The PCjr was my first computer growing up. If it had a shortcoming it was only the existence of the PC. But before EGA came along it was the only way in the PC world, to enjoy 16 color graphics. Also, with a 3-channel speak it offered a better audio experience than you got out of the IBM PC's speaker. Ours came with two keyboards, the chiclet keyboard everyone complained about and a replacement with conventional keys. As a kid, I preferred the look of the chiclet keyboard, but the keys had too much travel for the way they were shaped. The fact that they were infrared was great, as long as you didn't have a book in the way of the sensor. Or someone didn't come in with a second keyboard and screw with you.
For all the fondness people display towards Apple, by comparison their machines at the time were crap. My school had Apple 2's which weren't good for a whole lot, especially the ones saddled with 2-color displays. We did have a single weird Apple clone that rendered more color. The Macintosh wasn't a consideration given it was so expensive. We got our PCjr for about $1000. The PC was maybe another $500 on top of that. But the Macintosh was easily $2500 and about all it had going for it was the GUI.
Early on my father got an attachment offered by a company called Legacy that doubled the size of the machine but gave us an extra 520k and a second floppy drive. I don't remember now but I think we even got a 20MB harddrive for the machine. We definitely got quite a few good years of use out of that machine.
Although, I'd be lying if I didn't look longingly at Amigas with their fantastic 4096 color displays.
Is it me or is the maker movement based around a bunch of hispters patting themselves on the back for doing stuff humans have been doing for eons? They'll spam everyone about a crappy iPhone holder but wouldn't be able to switch out a faulty light switch in their own apartment.
Outside of making 3D printers accessible I'm not sure how libraries could feasibly offer workshops. People don't only work in plastic, and presently 3D printing is a novelty for your average person.
Why is it an aberration? From what I've seen technology and science has resulted in a sort of feedback loop that accelerates progress. It's possible that this rate of progress is not sustainable indefinitely but currently I see no evidence of it stalling.
I think if it does happen it wont be due to reaching a knowledge plateau, but rather because of detrimental social forces. Certainly, total economic collapse or a widespread cataclysm are two scenarios. But marginally more likely is too much of a focus on consumerism and a marked lack of interest in science and technology. Certainly, celebrity culture seems to encouraging such a world. Even then, however, I have difficulty seeing the current rate of progress abate.
Ironically, Taiwan has off-shored a lot of that work to China. They're caught between trying to take advantage of economic opportunities in China and trying to protect their own industries. But I think the draw of money is winning out and there's this gradual erosion occurring in Taiwan. They're stuck competing on price with Chinese companies. So while unemployment is still very low, salaries have generally stalled for at least a decade.
The proposal is outrageous on its own; train kids for nonexistent jobs that have been outsourced to the lowest bidders.
The suggestion that H1Bs are enabling opportunities to foreigners by providing a path to immigration is equally offensive. The reality is that any individuals interested in immigrating are going to do so via the traditional means, and that's assuming they didn't come here to study first.
The vast majority of H1B applications are filed by outsourcing companies in an amusing twist of irony. These companies are realizing that a remote workforce can be problematic. So they've discovered that they've got a cash cow in H1Bs. Apply existing employees for H1Bs and then charge double or triple for the opportunity to ship them over to the US. In most cases they're still cheaper than employing Americans, especially for higher level positions. And if an outsourcing company has someone critical to a client then they've got them by the balls. Pay more to retain that employee or they've already got someone lined up to hire him. I've seen it happen firsthand.
Second, we really need to end this mentality that dumping more money on the inner city is going to fix anything. That money almost always goes to building a beautiful new school to replace the old one to create the illusion of progress and that the government cares. But the same old problems persist. And there's a fundamental reason for this; if the parents don't care and can't be bothered to participate in the education of their children then the kids will never excel.
This is why teacher reviews is such a problem. A poor teacher in a better district is always going to score well. But a good teacher stuck merely trying to keep order on the class in a bad area will always score poorly. Not that the schools in wealthier communities are much better with all the helicopter parents and self-important, spoiled brats.
I haven't even touched on the fiasco that is common core, where they're not only trying to impose what to teach but even how to teach it, oblivious to the variety of teaching techniques and individual personalities. It's typical garbage formulated by management who is completely disconnected from the realities of the situation. The fact that politics plays a factor here only makes it worse.
Fix those fundamental cultural problems and then we can start talking about fixing the schools. But it's next to impossible to even get started when you've got assholes undermining the entire system for their own gain.
The appeal of H1Bs is that it's easier to exploit those workers. What the government should be doing is giving green cards to anyone with a degree or proof that the have a good handle on English and can sustain themselves. But that inevitably means empowered immigrants who are more likely to question the crap offers they're given.
What you're describing happens primarily with Western companies. If you see an American ex-pat you can pretty much guarantee he's working for an American company. And yes, they're sickeningly generous, but these are also upper management types we're talking about. These individuals don't comprise the typical workforce who are hired locally. And a big factor in why the pay packages are so generous is because the number of people willing to do this is small.
