I think you are correct, perhaps his school was different, but I remember many of the CS students at PSU would be dual-majoring in Math.
However, PSU had the Comp Sci, Comp Eng, and Elec Eng degrees very tightly coupled with Math. My study group involved students from all three disciplines (though I didn't know any people taking math as their primary degree). But we all took the same basic courses, especially when it came to Math. And for Electrical Engineering/Computer Engineering I think the only difference between my degree and an EE degree was EE351 vs EE350. Everything else was CSE/EE courses. (Granted I tended towards the EE side of CompEng since I was more interested in sensors and robotics. But I ended up taking the senior capstone courses for both Comp Sci and Comp Eng just to prove to myself that I could. (All I needed my final semester was Senior Design Project so I filled the remaining time with the Comp Sci capstone, CSE477 (VLSI design), CSE472(embedded systems), and an emmersive environments course. Yeah I could have just taken the one course but I'm an engineer, that stuff is fun to me!)
Looking at the current courses for a senior at PSU, I'm seeing a lot of this: CMPSC 451 (MATH 451),CMPSC 455 (MATH 455), CMPSC 467 (MATH 467). So as you can see, the comp sci courses at PSU are so heavily math focused that they actually can count for math credit.
The point is as a Computer Engineering student at PSU, there is no way in hell that I would consider Computer Science as an alternative if I had trouble with engineering math, because if anything, computer science at PSU was even more math focused than engineering!
I wouldnt classify autistics as having severe brain damage though.
For simplicity sake, I used brain damage, but you can take that to mean mental disability. And I would argue that if you are so far down the autistic scale that you can't interpret the most basic gestures humans use (not even emotional expressions), that that is a mental disability, I don't see how you could quantify it as anything but a disability.
If you were speaking with someone, and you ask them "Where is the ceiling?" and they responded by extending their arm and index finger to a vertical position, would you be confused and respond, "Why won't you answer my question?"
I think you are taking my post too far, what I'm saying is that understanding basic gestures (such as pointing) is something that animals just don't do. That's why it's interesting that even for these basic gestures, dogs 'understand'.
That doesn't meant here isn't even more that dogs understand, but that even recognition of these basic gestures represents an ability present in dogs but not present in other animals.
Accumulating the knowledge so you didn't need trial and error probably took a fair bit of trial and error to start out with though.:)
That's why as an engineer you should consider performing a Failure Modes Effects and Criticality analysis (FMECA). Quite often you can predict the error, and account for it. Sometimes you account for the error by adding in additional maintenance/inspections, other times you have spares, sometimes you perform preventative maintenance, and sometimes you put a net underneath the bridge.
Let's assume your bridge is being constructed from stone (longevity or maintenance reasons), you know that it will eventually erode, crack, and wear out, but you build into your design features which are intended to help delay the failure, or allow for a graceful failure. So instead of designing your bridge to be covered with paint because that would block some of the environment, you forgo the protective paint and leave it exposed to the elements because now you can send a crew to inspect the bridge every 5 years for cracks/erosion/damage which might have been obscured by the paint. While the paint might have extended the life of the bridge by 10 years in ideal situations, being able to inspect the bridge might allow you to discover the crack which would cause a catastrophic failure at life-5 years.
Sometimes you have to accept error as part of the design because correcting that error might compromise other aspects of the design.
Business comes after they flunk out of Comp Sci. CS was where they went after they flunked out of Engineering.
Not at PSU. Computer Science at PSU was (is?) a controlled major with a minimum GPA. If you were failing in engineering, you weren't going to make the cut in Comp Sci either.
EE didn't have a GPA minimum IIRC, if you made it past EE350 with a passing grade, you were going to be fine. (That class was the class you saved your late drop credits for)
Most of the sitters looked as if they were mounting a toilet and getting ready to take a big dump. It must have been fragile the way they all were being so gentle with it, and not one of them leaned against the back rest... cute idea though.
Let's say you were in a car with seatbelts that were guaranteed to fail after 30 miles, you don't think that even from miles 10-20 you wouldn't be a bit more cautious while driving?
