Having been a music major, a film/television major, and someone who hangs around with computer-oriented people most of his life, I think a better comparison would be film and television students. Some of them come into programs with experience in photography and video, some have even done some work that has been on the air, but most have never been near a video camera and can barely press record. The first television production course I took had 50 kids. It was all about hardware and a lot of people were totally lost. It was designed to weed out. The next had 20, and the last had 15. Since I had been taking stills for years, I had a basic understanding of exposure and composition. I also had a fairly strong background in electronics so that helped too. But there were other kids who had no background in either who were able to tough it out and get through it, one I remember was an excellent videographer even though he'd never done it before. Some of us would hang out in the studio and work on each other's projects. Some would attend class and disappear. But I'd say we all were competent enough to get an internship when we graduated (or some other entry level job).
Music, on the other hand, is much more about honing your skills. The system just isn't at all about teaching the basics of your instrument. You have to audition to even be accepted. But there's already an infrastructure in place to accommodate that. I'd been playing since the 4th grade, all though high school I'd been in various bands, orchestras, chorus and choirs, and small ensembles. I'd also been in private lessons all through high school. How many comp-sci majors can say they have similar training?
I'm sure this professor would like to see more students like Linus Torvalds and WOZ (who designed computers over summer vacation), but it isn't going to happen. I'm sure the instructors in the film department would like to see more Steven Spielbergs too (he had been making films since he was 10 before attending USC). The fact is, the field isn't set up that way.
I'm really fascinated by what has happened to video in the past 5 years or so. Now that high quality cameras are cheap, desktop video editors are free, and anyone can publish short pieces easily, we should see a general improvement in the craft. It is going to take time, after all the first round of high school filmmakers is just now entering film school, but I would think we will see some amazing stuff on the horizon. The only thing that I see missing is the one-on-one instruction at the high school level.
The same thing could be happening in comp-sci. If you subscribe to the idea that it take 10,000 hours (sort of the point of this post), the highschoolers today need to have programing tutors. There are a few, but not nearly enough to get kids beyond the "hey that's cool, I'd like to try that" through the tough stuff where most will give up.
Isn't that basically what we have now? With muscle atrophy on long duration flights astronauts usually can't stand in Earth's gravity for a few days, their hearts don't pump blood properly and their bones loose density. Yet we still have a long waiting list.
Not really. It just appears that way because we're seeing it in real time. Witness the particle physics research going on at CERN, Fermilab and other places around the world.
I'm sure James Watt's engine was the only design that was built for quite a few years too. Maybe not 60 years, but remember that particle physics isn't a backyard project.
But remember that in the 1980s, the FED increased interest rates to clean up the mess of the 70s stagflation. Heck, you could get 5% interest on a simple savings account. CDs were paying out in the double digits. I remember watching gas prices fall from over $1.50 to $0.99 and even lower for special occasions like price wars.
Or, better yet, how about licensed radios that actually have some range to them? To get a license, you have to take an operator's test, not as technically-oriented as a HAM license, but more difficult than swiping a credit card at Best Buy. Then the last mile problem becomes YOUR problem, not the ISP/wireless phone company.
The wireless industry keeps telling congress that if they just get a little mo' (little mo' spectrum, little mo' tax money, little mo' market share) they'll be able to cover everyone, even the most rural areas, with super-fast Internet service. The problem is, they have no financial interest in rural areas. A tower is a fixed cost. If a tower is in a metropolitan area, that fixed cost is likely to be lower, mostly because towers can share back-haul resources. In rural areas, there may not be access to back-haul fiber. So it either needs to be built at great expense (X2 if you want 5 9's uptime), leased (at great expense), or just skip the whole thing and lie on the coverage map.
And since every carrier, now save 1, is capping data at 5GB/month, there's really no way rural broadband will truly be available from the wireless carriers.
Well now you're just trying to be funny. Federal preemption of local regulations. Because Washington DC is the finest example of good governance the universe has ever seen.
And BTW, utilities most certainly DO NOT have the right to put "stuff" wherever is best for the system. Otherwise windmills and switching stations would be much closer to the customer instead of out at the edge of town (or middle of nowhere in the case of windmills).
Maybe the FCC will require them to give back the 1.7GHz band, and then open it up for direct licensed radios (so that instead of having to pay for spectrum, like a railroad, end users can use the spectrum like a highway. You buy the radio, you are responsible for using it (and maintaining it), as opposed to a phone company holding a license, and they allow you to use THEIR spectrum however THEY see fit. After all, the spectrum does technically belong to the people (according to the telecommunications act of 1934, which they just keep amending).