Asian companies, however, are not nearly as generous. It varies quite a bit by company, but generally what gets offered is somewhat higher pay and that's about it. As far as Asian companies hiring foreigners, outside of top executives and major corporations, it's extremely rare for them to do the equivalent of an H1B for Westerners. So rare I don't think it happens at all.
Companies in Asia do hire foreigners, and often times do hire merely for the clout of having a foreigner on staff but they hire from the local work force. This means foreigners already living in the country, often times having previously worked as an English teacher. It's common that they earn a hire income than locals, but it's not a given and the difference is usually marginal.
Some countries there do have the equivalent of work visas but they're more restrictive than what we have here although the goal is the same; to cut costs. Unskilled labor typically comes from Southeast Asia and skilled labor from India. The rules for unskilled labor tend to be incredibly limiting and at times outright exploitative. Get in trouble with the law once and you're on the first plane back home.
Servant staff, however, has it worse than anyone conditions often being outright exploitative. People do go to jail for abuses, but even your average person does things that would make any American blush. I knew someone who employed Filipina woman registered as a nanny, but using her has a maid, who slept in what was basically a big closet.
I'm not saying things are roses in America and I'm not justifying anything. However, I find that people most critical of conditions here haven't seen what things are really like in the rest of the world.
No, the real question is, has politics stooped so low that political staff (and possibly politicians) feel entitled to act like petulant little children and expect to get away with it?
This question has long since been answered. Anyone who follows local politics knows that this sort of thing is a daily occurrence. The difference is that most of these politicians don't have aspirations of being president, they just want all the perks and kickbacks that come with the position. So none of it ever gets the attention it deserves.
If you're stuck in a city or town that has voted in the same party for decades then there's corruption and nepotism on a level you can't even imagine. So the fact that it tricks up to state level isn't surprising at all. Sometimes it makes it all the way up to Federal government, but those guys are operating on a whole other level.
These mish-mash flying cars always offer nothing but the worst of both worlds. This thing, like other similar concepts in the past, is not robust enough to make a proper ground vehicle. This is worse because it's intended to go off-road and needs to be armored. But it's inescapable that those two aspects will be compromised to ensure it can get airborne. And the compromises go in both directions, because as an aircraft it will be slow and clumsy.
What does purpose does this thing even serve that isn't already better filled by a helicopter? If a ground vehicle is necessary for a mission there are already numerous ways to deliver and retrieve them using a variety of aircraft. I also recall reading that someone is working on a sort of airframe that mates up to an armored vehicle for transport and separates upon delivery. That seems like a far smarter idea than this.
And since when is "roadable" a word? It always comes off as a pathetic attempt to legitimize a concept; the idea that something is so new and so awesome they had to make up a new term.
I've worked with people who are micro-managers and out-of-touch. They fixate on every little detail of your job, but they don't really understand any of the nuances of the work. The problems are all exacerbated when their background is completely different from that of the people they're managing.
Only Americans have this delusion that the left-wing is inherently pro-individual and anti-business. The US, in quite a few ways, is even more socialist than many other nations, we just have this inherent tendency to delude ourselves we're not.
Nearly all European and Asian nations we perceive as more socialist and left-leaning than ourselves have countless policies many would deride as right wing. They engage in more protectionism than the US and are more likely to restrict individual freedoms in favor of the greater good.
If there's a difference it's that our left-wing is less experienced with open socialism and the impact thereof. So left-wing parties overseas are more likely to be pragmatic whereas too many people here still adhere to the belief that you can have your cake and eat it too. I'm convinced this is why party lines tend to not break down so neatly as they do in the US, at least in terms of rhetoric.
The problems we're experiencing aren't a consequence of technology, they're a consequence of society. People at all levels are becoming increasingly self-centered and the labor force has become marginalized. I see it all the time; people live in big homes and drive expensive cars, but they skimp on tips at a restaurant. Companies can't afford a few extra employees but can splurge and the latest gadgets and generous salaries for management. Everyone cries poverty when it comes time to actually pay someone.
Not that this self-centered mentality doesn't affect all income strata. Work ethic in this country leaves a lot to be desired and there are a whole lot of people out there expecting a lot for nothing. But those people at the bottom aren't the ones necessarily making the biggest impact on society. I do think, however, that there's a distinct tendency to want to offload responsibility on someone else. It's always the other guy's fault, especially if that guy is higher up the chain.
So the tendency is to blame corporate executives. But I remain convinced that the single biggest problem is the middle management. There are legions of these incompetents enjoying inflated salaries managing everything corporate America does. They're the ones always spending to the limits of their incomes, who's sole existence is defined by protecting their own jobs at all costs. They stifle innovation because they don't want to rock the boat. When it comes time to evaluate performance however, they always take the easy route by cutting spending. And cutting spending never means identifying true inefficiencies, it means laying someone off.