It could be solid as a rock, but in your mind, you know there is a device which will cause it to fail. I sure as hell wouldn't put my full weight on it.
I think you are looking at this from too much of a misanthropic angle and that's causing you to oversimplify evolution. Evolution is not just 'shit happens, live with it'. Evolution are the changes that result from selective pressures. Humans are certainly one of those pressures, but for practical purposes when there are active steps taken to influence evolution, then what is occuring is certainly evolution-like, but probably should get its own term.
I mean, we could call every single speck of matter floating around our sun a planet, but it makes it very hard to discuss things without always identifying exceptions, so we define the exceptions up front to aid in our understanding. That's why we differentiate asteroids and planets (and now dwarf planets)
So for practical purposes, humans must be included when you consider evolutionary factors, but I think you need to carve out an exception for when those factors are consciously introduced. It's still evolution, but probably should be subtyped.
Your definition of evolution sounds a bit too much like the comic book approach to creating Doomsday for Superman.
Superconductive lines could enable them to build power plants near the mines and push the current over the grid.
Not just mines, but any 'source' of energy. Imagine extreme-scale use of wasteland in the Southwest for solar energy collection. (Setup some of those plants over the old nuclear test ranges, even the most extreme environmentalists would have a hard time objecting to 'damaging' the land there. Granted, worker safety is a concern, but you get the idea) Renewable energy's biggest problem is energy transmission and portability.
I always found the non-DNA based evolution to be fascinating. When it comes down to it, evolving via DNA is a slow process for complex animals, but evolving is very advantageous. So 'we' evolved a secondary method for passing information beyond the individual that wasn't tied to the trial-and-error-like mechanism of DNA. It's a very roundabout method to be sure. Information is stored in neural connections, transmitted to other individuals via some rather inefficient methods (learned via observation, speech, cultural behavior, etc) and stored again in neural connections. It's now extended to temporary storage in non-biological mediums (books, pictures/paintings, hell even in the layout of temples), and now we are storing them in locations only accessible via specialized tools!
But I suppose what amazes me is that what all this boils down to was an evolved ability that produced an advantage over what we (albeit dumbed-down) considered the medium for evolution, DNA.
Not sure this post had much of a point, other than just amusement at how evolution partially bypassed the limitations of DNA.
I pay taxes to the gov, a portion of those taxes go to road maintenance/construction. I also pay tolls on some roads.
There is actually a bit of a problem with financing roads through fuel taxes, particularly in Pennsylvania. A big issue there for a while was the Amish. Their buggies use the same roads my car does, and their horseshoes and banded steel wheels do measureable damage to the roads (damage feels like a strong word, but the wear from horses and buggies is greater than car tires).
Take a look at the roads in Western Chester and Lancaster counties and you will see whitish scrapes/marks along the roads. Those are from the buggies.
I'm not sure how it was resolved (I think they just determined that the small portion of buggie users was too small to bother with trying to figure out a way to tax their use of the roads), but it's going to be something we are going to have to change going forward. Not so much with bicycles, but with electric vehicles which don't pay road taxes (via fuel taxes)
Guessing here: but it probably wasn't just garbage, but also the rats and other vermin that the wolves were interested in as well. (micro-ecosystems):)
As for the seeds, you are probably pretty close. Early humans likely gathered up seeds as edible, and stored them, as anyone who has fed birds, or forgot about their birdseed for a while can tell you, those seeds are viable and you can often find your birdfeeder sprouting greens if you don't keep it clean and dry. My guess is that some early human forgot or ripped a bag of seeds whereever they stored them and noticed that lush green plant sprouted right there.
You can (quite seriously) include many humans in that as well. And on the other side of that coin, it's no surprise that many people relate to dogs a lot better than they do to other people.
No. You can't include humans in that unless you are literally referring to people in comatose states or those with severe brain damage.
