I live in the US. Near my house inside a residential area is an uncontrolled intersection (an intersection with no signs and no defined right-of-way). I always slow down when crossing it (the posted speed limit is 15 mph), but not everyone does. It's scary. When visibility is low, I avoid the intersection. I plan on petitioning the city to put up a pair of stop signs to make that intersection safer.
For the small amount of money these towns will save, their residents will incur huge increases in insurance (auto and health), travel time and accidents, and stress (imagine being scared at every intersection), and decreases in tourism (tour books will tell visitors to avoid those places) and safety. This is absolutely the worst idea in civil engineering I've heard in a long time. Road signs are necessary to safe transportation. Absurd.
Where: Oz, Canada, England. I only speak English, I have family in Minnesota (close to Canada) and Oz, and I like the parliamentary system in England. Germany is a possibility, too: more than 2 political parties sounds like fun.
Why not: Jobs and money. I've applied for several jobs in Canada well within my range of skills, but never heard back. I think employers see the out-of-country address and toss the resume. I don't have enough money saved to simply pull up the stakes and plant them elsewhere in the US, let alone another country. My parents recently moved to Australia, and though it was a corporate relocation, the move cost them at least $5000 in accidental expenses (doctor visits, application fees, dog vet visits, insurance, time off work, etc). They said that if they were to return, it would cost them upwards of $25,000. Ouch.
Ultimately, as appealing moving sounds, there's just too much effort involved to leave on political grounds. Ending one's support of a sports team because the players are criminals is an easy use of principle overriding emotion. Leaving the country is not. Besides, the best way to affect change is to vote. How many of the people who say they'll leave have voted recently?
BG&E had extremely repetitive gameplay. After the first few levels, it's all crouching and sneaking. "There's another guard. Duck and wait...and wait...and wait...and...go--no, I missed my chance. Five more minutes..."
The design and look of the game was quite good, and it was certainly creative. But the gameplay is what killed the game for me.
Ah, the pitfalls of a consumer-driven economy. We don't care who's writing the news, we just want to know. Quality is tertiary to primacy and radicalism. And most people simply stop at primacy, the first article they read is all they want to know about the subject.
Someone mentioned the lack of tech understanding, and I think that's another big reason for the lack of good tech writing. How many tech journalists can discuss at length and in depth the difference between AAC and mp3 file formats? Or the advantages of DDR RAM? Game critics seem to spend too much time gaming and not enough time practicing their trade. I've never read a game review that delved deeper into the technology driving the game than a general description of the gaming engine; quick! what are the distinguishing characteristics of the Unreal 3 engine? You may not use google. Of course, none of this matters as the average person doesn't know what those terms mean, and won't read jargon-filled articles. Article A comes out first and uses little jargon, article B comes out later and uses some jargon. Guess which article gets read.
At some level, people understand how technology is changing their lives. We see it everyday. As the article said, "Technology is the province of geeks, a sterile, above-board, carefully marketed phenomenon; drugs are underground, illegal, and risky." We know what we're getting into when we buy a new computer, but have no idea what imagines and planes of existence we'll encounter with this new acid formula. No journalist is going to take home an Alienware machine and achieve a higher state of consciousness through it (well, maybe with an Alienware machine, but not the standard PC). The plainness of technology ensures that articles will be bland, and that people will look to primacy and radicalism before quality: people won't seek out great tech articles just for the reading as they'll already know what they want to know.
All of this assumes people want to read articles for reading's sake. In fact, most people read reviews to see if they should buy tech gadget #1192 or #1193. They're searching for information, not pleasure reading. Unlike with drugs, which the average person can't obtain and thus experiment with, technology is available to anyone with a decent cash flow. I'd rather know quickly if something's worth buying then play with it myself than read about someone playing with it.
Inheritance is a rather basic concept that anyone who has cleaned windows (the glass variety, not the OS) understands: spray the Windex at the top, wait a few seconds as it slowly drips down, wipe up. Rocket science, this is not.
How about campus computer labs? Not the high-end ones (for computer science and graphic design majors), but the average computer labs where people type papers, check email, and surf. At my school, this would be perfect. We have software that (tries to) remotely controls all 50+ computers in our computer lab, but it rarely works completely. Having the computers hooked up through a server would solve several problems. Plus, maintaining 50+ computers is time-consuming and expensive due to the parts and labor involved. Lastly, with computers simply mounted to a wall, we can put more computers in the lab. Don't have to allot space for 50+ Dell towers. There are trade-offs (not as powerful as an equally-expensive full computer, fewer apps), but we don't mind the trade-offs because we don't need those things anyway.