This is not to discount the impact of Dot.com culture which continues to perpetuate the mentality that you can amass a fortune with minimal investment and a tiny, often outsourced workforce. That doesn't hold true for a lot of companies, but it doesn't keep people from trying.
I keep seeing two often repeating arguments here that irk me:
The first is that buying expensive is inherently better. Often times the expensive stuff is made in the same sweatshops as the crap at Walmart. The difference being that you're paying extra for somewhat better materials and a bit more quality control. But really, the main thing you're paying for is an inflated marketing budget. Then at the other extreme you're paying some hipster in Brooklyn to produce something in the most inefficient manner possible. There is a reasonable middle ground in manufacturing, but it's becoming increasingly rare in this country. Often times when you're paying for "made in the USA" all you're paying for is low-grade assembly. All the important components is still manufactured overseas.
The second annoyance is that a more socialist system is a panacea. Europe is suffering most of the problems we are. And China, for all it's talk of communism is even more exploitative of it's own people than Americans could ever dream of being. You haven't seen income inequality until you've been in China.
The Prius is not a heavy car by any stretch of the imagination. At roughly 2900lbs it's right in line with the vast majority of small cars and, in fact, is lighter than many. I also don't think it's weight distribution is particular unusual as it's very much in-line with what you'd find on most front-engined FWD cars.
One advantage it does have is that because of the need for low rolling resistance, it rides on narrower tires than you'd find on most cars. Narrow tires, typically, but not always, offer better snow performance. Things like traction control and tread pattern also have a significant impact.
I'm going to assume you're not riding around on winter tires because otherwise this whole discussion would become moot. Winter tires improve snow traction with any car. Otherwise, it may well be that Toyota has selected all seasons for the Prius that happen to be particularly good on snow.
Way to be a wet blanket... I'm in full support of protecting the environment but people really take the mindset to the most idiotic extremes. There's nothing to spoil up there, except maybe the view.
Personally, I'd love to look up at the moon and be able to see signs of human activity. It would be tangible evidence that humans are finally moving towards the stars. Although, considering that in orbit you can't see signs of human activity, I'm pretty sure the moon would look no different either.
Don't forget, we're dealing with wholesale ignorance on the part of the media.
Having recalled stories from back when the Carrera GT was introduced there weren't many reports that the car was particularly dangerous. This is a track-oriented high end sports car. Most cars in that performance category are challenging to drive near the limits. I do have to admit a caveat; most in the automotive press gush over every new model that comes along, saving criticisms for when the car is well past it's prime. But the fact remains that there are a multitude of performance cars out there that are notorious for being difficult to drive.
Just because a car handles well doesn't mean it does the driving for you. Unfortunately, this is where the vast majority of people display massive ignorance, because they do believe that a car will save you from mistakes and incompetence. And they're convinced that the better it performs the better it will do the job.
The two guys in that Carrera GT were supposed to be more competent than most given that they have race cars. But given that they weren't career racers doesn't mean they were actually competitive, let alone any good at it. There are gentleman races all over the country where rich men bring high priced toys to the track and many show an embarrassing lack of skill.
But let's assume these guys were decent. That still doesn't change the fact that they were on an unpredictable public road, engaged in a dangerous activity. These guys crash all the time at tracks, even when they're good; they aren't pushing hard enough to win if they aren't risking a crash. So take that mentality to the open road and problems ensue. There's a reason why car insurance rates are higher for race car drivers.
All this doesn't consider the possibility that the Carrera GT might have been modified by Paul Walker's shop. I don't think that's particularly relevant, because the stock car was fast enough. But if it were the car would likely have been even more difficult to control.
Unfortunately, we've got all this ridiculous analysis when the reality is actually quite simple. A couple of guys went out for a joyride, wrecked and died. It's no different than when some kid does the same in a Honda Civic.
I'm struggling to comprehend why people are making such a big deal out of Apple's free upgrade. This is no different than what Microsoft has been doing for well over a decade, offering service pack upgrades for free.
I'm convinced that the fundamental motivation behind Mavericks being free was because of the recent release of Windows 8.1. That was billed as a fairly substantial update compared to Mavericks which, at least superficially, hasn't changed a whole lot. Apple wouldn't have come out of this looking good if they had charged for it.
I would have said that the fact that iWork is being bundled for free shows that Apple is concerned. I suspect that Apple is trying to make themselves more relevant in spaces Microsoft and Google both dominate because they're falling behind. I used iWork for several years. It's a very capable bit of software and I didn't miss Office much at all. However, it was no better than Office and had plenty of it's own annoying quirks. I suppose that for many the fact that it's not Microsoft is appealing. And there are a lot of ignorant consumers out there who just assume everything Apple is gold. Whether that perception is sustainable indefinitely remains to be seen but they've definitely done a pretty good of keeping it up job thus far.