The gestures they are referrring to are VERY BASIC gestures like 'Pointing in a direction, and understanding that the person is trying to direct your attention to something and not just randomly raising their limb in the air' or if you were looking at someone's face, and their eyes focused on something to the right of you, understanding that they might be looking AT something other than you rather than just spontaneously losing control of their facial muscles.
That's the level of gestures they are referring to, and any human who can't interpret those gestures of expressions are very likely in a vegetative state.
I'm sorry but I don't see how you can possibly make that statement given that Breivik was from Norway. Don't they 'heavily invest in public schools and social security' there?
The only thing slower than a contract given to a private company is a task order given to another government agency.
"What, you mean you guys gave me money to do something, and the closest intersection point between our two offices is at the Cabinet level? Yeah, I'll get right on that."
Sadly, we are pretty much blocked from developing anything really innovative anymore. Not because it isn't possible, but because the regulations on passenger vehicles have basically made all vehicles the same from a mechanical/aerodynamic perspective. Not saying that a lot of those regulations aren't quite important, but the lack of an ability to get exemptions is a big problem. It's why so much of the design innovation actually goes into less than 4 wheel vehicles these days.
I mean, aside from badging and superfical body features (headlight shape, creases in metal, etc) there really isn't anything new done to cars from a form factor perspective.
I see you've been downrated, but it is a very valid point. What problem does this solve without adding more?
I'm not too familiar with this car, and I haven't seen the details yet, so I'm asking here:
1. Is this gyro going to serve dual-purpose as a flywheel? 2. What is the overall benefit? Is this mainly to eliminate the drag from extra wheels and thus improve fuel economy?
I could certainly see how this thing would be really cool if you used it as a flywheel and took advantage of regenerative braking to suppliment it's spinning, but as usual, I'm always nervous about mechanical stores of energy. Chemical stores are dangerous too, but for the most part they can be protected/disabled in the event of an accident. With flywheels, that energy IS going to be released, and you never want it all at once.
Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...
I purchased the same phone for my wife and myself. I tend to be rough with my devices so I bought screen protectors. I accidentally purchased a matte version and a non-matte version.
On my laptop, and tablet, I find that I prefer matte finishes, but having used both my matte finish phone and my wife's glossy phone, I find that I actually prefer the glossy finish on a phone. It's hard to quantify why, but here are some of my observations:
On larger screens, the matte finish seems to blend well with the images presented. I'm often reading/looking at them from a distance of at least 45cm and and I've never noticed the matte finish.
However, with my phone and its smaller screen, I'm often using it at much shorter distances, perhaps 20-30cm. At that distance, I tend to notice how the matte finish 'alters' the image the screen is presenting. It's not much, but it is noticable. It is possible that this is due to the fact that I'm using an aftermarket film instead of a factory applied film, but if I lean in to my laptop I can definately see the same effects. (almost prismatic)
The matte screen seems much more vulnerable to observable scratches than the non-matte version. And I'm sure that a matte finish on a phone screen, even if applied at the factory, would result in many more 'scratched by car keys' complaints.
For laptops I'm in complete agreement, I hate glossy screens, but for phone size screens, I'm thinking that glossy is a good default, since applying a matte finish afterwards is still possible while applying a glossy finish to a factory matte finish isn't possible.
Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...
Or check out a vacation at the National Radio Quiet Zone. Green Bank West Virginia is smack in the middle. The FCC has banned use of radio there (so no cell phones). 13,000 sq miles of WV mountain region where you can honestly say "Sorry I missed your call, Federal Law you know..."
Do you list what television shows you like on your resume? Guess what, if they are recording that information, it's going to be used as an employment discriminator sooner or later.
It seems I've been rated as a troll, it's a shame that Slashdot's moderation system works like that.
For point 1: The main issue I have is that your conversations 'lock' to the device/platform you respond on. So I'll see a "Hey how's it going?" message on my desktop client, but because I responded on my phone, and then continued the conversation there, the desktop session never updates and everything beyond 'Hey, how's it going' only shows up on my phone. The same thing occurs on my desktop if I converse there. The weirdness on the desktop is more that the in-browser talk/chat client doesn't play well with the actual talk client. I don't have the talk application on all the PCs I use, so I tend to use the gmail version from time to time as opposed to always using the client.