A few people have mentioned computer literacy as being able to use computers to complete an abstract task, a notion I heartily agree with. A computer is a tool when reduced and abstracted. To be considered literate/adept/handy with a tool, one must know when to employ it and how to use it properly. To that end, I would say there are some basic tasks and concepts that people should know if they wish to be considered computer literate.
Windows, Mac OS, and Unix are different operating systems and function in different ways.
How to create, print, and save a word processing document.
How to send an email with an attachment.
How to surf the web safely and how to find information on the web.
How to safely tinker with applications and hardware (they're called backups).
Know when and whom to ask for help.
How to maintain a Windows machine (or a Mac or a Unix box, depending on the type of computer the person uses most often).
Telecommunication and computer security basics (no more pwd='password').
How to install and use a keyboard, mouse, printer, and modem.
How to use and troublshoot software and hardware required for one's job.
I'm sure I'm missing other concepts, but that list will suffice. Probably 90-95% of what the average computer user does falls into that list. I don't need to be Harold Bloom to consider myself book literate, nor do I need to be the world's greatest programmer to consider myself computer literate.
The idea of learning a computer through trial-and-error has merit, but many people don't know how to do it safely or thoroughly. The vast majority of Slashdotters are computer literate--if not computer experts--and thus know how to safely and thoroughly experiment with new computer soft/hardware. Computer beginners, however, may find themselves doing something irrevocable (like trying to uninstall IE in XP), and so should stick to learning basic processes until they are more familiar with the computer.
Exactly. I grew up on a mac (in the pre-"hip and elitist" days), and I encountered the same type of responses when I switched to an IBM-compatible. It's frustrating, counter-productive, and disgraceful towards the millions of friendly Linux people. I chalk a lot of this hate up to techies surrounding themselves with other (OMG! A stereotype!). People get clique-ish and don't want n00bs (who very well might become better at the system than they). Like a 12-year old trying to play basketball with the varsity team down at the playground, this is just assinine and childish behavior by the "experts".
The only theories that may have to be updated are those relating to extinction rates and geologic periods; that is, any theory related to what animals survived the last ice age, how animals cope with drastic changes in the weather, etc. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (which should be the law of evolution).
What would be so problematic about discussing RL issues in-game? We're all supposed to stay in character (or IC) all the time? If I join a guild, I want to be friends with the people I hang out with, and thus RL issues will come out. People should take care of their own problems: if someone is offended by another player who admits s/he is gay, they can ask that person to politely not discuss sexual (or political or religious or gender or [insert topic here]) orientation. There's no need to go running off to the GMs every time someone puts their foot in their mouth.
I think discussing RL issues might be kinda fun. "Hey look! It's those guys who like the Green Bay Packers!" "Grrrr! It's the Minnesota Vikings fans! LET'S RUMBLE!!"
I like books, too. Heck, I'm a librarian, it's in my job description.
Ebooks are the future, though right now, the future is fairly dystopic. They are expensive, are painful to read, require logins that are easily lost/forgotten, require specialized software (readers), have the typical internet problems (server downtime, browser incompatibility, etc), and are not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of books. Personally, the viewing issue bothers me the most: I have a hard time reading five virtual pages let alone JK Rowling's latest online.
However, they are the future and do offer advantages. We use http://www.netlibrary.com/) and probably will use http://www.ebrary.com/) soon. For tech people, there's also Safari Tech Books (I can't remember the URL). For us and other libraries, there are several advantages:
Ebooks don't take up shelf space
Ebooks can be accessed anywhere and anytime
Ebooks reduce the workload of staff members though they still count in our circulation statistics
Ebooks don't need to repaired or replaced
Libraries don't need multiple copies of the same book
New editions simply replace old editions (though there are downsides to this)
At this point, almost all libraries have some ebooks, and there are a few libraries that are completely virtual. The ebooks will improve and dominate the publishing market someday, but that day is not near.
Agreed. For some people, $60 for 500 gold is in expensive, but spending the time skinning boars and paying WoW eBay (and thus, not working and earning real money) is expensive.
Using real cash to buy virtual cash allows players to enjoy the parts of the game they like and ignore the parts they don't like. This is akin to cheat codes in single-player games: put in a code for unlimited money, buy the big sword and Spell of Instantaneous Death, and go kill some baddies. We all play differently, so there's no reason to hate on those who don't have time, energy, or desire to play 24/7.
Of course Blizzard won't regulate this because if they did, they would lose a bunch of paying customers. And no company that hopes to remain in business drives off paying customers.