The fact that we're seeing more open debate about Apple's products, however, implies that the veneer is wearing a bit thin. Apple is unable to offer anything to distinguish themselves from the competition beyond the luxury appeal. The fact that Apple hired Angela Ahrendts from Burberry is a pretty good sign of where they're heading. I don't doubt that they're well aware of the consumer dynamic where rational purchasing decisions go out the window once you're perceived as a luxury brand. That may alienate a huge swath of the population, but they'll still be the aspirational brand. The 1% of gadgets.
I think it comes down to the fact that Microsoft just released Windows 8.1. Like all previous service pack updates, substantial or otherwise, this one is free. The difference here is that the release of that has hit so close to the release of Mavericks. In that light, charging for an OSX update that doesn't feature too many obvious changes likely wouldn't go over well amongst many. So Apple traded some minor profit for good publicity.
I can appreciate the appeal of meticulously recreating a game. That said, I don't personally see what's so satisfying about it. If you've got the skill to do this you've also got the skill to make a unique game.
On top of that, if a company just wants to crush your efforts why continue doing them any favors? Regardless of whether or not Nintendo is appreciative, they're getting free marketing from this. Just change all the assets so that it looks and sounds like something unique. Stop supporting Nintendo.
What's currently happening in Washington doesn't fundamentally impact most people day to day. If anything, it's probably a good thing because spending has been curtailed somewhat. The fact that certain high profile programs have seen funding cut is nothing but a political ploy to make citizens feel some of the pain. We're supposed to believe that the sky is falling but meanwhile all of Congress continues enjoying it's countless benefits. Nor has it prevented our vice-president from going on vacation.
The problem is that while Americas are playing tic-tac-toe the powers that be are playing chess. To this day people continue to argue in defense of their political parties of choice while we continued to be screwed by everyone. Both sides of the aisle are clearly pandering for influence and power, usually playing to different constituencies and except when they're trying to appease the same corporate masters. When when they're pandering to regular systems they inevitably screw everyone else in favor of their particular constituency. It's all garbage.
And meanwhile people seem generally okay with the fact that we're being spied on. That's the most troubling thing here, that people continue to be so fiercely loyal to Obama despite the fact that he's proven himself to be no different than Bush. There's that obnoxious "thanks Obama" meme going around that continues the theme of making fun of anyone who criticizes the president. Where were all these people when Bush was being criticized for something as ridiculous as the weather?
The problem isn't that people criticized Bush, it's the double-standard being applied to Obama. Case in point: Ann Romney wears a $10k outfit and she's out-of-touch; Michelle Obama wears an equally expensive outfit and she's so stylish, adorning the cover of countless magazines. As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.
China is doing a great job of accumulating it's own massive debt. At some point it will probably turn into a race to see who gets there first although I'd give China the edge because I think their economy is not sustainable. For at least a decade some have suggested that China has been exaggerating it's economic growth and from what I know I tend to believe it. Sure things are great, for a very small subset of the population. Meanwhile the majority is exploited in the name of economic success.
Not that China doesn't think ahead. They're currently Africa's largest trading partner. And while America blindly throws far more money at Africa than China does, China is building infrastructure. So the average African is exposed directly to the benefits of a relationship with China while the US, ironically gets little recognition despite the fact that in all other ways they do more. Of course, while China does all that, they're stripping Africa of every resource they can get their hands on.
The US is in the difficult position that they're the world's military. Everyone bitches about a supposedly imperialistic America, but every time something goes wrong somewhere they expect Americans to show up guns blazing. And the European defense industry is only happy to have America as their biggest customer.
Meanwhile, China has been working hard to build their own military might. So while they're currently playing aloof they clearly have other ambitions. Or at least they're hedging their bets. But if I had to guess I'd say their end goal to replace the United States. However, while China has more to gain economically, I'm convinced if their economy took a dump they'd turn to a militaristic approach. There's nothing like a foreign enemy and a cause to distract the people from domestic problems. And their are perfect regional targets that I'm not convinced the US will stand up to defend.
Right, Meego and Symbian phones were legitimate competitors to the iPhone, perhaps in your own head. Unfortunately, in the real world they were nothing but dead ends. There's no way in hell they'd ever viable competitors, particularly considering that Nokia just didn't have the resources to make either a viable platform.
If Nokia had stuck with that crap we'd be looking at another Blackberry. Probably worse because I doubt they would have survived this long. You might not be happy with their sale to Microsoft but this was the possible scenario for them. Android would have just turned them into an also-ran.
Assange's reaction is interesting because everything I've seen about that movie led me to believe it was going to be an overly positive portrayal.
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving. I've found it rather obnoxious the way he's been deified by some in the press. He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information, but he's wrapped his whole personality around it. People have been leaking information well before the advent of Wikileaks. It's not like the service is the be all and end all for anything. There are a million and one channels for making information public this just makes it somewhat more convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
The PCjr was my first computer growing up. If it had a shortcoming it was only the existence of the PC. But before EGA came along it was the only way in the PC world, to enjoy 16 color graphics. Also, with a 3-channel speak it offered a better audio experience than you got out of the IBM PC's speaker. Ours came with two keyboards, the chiclet keyboard everyone complained about and a replacement with conventional keys. As a kid, I preferred the look of the chiclet keyboard, but the keys had too much travel for the way they were shaped. The fact that they were infrared was great, as long as you didn't have a book in the way of the sensor. Or someone didn't come in with a second keyboard and screw with you.