2. It does let you point SMSs to the other client, but the other client doesn't often play well with Google voice. Not completely google's problem, but considering it's on Android, you would think an option such as "All SMS sends should go via google voice" would be a very nice option.
3. I'm glad you can use google maps, but google Earth has some features that I like to use. In this specific example, I wanted to get a rough approximation for a drainfield for a septic tank on a property I was considering buying. The permit was 30 years old, and the only reference I could use was a road. I was hoping to use google earth since at the time it allowed me to mark out polygons with specific dimensions. Not an option for Google maps.
But seriously, it's not like I'm saying they should retool their product or anythign, for Google Earth all you need is the extra checkbox to turn off satellite imagery.
I'm complaining about nitpicky little details to be sure, but that was my point. There are a lot of little ways that the whole experience could be a LOT better if a few rough edges were smoothed.
How does that make it art? It takes skill, experience, and judgement to perform surgery, quarterback a football game, or even build a house. Are any of those art?
If the intention was to create something aesthetically interesting and intended to be evaluated for aesthetic value, then yes, it is art. If the aesthetic aspect of a task was not intended for evaluation, then it isn't art.
So if you were a plastic surgeon who was simply repairing a facial injury, and your only intention was to repair the face, that isn't art. If during your surgical planning and execution you took efforts to add an additional aesthetic element which you intended to be appreciated beyond the basic goal of repairing the face, that is art.
That is wholly independent of the judgement of quality/worth of such art. But for the purposes of determining if something is art or not, the requirement is that there must be an intention to create something beyond the rote mechanics of creation/effort.
A lot of people don't find definitions which are based on human motives to be sufficient, but there is no getting around it when you are discussing aspects of human culture and expression.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are correct, perhaps his school was different, but I remember many of the CS students at PSU would be dual-majoring in Math.
However, PSU had the Comp Sci, Comp Eng, and Elec Eng degrees very tightly coupled with Math. My study group involved students from all three disciplines (though I didn't know any people taking math as their primary degree). But we all took the same basic courses, especially when it came to Math. And for Electrical Engineering/Computer Engineering I think the only difference between my degree and an EE degree was EE351 vs EE350. Everything else was CSE/EE courses. (Granted I tended towards the EE side of CompEng since I was more interested in sensors and robotics. But I ended up taking the senior capstone courses for both Comp Sci and Comp Eng just to prove to myself that I could. (All I needed my final semester was Senior Design Project so I filled the remaining time with the Comp Sci capstone, CSE477 (VLSI design), CSE472(embedded systems), and an emmersive environments course. Yeah I could have just taken the one course but I'm an engineer, that stuff is fun to me!)
Looking at the current courses for a senior at PSU, I'm seeing a lot of this: CMPSC 451 (MATH 451),CMPSC 455 (MATH 455), CMPSC 467 (MATH 467). So as you can see, the comp sci courses at PSU are so heavily math focused that they actually can count for math credit.
The point is as a Computer Engineering student at PSU, there is no way in hell that I would consider Computer Science as an alternative if I had trouble with engineering math, because if anything, computer science at PSU was even more math focused than engineering!
I wouldnt classify autistics as having severe brain damage though.
For simplicity sake, I used brain damage, but you can take that to mean mental disability. And I would argue that if you are so far down the autistic scale that you can't interpret the most basic gestures humans use (not even emotional expressions), that that is a mental disability, I don't see how you could quantify it as anything but a disability.
If you were speaking with someone, and you ask them "Where is the ceiling?" and they responded by extending their arm and index finger to a vertical position, would you be confused and respond, "Why won't you answer my question?"
I think you are taking my post too far, what I'm saying is that understanding basic gestures (such as pointing) is something that animals just don't do. That's why it's interesting that even for these basic gestures, dogs 'understand'.
That doesn't meant here isn't even more that dogs understand, but that even recognition of these basic gestures represents an ability present in dogs but not present in other animals.