How many hardcore players (who plays more than 4 hours per day or 30 hours per week) wouldn't trade their hard-earned items for real money? If someone offered me 4 months' free WoW (aka $60) for a sword I spent a week getting, I'd go for it. Not only is the money good, but if I play that much, I can find a similiar or better item in those 4 months.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in the US. Near my house inside a residential area is an uncontrolled intersection (an intersection with no signs and no defined right-of-way). I always slow down when crossing it (the posted speed limit is 15 mph), but not everyone does. It's scary. When visibility is low, I avoid the intersection. I plan on petitioning the city to put up a pair of stop signs to make that intersection safer. For the small amount of money these towns will save, their residents will incur huge increases in insurance (auto and health), travel time and accidents, and stress (imagine being scared at every intersection), and decreases in tourism (tour books will tell visitors to avoid those places) and safety. This is absolutely the worst idea in civil engineering I've heard in a long time. Road signs are necessary to safe transportation. Absurd.
Where: Oz, Canada, England. I only speak English, I have family in Minnesota (close to Canada) and Oz, and I like the parliamentary system in England. Germany is a possibility, too: more than 2 political parties sounds like fun. Why not: Jobs and money. I've applied for several jobs in Canada well within my range of skills, but never heard back. I think employers see the out-of-country address and toss the resume. I don't have enough money saved to simply pull up the stakes and plant them elsewhere in the US, let alone another country. My parents recently moved to Australia, and though it was a corporate relocation, the move cost them at least $5000 in accidental expenses (doctor visits, application fees, dog vet visits, insurance, time off work, etc). They said that if they were to return, it would cost them upwards of $25,000. Ouch. Ultimately, as appealing moving sounds, there's just too much effort involved to leave on political grounds. Ending one's support of a sports team because the players are criminals is an easy use of principle overriding emotion. Leaving the country is not. Besides, the best way to affect change is to vote. How many of the people who say they'll leave have voted recently?
BG&E had extremely repetitive gameplay. After the first few levels, it's all crouching and sneaking. "There's another guard. Duck and wait...and wait...and wait...and...go--no, I missed my chance. Five more minutes..."
The design and look of the game was quite good, and it was certainly creative. But the gameplay is what killed the game for me.
Ah, the pitfalls of a consumer-driven economy. We don't care who's writing the news, we just want to know. Quality is tertiary to primacy and radicalism. And most people simply stop at primacy, the first article they read is all they want to know about the subject.
Someone mentioned the lack of tech understanding, and I think that's another big reason for the lack of good tech writing. How many tech journalists can discuss at length and in depth the difference between AAC and mp3 file formats? Or the advantages of DDR RAM? Game critics seem to spend too much time gaming and not enough time practicing their trade. I've never read a game review that delved deeper into the technology driving the game than a general description of the gaming engine; quick! what are the distinguishing characteristics of the Unreal 3 engine? You may not use google. Of course, none of this matters as the average person doesn't know what those terms mean, and won't read jargon-filled articles. Article A comes out first and uses little jargon, article B comes out later and uses some jargon. Guess which article gets read.
At some level, people understand how technology is changing their lives. We see it everyday. As the article said, "Technology is the province of geeks, a sterile, above-board, carefully marketed phenomenon; drugs are underground, illegal, and risky." We know what we're getting into when we buy a new computer, but have no idea what imagines and planes of existence we'll encounter with this new acid formula. No journalist is going to take home an Alienware machine and achieve a higher state of consciousness through it (well, maybe with an Alienware machine, but not the standard PC). The plainness of technology ensures that articles will be bland, and that people will look to primacy and radicalism before quality: people won't seek out great tech articles just for the reading as they'll already know what they want to know.
All of this assumes people want to read articles for reading's sake. In fact, most people read reviews to see if they should buy tech gadget #1192 or #1193. They're searching for information, not pleasure reading. Unlike with drugs, which the average person can't obtain and thus experiment with, technology is available to anyone with a decent cash flow. I'd rather know quickly if something's worth buying then play with it myself than read about someone playing with it.
Inheritance is a rather basic concept that anyone who has cleaned windows (the glass variety, not the OS) understands: spray the Windex at the top, wait a few seconds as it slowly drips down, wipe up. Rocket science, this is not.
Five-fingered discount: 10% off if you use all five fingers to verify yourself!