For all the fondness people display towards Apple, by comparison their machines at the time were crap. My school had Apple 2's which weren't good for a whole lot, especially the ones saddled with 2-color displays. We did have a single weird Apple clone that rendered more color. The Macintosh wasn't a consideration given it was so expensive. We got our PCjr for about $1000. The PC was maybe another $500 on top of that. But the Macintosh was easily $2500 and about all it had going for it was the GUI.
Early on my father got an attachment offered by a company called Legacy that doubled the size of the machine but gave us an extra 520k and a second floppy drive. I don't remember now but I think we even got a 20MB harddrive for the machine. We definitely got quite a few good years of use out of that machine.
Although, I'd be lying if I didn't look longingly at Amigas with their fantastic 4096 color displays.
Guys at that level get out of jail by writing a letter to the government stating that they'll be good next time and that they really, really mean it.
Is it me or is the maker movement based around a bunch of hispters patting themselves on the back for doing stuff humans have been doing for eons? They'll spam everyone about a crappy iPhone holder but wouldn't be able to switch out a faulty light switch in their own apartment.
Outside of making 3D printers accessible I'm not sure how libraries could feasibly offer workshops. People don't only work in plastic, and presently 3D printing is a novelty for your average person.
Just because someone has a preference you don't agree with doesn't make them a shill.
Not to mention that you're just resorting to an ad hominem attack instead of arguing a legitimate counterpoint.
Why is it an aberration? From what I've seen technology and science has resulted in a sort of feedback loop that accelerates progress. It's possible that this rate of progress is not sustainable indefinitely but currently I see no evidence of it stalling.
I think if it does happen it wont be due to reaching a knowledge plateau, but rather because of detrimental social forces. Certainly, total economic collapse or a widespread cataclysm are two scenarios. But marginally more likely is too much of a focus on consumerism and a marked lack of interest in science and technology. Certainly, celebrity culture seems to encouraging such a world. Even then, however, I have difficulty seeing the current rate of progress abate.
Ironically, Taiwan has off-shored a lot of that work to China. They're caught between trying to take advantage of economic opportunities in China and trying to protect their own industries. But I think the draw of money is winning out and there's this gradual erosion occurring in Taiwan. They're stuck competing on price with Chinese companies. So while unemployment is still very low, salaries have generally stalled for at least a decade.
The proposal is outrageous on its own; train kids for nonexistent jobs that have been outsourced to the lowest bidders.
The suggestion that H1Bs are enabling opportunities to foreigners by providing a path to immigration is equally offensive. The reality is that any individuals interested in immigrating are going to do so via the traditional means, and that's assuming they didn't come here to study first.
The vast majority of H1B applications are filed by outsourcing companies in an amusing twist of irony. These companies are realizing that a remote workforce can be problematic. So they've discovered that they've got a cash cow in H1Bs. Apply existing employees for H1Bs and then charge double or triple for the opportunity to ship them over to the US. In most cases they're still cheaper than employing Americans, especially for higher level positions. And if an outsourcing company has someone critical to a client then they've got them by the balls. Pay more to retain that employee or they've already got someone lined up to hire him. I've seen it happen firsthand.
Second, we really need to end this mentality that dumping more money on the inner city is going to fix anything. That money almost always goes to building a beautiful new school to replace the old one to create the illusion of progress and that the government cares. But the same old problems persist. And there's a fundamental reason for this; if the parents don't care and can't be bothered to participate in the education of their children then the kids will never excel.
This is why teacher reviews is such a problem. A poor teacher in a better district is always going to score well. But a good teacher stuck merely trying to keep order on the class in a bad area will always score poorly. Not that the schools in wealthier communities are much better with all the helicopter parents and self-important, spoiled brats.
I haven't even touched on the fiasco that is common core, where they're not only trying to impose what to teach but even how to teach it, oblivious to the variety of teaching techniques and individual personalities. It's typical garbage formulated by management who is completely disconnected from the realities of the situation. The fact that politics plays a factor here only makes it worse.
Fix those fundamental cultural problems and then we can start talking about fixing the schools. But it's next to impossible to even get started when you've got assholes undermining the entire system for their own gain.
The appeal of H1Bs is that it's easier to exploit those workers. What the government should be doing is giving green cards to anyone with a degree or proof that the have a good handle on English and can sustain themselves. But that inevitably means empowered immigrants who are more likely to question the crap offers they're given.
What you're describing happens primarily with Western companies. If you see an American ex-pat you can pretty much guarantee he's working for an American company. And yes, they're sickeningly generous, but these are also upper management types we're talking about. These individuals don't comprise the typical workforce who are hired locally. And a big factor in why the pay packages are so generous is because the number of people willing to do this is small.