Accumulating the knowledge so you didn't need trial and error probably took a fair bit of trial and error to start out with though. :)
That's why as an engineer you should consider performing a Failure Modes Effects and Criticality analysis (FMECA). Quite often you can predict the error, and account for it. Sometimes you account for the error by adding in additional maintenance/inspections, other times you have spares, sometimes you perform preventative maintenance, and sometimes you put a net underneath the bridge.
Let's assume your bridge is being constructed from stone (longevity or maintenance reasons), you know that it will eventually erode, crack, and wear out, but you build into your design features which are intended to help delay the failure, or allow for a graceful failure. So instead of designing your bridge to be covered with paint because that would block some of the environment, you forgo the protective paint and leave it exposed to the elements because now you can send a crew to inspect the bridge every 5 years for cracks/erosion/damage which might have been obscured by the paint. While the paint might have extended the life of the bridge by 10 years in ideal situations, being able to inspect the bridge might allow you to discover the crack which would cause a catastrophic failure at life-5 years.
Sometimes you have to accept error as part of the design because correcting that error might compromise other aspects of the design.
Business comes after they flunk out of Comp Sci. CS was where they went after they flunked out of Engineering.
Not at PSU. Computer Science at PSU was (is?) a controlled major with a minimum GPA. If you were failing in engineering, you weren't going to make the cut in Comp Sci either.
EE didn't have a GPA minimum IIRC, if you made it past EE350 with a passing grade, you were going to be fine. (That class was the class you saved your late drop credits for)
Most of the sitters looked as if they were mounting a toilet and getting ready to take a big dump. It must have been fragile the way they all were being so gentle with it, and not one of them leaned against the back rest... cute idea though.
Let's say you were in a car with seatbelts that were guaranteed to fail after 30 miles, you don't think that even from miles 10-20 you wouldn't be a bit more cautious while driving?
It could be solid as a rock, but in your mind, you know there is a device which will cause it to fail. I sure as hell wouldn't put my full weight on it.
I think you are looking at this from too much of a misanthropic angle and that's causing you to oversimplify evolution. Evolution is not just 'shit happens, live with it'. Evolution are the changes that result from selective pressures. Humans are certainly one of those pressures, but for practical purposes when there are active steps taken to influence evolution, then what is occuring is certainly evolution-like, but probably should get its own term.
I mean, we could call every single speck of matter floating around our sun a planet, but it makes it very hard to discuss things without always identifying exceptions, so we define the exceptions up front to aid in our understanding. That's why we differentiate asteroids and planets (and now dwarf planets)
So for practical purposes, humans must be included when you consider evolutionary factors, but I think you need to carve out an exception for when those factors are consciously introduced. It's still evolution, but probably should be subtyped.
Your definition of evolution sounds a bit too much like the comic book approach to creating Doomsday for Superman.
Superconductive lines could enable them to build power plants near the mines and push the current over the grid.
Not just mines, but any 'source' of energy. Imagine extreme-scale use of wasteland in the Southwest for solar energy collection. (Setup some of those plants over the old nuclear test ranges, even the most extreme environmentalists would have a hard time objecting to 'damaging' the land there. Granted, worker safety is a concern, but you get the idea) Renewable energy's biggest problem is energy transmission and portability.
I always found the non-DNA based evolution to be fascinating. When it comes down to it, evolving via DNA is a slow process for complex animals, but evolving is very advantageous. So 'we' evolved a secondary method for passing information beyond the individual that wasn't tied to the trial-and-error-like mechanism of DNA. It's a very roundabout method to be sure. Information is stored in neural connections, transmitted to other individuals via some rather inefficient methods (learned via observation, speech, cultural behavior, etc) and stored again in neural connections. It's now extended to temporary storage in non-biological mediums (books, pictures/paintings, hell even in the layout of temples), and now we are storing them in locations only accessible via specialized tools!
But I suppose what amazes me is that what all this boils down to was an evolved ability that produced an advantage over what we (albeit dumbed-down) considered the medium for evolution, DNA.