This is true. However, many of them won't provision a phone for you unless you actually live near one of their towers. These guys make most of their money off inbound roaming, and lose money if their customers spend too much time off their networks.
And in the case of Union Telephone, they won't give you a better deal if you bring your own phone, their pre-paid plans don't include data, and when roaming you may or may not get any data at all.
I've got news for you. The reason there is poor service in those areas is because it is too expensive/difficult/sparely populated to build towers in those areas. No matter how much spectrum is auctioned off, those areas will remain so. It just wouldn't fit into the cost structure of the business plan.
There is a third possibility: A private company that isn't incompetent, politically connected, and held liable for any damage they do their neighbors. As things are today, no company in the business could come close to that standard. By definition.
I live in Aspen, CO. There used to be a lot of silver mining here. With silver comes thorium, which is radioactive. Most of the western US is covered with the stuff.
Also, I live at 8000ft above sea level. I'm exposed to higher levels of cosmic radiation than people at sea level.
That's true. The bridges should be toll bridges. However, with the amount of regulation imposed by the state, anyone who proposes a "radical" new design won't get funding, won't get regulatory approval and won't be permitted to build. This is how mercantilism works.
If you had a bridge that kills people, word will get out not to use it. If you lobby the senate to not let anything new be built, people won't have any choice. The PR firm is to keep the mushrooms happy.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Town
Exactly!
Because damming up a river doesn't have any environmental impact, right?
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=maps.google.com+lake+mead&rlz=1B7GGHP_enUS428US428&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
Nothing like flooding an area the size of modern Las Vegas with water to be green!
Having been a music major, a film/television major, and someone who hangs around with computer-oriented people most of his life, I think a better comparison would be film and television students. Some of them come into programs with experience in photography and video, some have even done some work that has been on the air, but most have never been near a video camera and can barely press record. The first television production course I took had 50 kids. It was all about hardware and a lot of people were totally lost. It was designed to weed out. The next had 20, and the last had 15. Since I had been taking stills for years, I had a basic understanding of exposure and composition. I also had a fairly strong background in electronics so that helped too. But there were other kids who had no background in either who were able to tough it out and get through it, one I remember was an excellent videographer even though he'd never done it before. Some of us would hang out in the studio and work on each other's projects. Some would attend class and disappear. But I'd say we all were competent enough to get an internship when we graduated (or some other entry level job).
Music, on the other hand, is much more about honing your skills. The system just isn't at all about teaching the basics of your instrument. You have to audition to even be accepted. But there's already an infrastructure in place to accommodate that. I'd been playing since the 4th grade, all though high school I'd been in various bands, orchestras, chorus and choirs, and small ensembles. I'd also been in private lessons all through high school. How many comp-sci majors can say they have similar training?
I'm sure this professor would like to see more students like Linus Torvalds and WOZ (who designed computers over summer vacation), but it isn't going to happen. I'm sure the instructors in the film department would like to see more Steven Spielbergs too (he had been making films since he was 10 before attending USC). The fact is, the field isn't set up that way.
I'm really fascinated by what has happened to video in the past 5 years or so. Now that high quality cameras are cheap, desktop video editors are free, and anyone can publish short pieces easily, we should see a general improvement in the craft. It is going to take time, after all the first round of high school filmmakers is just now entering film school, but I would think we will see some amazing stuff on the horizon. The only thing that I see missing is the one-on-one instruction at the high school level.
The same thing could be happening in comp-sci. If you subscribe to the idea that it take 10,000 hours (sort of the point of this post), the highschoolers today need to have programing tutors. There are a few, but not nearly enough to get kids beyond the "hey that's cool, I'd like to try that" through the tough stuff where most will give up.
How about a Twister interface: Left foot Yellow == channel up. Right hand blue + left hand green volume down, etc.
The DVD collection has an interview with the director. His inspiration was NFL Films, who shoot runningbacks in slow motion.
Isn't that basically what we have now? With muscle atrophy on long duration flights astronauts usually can't stand in Earth's gravity for a few days, their hearts don't pump blood properly and their bones loose density. Yet we still have a long waiting list.
Not really. It just appears that way because we're seeing it in real time. Witness the particle physics research going on at CERN, Fermilab and other places around the world.
I'm sure James Watt's engine was the only design that was built for quite a few years too. Maybe not 60 years, but remember that particle physics isn't a backyard project.