Asian companies, however, are not nearly as generous. It varies quite a bit by company, but generally what gets offered is somewhat higher pay and that's about it. As far as Asian companies hiring foreigners, outside of top executives and major corporations, it's extremely rare for them to do the equivalent of an H1B for Westerners. So rare I don't think it happens at all.
Companies in Asia do hire foreigners, and often times do hire merely for the clout of having a foreigner on staff but they hire from the local work force. This means foreigners already living in the country, often times having previously worked as an English teacher. It's common that they earn a hire income than locals, but it's not a given and the difference is usually marginal.
Some countries there do have the equivalent of work visas but they're more restrictive than what we have here although the goal is the same; to cut costs. Unskilled labor typically comes from Southeast Asia and skilled labor from India. The rules for unskilled labor tend to be incredibly limiting and at times outright exploitative. Get in trouble with the law once and you're on the first plane back home.
Servant staff, however, has it worse than anyone conditions often being outright exploitative. People do go to jail for abuses, but even your average person does things that would make any American blush. I knew someone who employed Filipina woman registered as a nanny, but using her has a maid, who slept in what was basically a big closet.
I'm not saying things are roses in America and I'm not justifying anything. However, I find that people most critical of conditions here haven't seen what things are really like in the rest of the world.
No, the real question is, has politics stooped so low that political staff (and possibly politicians) feel entitled to act like petulant little children and expect to get away with it?
This question has long since been answered. Anyone who follows local politics knows that this sort of thing is a daily occurrence. The difference is that most of these politicians don't have aspirations of being president, they just want all the perks and kickbacks that come with the position. So none of it ever gets the attention it deserves.
If you're stuck in a city or town that has voted in the same party for decades then there's corruption and nepotism on a level you can't even imagine. So the fact that it tricks up to state level isn't surprising at all. Sometimes it makes it all the way up to Federal government, but those guys are operating on a whole other level.
These mish-mash flying cars always offer nothing but the worst of both worlds. This thing, like other similar concepts in the past, is not robust enough to make a proper ground vehicle. This is worse because it's intended to go off-road and needs to be armored. But it's inescapable that those two aspects will be compromised to ensure it can get airborne. And the compromises go in both directions, because as an aircraft it will be slow and clumsy.
What does purpose does this thing even serve that isn't already better filled by a helicopter? If a ground vehicle is necessary for a mission there are already numerous ways to deliver and retrieve them using a variety of aircraft. I also recall reading that someone is working on a sort of airframe that mates up to an armored vehicle for transport and separates upon delivery. That seems like a far smarter idea than this.
And since when is "roadable" a word? It always comes off as a pathetic attempt to legitimize a concept; the idea that something is so new and so awesome they had to make up a new term.
I've worked with people who are micro-managers and out-of-touch. They fixate on every little detail of your job, but they don't really understand any of the nuances of the work. The problems are all exacerbated when their background is completely different from that of the people they're managing.
So I'm not sure why you find that so farfetched.
Only Americans have this delusion that the left-wing is inherently pro-individual and anti-business. The US, in quite a few ways, is even more socialist than many other nations, we just have this inherent tendency to delude ourselves we're not.
Nearly all European and Asian nations we perceive as more socialist and left-leaning than ourselves have countless policies many would deride as right wing. They engage in more protectionism than the US and are more likely to restrict individual freedoms in favor of the greater good.
If there's a difference it's that our left-wing is less experienced with open socialism and the impact thereof. So left-wing parties overseas are more likely to be pragmatic whereas too many people here still adhere to the belief that you can have your cake and eat it too. I'm convinced this is why party lines tend to not break down so neatly as they do in the US, at least in terms of rhetoric.
The problems we're experiencing aren't a consequence of technology, they're a consequence of society. People at all levels are becoming increasingly self-centered and the labor force has become marginalized. I see it all the time; people live in big homes and drive expensive cars, but they skimp on tips at a restaurant. Companies can't afford a few extra employees but can splurge and the latest gadgets and generous salaries for management. Everyone cries poverty when it comes time to actually pay someone.
Not that this self-centered mentality doesn't affect all income strata. Work ethic in this country leaves a lot to be desired and there are a whole lot of people out there expecting a lot for nothing. But those people at the bottom aren't the ones necessarily making the biggest impact on society. I do think, however, that there's a distinct tendency to want to offload responsibility on someone else. It's always the other guy's fault, especially if that guy is higher up the chain.
So the tendency is to blame corporate executives. But I remain convinced that the single biggest problem is the middle management. There are legions of these incompetents enjoying inflated salaries managing everything corporate America does. They're the ones always spending to the limits of their incomes, who's sole existence is defined by protecting their own jobs at all costs. They stifle innovation because they don't want to rock the boat. When it comes time to evaluate performance however, they always take the easy route by cutting spending. And cutting spending never means identifying true inefficiencies, it means laying someone off.