How about campus computer labs? Not the high-end ones (for computer science and graphic design majors), but the average computer labs where people type papers, check email, and surf. At my school, this would be perfect. We have software that (tries to) remotely controls all 50+ computers in our computer lab, but it rarely works completely. Having the computers hooked up through a server would solve several problems. Plus, maintaining 50+ computers is time-consuming and expensive due to the parts and labor involved. Lastly, with computers simply mounted to a wall, we can put more computers in the lab. Don't have to allot space for 50+ Dell towers. There are trade-offs (not as powerful as an equally-expensive full computer, fewer apps), but we don't mind the trade-offs because we don't need those things anyway.
- Windows, Mac OS, and Unix are different operating systems and function in different ways.
- How to create, print, and save a word processing document.
- How to send an email with an attachment.
- How to surf the web safely and how to find information on the web.
- How to safely tinker with applications and hardware (they're called backups).
- Know when and whom to ask for help.
- How to maintain a Windows machine (or a Mac or a Unix box, depending on the type of computer the person uses most often).
- Telecommunication and computer security basics (no more pwd='password').
- How to install and use a keyboard, mouse, printer, and modem.
- How to use and troublshoot software and hardware required for one's job.
I'm sure I'm missing other concepts, but that list will suffice. Probably 90-95% of what the average computer user does falls into that list. I don't need to be Harold Bloom to consider myself book literate, nor do I need to be the world's greatest programmer to consider myself computer literate.The idea of learning a computer through trial-and-error has merit, but many people don't know how to do it safely or thoroughly. The vast majority of Slashdotters are computer literate--if not computer experts--and thus know how to safely and thoroughly experiment with new computer soft/hardware. Computer beginners, however, may find themselves doing something irrevocable (like trying to uninstall IE in XP), and so should stick to learning basic processes until they are more familiar with the computer.
Just remember....you were a n00b yourself once...
Exactly. I grew up on a mac (in the pre-"hip and elitist" days), and I encountered the same type of responses when I switched to an IBM-compatible. It's frustrating, counter-productive, and disgraceful towards the millions of friendly Linux people. I chalk a lot of this hate up to techies surrounding themselves with other (OMG! A stereotype!). People get clique-ish and don't want n00bs (who very well might become better at the system than they). Like a 12-year old trying to play basketball with the varsity team down at the playground, this is just assinine and childish behavior by the "experts".
The only theories that may have to be updated are those relating to extinction rates and geologic periods; that is, any theory related to what animals survived the last ice age, how animals cope with drastic changes in the weather, etc. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (which should be the law of evolution).
What would be so problematic about discussing RL issues in-game? We're all supposed to stay in character (or IC) all the time? If I join a guild, I want to be friends with the people I hang out with, and thus RL issues will come out. People should take care of their own problems: if someone is offended by another player who admits s/he is gay, they can ask that person to politely not discuss sexual (or political or religious or gender or [insert topic here]) orientation. There's no need to go running off to the GMs every time someone puts their foot in their mouth.
I think discussing RL issues might be kinda fun. "Hey look! It's those guys who like the Green Bay Packers!" "Grrrr! It's the Minnesota Vikings fans! LET'S RUMBLE!!"
Ebooks are the future, though right now, the future is fairly dystopic. They are expensive, are painful to read, require logins that are easily lost/forgotten, require specialized software (readers), have the typical internet problems (server downtime, browser incompatibility, etc), and are not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of books. Personally, the viewing issue bothers me the most: I have a hard time reading five virtual pages let alone JK Rowling's latest online.
However, they are the future and do offer advantages. We use http://www.netlibrary.com/) and probably will use http://www.ebrary.com/) soon. For tech people, there's also Safari Tech Books (I can't remember the URL). For us and other libraries, there are several advantages:
At this point, almost all libraries have some ebooks, and there are a few libraries that are completely virtual. The ebooks will improve and dominate the publishing market someday, but that day is not near.
Just another happy accident of science, which is more than our parents can say of us :D
Agreed. For some people, $60 for 500 gold is in expensive, but spending the time skinning boars and paying WoW eBay (and thus, not working and earning real money) is expensive. Using real cash to buy virtual cash allows players to enjoy the parts of the game they like and ignore the parts they don't like. This is akin to cheat codes in single-player games: put in a code for unlimited money, buy the big sword and Spell of Instantaneous Death, and go kill some baddies. We all play differently, so there's no reason to hate on those who don't have time, energy, or desire to play 24/7. Of course Blizzard won't regulate this because if they did, they would lose a bunch of paying customers. And no company that hopes to remain in business drives off paying customers. How many hardcore players (who plays more than 4 hours per day or 30 hours per week) wouldn't trade their hard-earned items for real money? If someone offered me 4 months' free WoW (aka $60) for a sword I spent a week getting, I'd go for it. Not only is the money good, but if I play that much, I can find a similiar or better item in those 4 months.