Comment Re:Yes and no (Score 1) 117
On the PC, we often solve it by throwing more hardware at the problem, but you can't do that on a console.
I think the OP's point was that they should have been starting with this extra hardware to begin with.
On the PC, we often solve it by throwing more hardware at the problem, but you can't do that on a console.
I think the OP's point was that they should have been starting with this extra hardware to begin with.
Google acquired Motorola and had no idea what to do with it. Now they're selling it.
I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Sell the hardware end and keep the patents.
Data basically can not be input into this tiny device. It must be for quick data consumption only. The rule should be that if the data needs more than a glance then it shouldn't be coming from the watch.
I'm not sure I agree with either of these points. It's true "data entry" in general would be cumbersome, but what about simple controls? I think there's a middle ground between "data consumption only" and "massive data entry". Also, the screen may be small but text can be scrollable like with any other screen. Why pull out my phone to read an email when I can just scroll through a few pages on the watch?
I think of wearables in two senses - primarily sensor packages and quick but very limited information.
The watch is not in a great position for either of those things. For one thing it's often covered by sleeves, so the sensors to outside conditions get obscured and any visible notifications get booked too.
It's not just about information, but also easy control/input. The watch, even though covered by sleeves sometimes, is in a good position because it's always within eyesight and you don't need a free hand to operate it. It's also much easier to slide your sleeve back with a pinky even than to get the phone out of your pocket.
Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that meaningful political shifts in this country tend to coincide with third parties gaining the attention of the electorate.
I believe this is the protest effect I was going for. The big 2 get scared when this happens.
Well, my original point was that an increased supply of educated people doesn't devalue the education like an increased supply of sugar or some other commodity.
It's true that forcing degrees on people because you refuse to hire someone that doesn't have a piece of paper is bad, but there is actually some value behind what they went through to get that paper. College degrees aren't *only* required more often these days because of increased supply, but also because we're moving to a more global economy. Education is more important today for producing valuable goods than it was 50 years ago.
Of course if everyone had a degree then they would be worthless, so rather than limit student numbers with the cost of entry, the universities in Oz limit numbers on ability alone.
This is not true. If everyone had a degree society would be much more efficient and productive. There is never a downside to more education (except maybe the cost). I have a feeling "Oz" is limiting student numbers due to cost as well.
Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton
