will this system allow for that without freaking out every time I place my hand in a new position.
If someone gets serious about turning this into a consumer product I hope they do some research with all kinds heavy mouse users. And in the end it might turn out that nobody likes this. I tend to think gesture control is a bit overrated. It certainly looks flashy. It feels like something from the future. But I'm not convinced it's particularly efficient. And more importantly, a lot of those gesture controls are likely to be exhausting over prolonged use. I think we need a physical object as a counterbalance to our movements, at least at this level.
Even mind control probably isn't as easy at it looks. I can imagine using your mind to control a cursor within a traditional OS environment would require too much concentration to be worthwhile. Try to visualize drawing something with your mind; I don't think it's as easy as you'd expect because you'd have to focus on every little movement. Drawing with an implement of any kind is a lot more instinctive.
Tablet PCs have been around for nearly a decade. Before the iPad came along Sony was amongst the last few companies still offering them in the US up until 2005 or so. They've continued producing them overseas. I remember that other tablet promised by some company out of California which looked promising but never really materialized. I think what's happened in the intervening years is that the original makers of tablet PCs were pretty much scared off and took the more conventional approaches of netbooks and smartphones.
The very same idiot "experts" who are soiling themselves over how wonderful the iPad completely dumped on the tablet PC market, deeming them pointless. I happened to have one of those Sony tablets which I acquired through my old company. About 4 years ago I was on a subway in Taiwan browsing the web on that thing and it was apparent, at that point, that these things are the future. I found it to be a better experience than lugging around a laptop, although even those have gotten smaller since then.
There were a few problems, however, that kept them from catching on. I think their makers saw them as laptop replacements before the hardware and software was ready. My Sony ran Windows XP which was great. I could do anything I wanted as opposed to the compromised experience you get with an iPad. On the other hand, they didn't feature any kind of custom interface. So navigating the thing was a clumsy affair. And worse, the device featured a 5" to 6" screen running 800x600 which meant everything was tiny. It could be eye-straining. Another problem was input. It was expected everyone was going to interact with these devices using a stylus, so text input was slow and cumbersome. Sony offered a folding keyboard, but that defeated the purpose of having a portable device. With later models they got fixated on integrating sliding keyboards instead of addressing the interface itself. But without question, the potential was there, it's the integration that was lacking.
And that's what Apple got right. Apple constantly gets credit it doesn't deserve for being an innovator. I'm convinced people confuse pretty industrial design with innovation. The reality is that Apple is amazing at two things: taking advantage of technology when its reached maturity and more importantly, integration. Other companies, Microsoft included amongst them, are the real innovators. The problem is, that when you bring immature technology to the market you risk damaging your brand with a potentially problematic product. But I suppose someone has to take the risk because you never truly know how something will work until it's out in the hands of consumers.
As I've said, integration is the thing that Apple has gotten right for years now. They just know how to marry hardware and software in a way that works seamlessly. It helps that they're uncompromising and not afraid about building walled gardens. Without question, Apple products are designed for mass market appeal, but they aren't trying to be everything for everybody. The huge advantage Apple has is that it's a hardware and software company in generally equal parts. I can't think of a single competitor with the same breadth of capabilities. Microsoft has some experience with hardware, but they're a software company first. Google is software only. Sony is heavily focused on hardware and I'd say any software development they do is generally crap.
Ballmer can talk all he wants about tablets, but in the end Microsoft is always going to be left at the whim of whichever vendor they go with for hardware. The first Zune was basically a Toshiba. Their Smartphones are all made by someone else. They don't have hardware designers and engineers they can work with directly. I suppose if they took the same approach they took with the Xbox360 they might have a real chance. But in that case I'd say it would make sense for them to established a separate division for mobile devices. And they need to develop a more intuitive OS that doesn't overwhelm users. At the very least the people at Microsoft should already have plenty of experience with what not to do with Tablet PCs.
Are actors getting screwed out of money by these companies? When these stories come up it seems like it's always writers, directors or the original owners of the property who get screwed. I'm guessing actors and film crews either know how to work the system or they've got unions protecting them. And I'm guessing big name actors hold some influence over the studios, given their ability to draw in viewers, so it's in their best interested not to screw with them.
Either way, I'm guessing there are so many people dying to get into the business that for anyone who's principled and prudent there are 10 suckers waiting in line right behind them. I'm also certain that Hollywood has enough lobbyists and close ties with some politicians to ensure that they can get away with quite a lot of things.