This is not to discount the impact of Dot.com culture which continues to perpetuate the mentality that you can amass a fortune with minimal investment and a tiny, often outsourced workforce. That doesn't hold true for a lot of companies, but it doesn't keep people from trying.
I keep seeing two often repeating arguments here that irk me:
The first is that buying expensive is inherently better. Often times the expensive stuff is made in the same sweatshops as the crap at Walmart. The difference being that you're paying extra for somewhat better materials and a bit more quality control. But really, the main thing you're paying for is an inflated marketing budget. Then at the other extreme you're paying some hipster in Brooklyn to produce something in the most inefficient manner possible. There is a reasonable middle ground in manufacturing, but it's becoming increasingly rare in this country. Often times when you're paying for "made in the USA" all you're paying for is low-grade assembly. All the important components is still manufactured overseas.
The second annoyance is that a more socialist system is a panacea. Europe is suffering most of the problems we are. And China, for all it's talk of communism is even more exploitative of it's own people than Americans could ever dream of being. You haven't seen income inequality until you've been in China.
The Prius is not a heavy car by any stretch of the imagination. At roughly 2900lbs it's right in line with the vast majority of small cars and, in fact, is lighter than many. I also don't think it's weight distribution is particular unusual as it's very much in-line with what you'd find on most front-engined FWD cars.
One advantage it does have is that because of the need for low rolling resistance, it rides on narrower tires than you'd find on most cars. Narrow tires, typically, but not always, offer better snow performance. Things like traction control and tread pattern also have a significant impact.
I'm going to assume you're not riding around on winter tires because otherwise this whole discussion would become moot. Winter tires improve snow traction with any car. Otherwise, it may well be that Toyota has selected all seasons for the Prius that happen to be particularly good on snow.
Way to be a wet blanket... I'm in full support of protecting the environment but people really take the mindset to the most idiotic extremes. There's nothing to spoil up there, except maybe the view.
Personally, I'd love to look up at the moon and be able to see signs of human activity. It would be tangible evidence that humans are finally moving towards the stars. Although, considering that in orbit you can't see signs of human activity, I'm pretty sure the moon would look no different either.
Don't forget, we're dealing with wholesale ignorance on the part of the media.
Having recalled stories from back when the Carrera GT was introduced there weren't many reports that the car was particularly dangerous. This is a track-oriented high end sports car. Most cars in that performance category are challenging to drive near the limits. I do have to admit a caveat; most in the automotive press gush over every new model that comes along, saving criticisms for when the car is well past it's prime. But the fact remains that there are a multitude of performance cars out there that are notorious for being difficult to drive.
Just because a car handles well doesn't mean it does the driving for you. Unfortunately, this is where the vast majority of people display massive ignorance, because they do believe that a car will save you from mistakes and incompetence. And they're convinced that the better it performs the better it will do the job.
The two guys in that Carrera GT were supposed to be more competent than most given that they have race cars. But given that they weren't career racers doesn't mean they were actually competitive, let alone any good at it. There are gentleman races all over the country where rich men bring high priced toys to the track and many show an embarrassing lack of skill.
But let's assume these guys were decent. That still doesn't change the fact that they were on an unpredictable public road, engaged in a dangerous activity. These guys crash all the time at tracks, even when they're good; they aren't pushing hard enough to win if they aren't risking a crash. So take that mentality to the open road and problems ensue. There's a reason why car insurance rates are higher for race car drivers.
All this doesn't consider the possibility that the Carrera GT might have been modified by Paul Walker's shop. I don't think that's particularly relevant, because the stock car was fast enough. But if it were the car would likely have been even more difficult to control.
Unfortunately, we've got all this ridiculous analysis when the reality is actually quite simple. A couple of guys went out for a joyride, wrecked and died. It's no different than when some kid does the same in a Honda Civic.
What? BP is headquartered in London. By most standards that still makes them a British company.
I'm struggling to comprehend why people are making such a big deal out of Apple's free upgrade. This is no different than what Microsoft has been doing for well over a decade, offering service pack upgrades for free.
I'm convinced that the fundamental motivation behind Mavericks being free was because of the recent release of Windows 8.1. That was billed as a fairly substantial update compared to Mavericks which, at least superficially, hasn't changed a whole lot. Apple wouldn't have come out of this looking good if they had charged for it.
Linux has nothing to do with any of this.
I would have said that the fact that iWork is being bundled for free shows that Apple is concerned. I suspect that Apple is trying to make themselves more relevant in spaces Microsoft and Google both dominate because they're falling behind. I used iWork for several years. It's a very capable bit of software and I didn't miss Office much at all. However, it was no better than Office and had plenty of it's own annoying quirks. I suppose that for many the fact that it's not Microsoft is appealing. And there are a lot of ignorant consumers out there who just assume everything Apple is gold. Whether that perception is sustainable indefinitely remains to be seen but they've definitely done a pretty good of keeping it up job thus far.
The fact that we're seeing more open debate about Apple's products, however, implies that the veneer is wearing a bit thin. Apple is unable to offer anything to distinguish themselves from the competition beyond the luxury appeal. The fact that Apple hired Angela Ahrendts from Burberry is a pretty good sign of where they're heading. I don't doubt that they're well aware of the consumer dynamic where rational purchasing decisions go out the window once you're perceived as a luxury brand. That may alienate a huge swath of the population, but they'll still be the aspirational brand. The 1% of gadgets.
I think it comes down to the fact that Microsoft just released Windows 8.1. Like all previous service pack updates, substantial or otherwise, this one is free. The difference here is that the release of that has hit so close to the release of Mavericks. In that light, charging for an OSX update that doesn't feature too many obvious changes likely wouldn't go over well amongst many. So Apple traded some minor profit for good publicity.
I can appreciate the appeal of meticulously recreating a game. That said, I don't personally see what's so satisfying about it. If you've got the skill to do this you've also got the skill to make a unique game.
On top of that, if a company just wants to crush your efforts why continue doing them any favors? Regardless of whether or not Nintendo is appreciative, they're getting free marketing from this. Just change all the assets so that it looks and sounds like something unique. Stop supporting Nintendo.
What's currently happening in Washington doesn't fundamentally impact most people day to day. If anything, it's probably a good thing because spending has been curtailed somewhat. The fact that certain high profile programs have seen funding cut is nothing but a political ploy to make citizens feel some of the pain. We're supposed to believe that the sky is falling but meanwhile all of Congress continues enjoying it's countless benefits. Nor has it prevented our vice-president from going on vacation.
The problem is that while Americas are playing tic-tac-toe the powers that be are playing chess. To this day people continue to argue in defense of their political parties of choice while we continued to be screwed by everyone. Both sides of the aisle are clearly pandering for influence and power, usually playing to different constituencies and except when they're trying to appease the same corporate masters. When when they're pandering to regular systems they inevitably screw everyone else in favor of their particular constituency. It's all garbage.
And meanwhile people seem generally okay with the fact that we're being spied on. That's the most troubling thing here, that people continue to be so fiercely loyal to Obama despite the fact that he's proven himself to be no different than Bush. There's that obnoxious "thanks Obama" meme going around that continues the theme of making fun of anyone who criticizes the president. Where were all these people when Bush was being criticized for something as ridiculous as the weather?
The problem isn't that people criticized Bush, it's the double-standard being applied to Obama. Case in point: Ann Romney wears a $10k outfit and she's out-of-touch; Michelle Obama wears an equally expensive outfit and she's so stylish, adorning the cover of countless magazines. As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.
China is doing a great job of accumulating it's own massive debt. At some point it will probably turn into a race to see who gets there first although I'd give China the edge because I think their economy is not sustainable. For at least a decade some have suggested that China has been exaggerating it's economic growth and from what I know I tend to believe it. Sure things are great, for a very small subset of the population. Meanwhile the majority is exploited in the name of economic success.
Not that China doesn't think ahead. They're currently Africa's largest trading partner. And while America blindly throws far more money at Africa than China does, China is building infrastructure. So the average African is exposed directly to the benefits of a relationship with China while the US, ironically gets little recognition despite the fact that in all other ways they do more. Of course, while China does all that, they're stripping Africa of every resource they can get their hands on.
The US is in the difficult position that they're the world's military. Everyone bitches about a supposedly imperialistic America, but every time something goes wrong somewhere they expect Americans to show up guns blazing. And the European defense industry is only happy to have America as their biggest customer.
Meanwhile, China has been working hard to build their own military might. So while they're currently playing aloof they clearly have other ambitions. Or at least they're hedging their bets. But if I had to guess I'd say their end goal to replace the United States. However, while China has more to gain economically, I'm convinced if their economy took a dump they'd turn to a militaristic approach. There's nothing like a foreign enemy and a cause to distract the people from domestic problems. And their are perfect regional targets that I'm not convinced the US will stand up to defend.
Right, Meego and Symbian phones were legitimate competitors to the iPhone, perhaps in your own head. Unfortunately, in the real world they were nothing but dead ends. There's no way in hell they'd ever viable competitors, particularly considering that Nokia just didn't have the resources to make either a viable platform.
If Nokia had stuck with that crap we'd be looking at another Blackberry. Probably worse because I doubt they would have survived this long. You might not be happy with their sale to Microsoft but this was the possible scenario for them. Android would have just turned them into an also-ran.
Assange's reaction is interesting because everything I've seen about that movie led me to believe it was going to be an overly positive portrayal.
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving. I've found it rather obnoxious the way he's been deified by some in the press. He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information, but he's wrapped his whole personality around it. People have been leaking information well before the advent of Wikileaks. It's not like the service is the be all and end all for anything. There are a million and one channels for making information public this just makes it somewhat more convenient.