Not sure this post had much of a point, other than just amusement at how evolution partially bypassed the limitations of DNA.
I pay taxes to the gov, a portion of those taxes go to road maintenance/construction. I also pay tolls on some roads.
There is actually a bit of a problem with financing roads through fuel taxes, particularly in Pennsylvania. A big issue there for a while was the Amish. Their buggies use the same roads my car does, and their horseshoes and banded steel wheels do measureable damage to the roads (damage feels like a strong word, but the wear from horses and buggies is greater than car tires).
Take a look at the roads in Western Chester and Lancaster counties and you will see whitish scrapes/marks along the roads. Those are from the buggies.
I'm not sure how it was resolved (I think they just determined that the small portion of buggie users was too small to bother with trying to figure out a way to tax their use of the roads), but it's going to be something we are going to have to change going forward. Not so much with bicycles, but with electric vehicles which don't pay road taxes (via fuel taxes)
Guessing here: but it probably wasn't just garbage, but also the rats and other vermin that the wolves were interested in as well. (micro-ecosystems) :)
As for the seeds, you are probably pretty close. Early humans likely gathered up seeds as edible, and stored them, as anyone who has fed birds, or forgot about their birdseed for a while can tell you, those seeds are viable and you can often find your birdfeeder sprouting greens if you don't keep it clean and dry. My guess is that some early human forgot or ripped a bag of seeds whereever they stored them and noticed that lush green plant sprouted right there.
You can (quite seriously) include many humans in that as well. And on the other side of that coin, it's no surprise that many people relate to dogs a lot better than they do to other people.
No. You can't include humans in that unless you are literally referring to people in comatose states or those with severe brain damage.
The gestures they are referrring to are VERY BASIC gestures like 'Pointing in a direction, and understanding that the person is trying to direct your attention to something and not just randomly raising their limb in the air' or if you were looking at someone's face, and their eyes focused on something to the right of you, understanding that they might be looking AT something other than you rather than just spontaneously losing control of their facial muscles.
That's the level of gestures they are referring to, and any human who can't interpret those gestures of expressions are very likely in a vegetative state.
Yep, because #2 is obviously the case with StarCraft 2.
Wasn't that the game where the storyline was broken apart into three separate installments?
I'm sorry but I don't see how you can possibly make that statement given that Breivik was from Norway. Don't they 'heavily invest in public schools and social security' there?
so its a reality sim?
No. In a reality the poor drive around in tanks at the direction of the rich who are too busy playing with pistols at an exclusive game reserve.
The only thing slower than a contract given to a private company is a task order given to another government agency.
"What, you mean you guys gave me money to do something, and the closest intersection point between our two offices is at the Cabinet level? Yeah, I'll get right on that."
Sadly, we are pretty much blocked from developing anything really innovative anymore. Not because it isn't possible, but because the regulations on passenger vehicles have basically made all vehicles the same from a mechanical/aerodynamic perspective. Not saying that a lot of those regulations aren't quite important, but the lack of an ability to get exemptions is a big problem. It's why so much of the design innovation actually goes into less than 4 wheel vehicles these days.
I mean, aside from badging and superfical body features (headlight shape, creases in metal, etc) there really isn't anything new done to cars from a form factor perspective.
I see you've been downrated, but it is a very valid point. What problem does this solve without adding more?
I'm not too familiar with this car, and I haven't seen the details yet, so I'm asking here:
1. Is this gyro going to serve dual-purpose as a flywheel?
2. What is the overall benefit? Is this mainly to eliminate the drag from extra wheels and thus improve fuel economy?
I could certainly see how this thing would be really cool if you used it as a flywheel and took advantage of regenerative braking to suppliment it's spinning, but as usual, I'm always nervous about mechanical stores of energy. Chemical stores are dangerous too, but for the most part they can be protected/disabled in the event of an accident. With flywheels, that energy IS going to be released, and you never want it all at once.
Am I off-base here? Please correct me if I am.
If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA,
I think I found a problem in your premise. When do these things ever make it to juries in the first place?
Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...
I purchased the same phone for my wife and myself. I tend to be rough with my devices so I bought screen protectors. I accidentally purchased a matte version and a non-matte version.
On my laptop, and tablet, I find that I prefer matte finishes, but having used both my matte finish phone and my wife's glossy phone, I find that I actually prefer the glossy finish on a phone. It's hard to quantify why, but here are some of my observations:
On larger screens, the matte finish seems to blend well with the images presented. I'm often reading/looking at them from a distance of at least 45cm and and I've never noticed the matte finish.
However, with my phone and its smaller screen, I'm often using it at much shorter distances, perhaps 20-30cm. At that distance, I tend to notice how the matte finish 'alters' the image the screen is presenting. It's not much, but it is noticable. It is possible that this is due to the fact that I'm using an aftermarket film instead of a factory applied film, but if I lean in to my laptop I can definately see the same effects. (almost prismatic)
The matte screen seems much more vulnerable to observable scratches than the non-matte version. And I'm sure that a matte finish on a phone screen, even if applied at the factory, would result in many more 'scratched by car keys' complaints.
For laptops I'm in complete agreement, I hate glossy screens, but for phone size screens, I'm thinking that glossy is a good default, since applying a matte finish afterwards is still possible while applying a glossy finish to a factory matte finish isn't possible.
YMMV
Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...
Or check out a vacation at the National Radio Quiet Zone. Green Bank West Virginia is smack in the middle. The FCC has banned use of radio there (so no cell phones). 13,000 sq miles of WV mountain region where you can honestly say "Sorry I missed your call, Federal Law you know..."
Do you list what television shows you like on your resume? Guess what, if they are recording that information, it's going to be used as an employment discriminator sooner or later.
It seems I've been rated as a troll, it's a shame that Slashdot's moderation system works like that.
For point 1: The main issue I have is that your conversations 'lock' to the device/platform you respond on. So I'll see a "Hey how's it going?" message on my desktop client, but because I responded on my phone, and then continued the conversation there, the desktop session never updates and everything beyond 'Hey, how's it going' only shows up on my phone. The same thing occurs on my desktop if I converse there. The weirdness on the desktop is more that the in-browser talk/chat client doesn't play well with the actual talk client. I don't have the talk application on all the PCs I use, so I tend to use the gmail version from time to time as opposed to always using the client.
2. It does let you point SMSs to the other client, but the other client doesn't often play well with Google voice. Not completely google's problem, but considering it's on Android, you would think an option such as "All SMS sends should go via google voice" would be a very nice option.
3. I'm glad you can use google maps, but google Earth has some features that I like to use. In this specific example, I wanted to get a rough approximation for a drainfield for a septic tank on a property I was considering buying. The permit was 30 years old, and the only reference I could use was a road. I was hoping to use google earth since at the time it allowed me to mark out polygons with specific dimensions. Not an option for Google maps.
But seriously, it's not like I'm saying they should retool their product or anythign, for Google Earth all you need is the extra checkbox to turn off satellite imagery.
I'm complaining about nitpicky little details to be sure, but that was my point. There are a lot of little ways that the whole experience could be a LOT better if a few rough edges were smoothed.
How does that make it art? It takes skill, experience, and judgement to perform surgery, quarterback a football game, or even build a house. Are any of those art?
If the intention was to create something aesthetically interesting and intended to be evaluated for aesthetic value, then yes, it is art. If the aesthetic aspect of a task was not intended for evaluation, then it isn't art.
So if you were a plastic surgeon who was simply repairing a facial injury, and your only intention was to repair the face, that isn't art. If during your surgical planning and execution you took efforts to add an additional aesthetic element which you intended to be appreciated beyond the basic goal of repairing the face, that is art.
That is wholly independent of the judgement of quality/worth of such art. But for the purposes of determining if something is art or not, the requirement is that there must be an intention to create something beyond the rote mechanics of creation/effort.
A lot of people don't find definitions which are based on human motives to be sufficient, but there is no getting around it when you are discussing aspects of human culture and expression.