But remember that in the 1980s, the FED increased interest rates to clean up the mess of the 70s stagflation. Heck, you could get 5% interest on a simple savings account. CDs were paying out in the double digits. I remember watching gas prices fall from over $1.50 to $0.99 and even lower for special occasions like price wars.
That's great for you. Meanwhile, your students are saddled with massive debt to pay for your cushy retirement.
If you had any sort of investment strategy, you would have been out of risky investments anyway and wouldn't have noticed.
Or, better yet, how about licensed radios that actually have some range to them? To get a license, you have to take an operator's test, not as technically-oriented as a HAM license, but more difficult than swiping a credit card at Best Buy. Then the last mile problem becomes YOUR problem, not the ISP/wireless phone company.
The wireless industry keeps telling congress that if they just get a little mo' (little mo' spectrum, little mo' tax money, little mo' market share) they'll be able to cover everyone, even the most rural areas, with super-fast Internet service. The problem is, they have no financial interest in rural areas. A tower is a fixed cost. If a tower is in a metropolitan area, that fixed cost is likely to be lower, mostly because towers can share back-haul resources. In rural areas, there may not be access to back-haul fiber. So it either needs to be built at great expense (X2 if you want 5 9's uptime), leased (at great expense), or just skip the whole thing and lie on the coverage map.
And since every carrier, now save 1, is capping data at 5GB/month, there's really no way rural broadband will truly be available from the wireless carriers.
FCC let us build our own networks!
So you enjoyed $1.00/minute long distance then? 9600bps modems? How about paying extra for touch tone service?
Blue boxes were cool though.
Well now you're just trying to be funny. Federal preemption of local regulations. Because Washington DC is the finest example of good governance the universe has ever seen.
And BTW, utilities most certainly DO NOT have the right to put "stuff" wherever is best for the system. Otherwise windmills and switching stations would be much closer to the customer instead of out at the edge of town (or middle of nowhere in the case of windmills).
1st of all, capitalism is a term coined by Karl Marx.
2nd of all, it's not capitalism, it's mercantilism. Big difference.
Maybe the FCC will require them to give back the 1.7GHz band, and then open it up for direct licensed radios (so that instead of having to pay for spectrum, like a railroad, end users can use the spectrum like a highway. You buy the radio, you are responsible for using it (and maintaining it), as opposed to a phone company holding a license, and they allow you to use THEIR spectrum however THEY see fit. After all, the spectrum does technically belong to the people (according to the telecommunications act of 1934, which they just keep amending).
One can dream, I guess.
The word you're looking for is merchantilism.
You can thank Alexander Hamilton for reading things into the Constitution that just aren't there.
And if you want to do something about it, too bad, because Abe Lincoln nearly destroyed the country to make sure you can't opt out.
This is true. However, many of them won't provision a phone for you unless you actually live near one of their towers. These guys make most of their money off inbound roaming, and lose money if their customers spend too much time off their networks.
And in the case of Union Telephone, they won't give you a better deal if you bring your own phone, their pre-paid plans don't include data, and when roaming you may or may not get any data at all.
I've got news for you. The reason there is poor service in those areas is because it is too expensive/difficult/sparely populated to build towers in those areas. No matter how much spectrum is auctioned off, those areas will remain so. It just wouldn't fit into the cost structure of the business plan.
I know you're being sarcastic, but the wireless spectrum in the US has never been competitive, and the telephone network even less so.
If anything, the US is structured more like a merchantilist society.
You sound just like AT&T, circa 1913:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
Already has been suggested, in a way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
You're talking about the same NASA that built The Space Shuttles? The same NASA that crashed a probe because of a math error?
There is a third possibility: A private company that isn't incompetent, politically connected, and held liable for any damage they do their neighbors. As things are today, no company in the business could come close to that standard. By definition.
I live in Aspen, CO. There used to be a lot of silver mining here. With silver comes thorium, which is radioactive. Most of the western US is covered with the stuff.
Also, I live at 8000ft above sea level. I'm exposed to higher levels of cosmic radiation than people at sea level.
Finally, I spent about 10 years living a few miles from a nuclear reactor: http://www.campusmaps.psu.edu/buildings/breazeale.shtml
So a well designed, well managed nuclear plant with proper containment building is not a big deal at all.
That's true. The bridges should be toll bridges. However, with the amount of regulation imposed by the state, anyone who proposes a "radical" new design won't get funding, won't get regulatory approval and won't be permitted to build. This is how mercantilism works.
If you had a bridge that kills people, word will get out not to use it. If you lobby the senate to not let anything new be built, people won't have any choice. The PR firm is to keep the mushrooms happy.