everyone? In my circle, ownership of DSLRs seems to be going up quite rapidly.
And there's the problem - forget camera phones, DSLRs are becoming the new low end. DSLRs are the new big thing, but people want to use them like they use their cell phone cameras (point in the general direction, mash a button, post on Facebook). As a result, there's a big race to see who can make the cheapest DSLR, at the expense of quality of course (the reputation for higher quality is based partly on reputation from older models, so the perceived quality will remain as actual quality falls). Better quality is available, but the gap between the top of the low end and the bottom of the high end will grow, just like it did in the case of stereo equipment and every other piece of commodity hardware that started as a niche product. Most people who purchase a DSLR these days will seldom, if ever, change the lens. Few will ever use a mode other than Auto. And composition? Even among professionals, composition skills are far from a given. But megapixels? Everyone loves more megapixels, so just cram them in, image quality be damned! Manufacturers will design their products with this in mind, trying to woo customers with fancy gizmos, big numbers, and low prices. This will erode sales in the mid-range and stagnation in that product class (upgrading to the fancy doo-dads of the low end without actually making any improvements) will drive customers to the next tier up (typically full-frame for the prosumer crowd), further reducing the market. Mix in how the current economic conditions result in price increases at the high end (due to the strength of the Yen against the US Dollar) and you get the same scenario described in the article - crap quality for the masses and a high price tag for anything better. This has happened countless times before and will happen again many more times. The moral of this story is simple - buy quality while you still can.
While I am tempted to agree with this, I fear that reality isn't on our side here. There are two separate factors at work here clouding the issue. First, people who had this technology 20+ years ago were likely to be hobbyists and enthusiasts and not simple users, who make up the vast majority today. You can't expect everyone to be an expert in everything, so any technology that becomes mainstream will be dominated by users who treat it as a mysterious black box (this trend didn't start with computers and won't end with them either). Brace yourself though, computers are increasingly being designed to function accordingly, making it more difficult to be a casual hobbyist in order to simplify the user experience. Hardcore hobbyists will always find a way, but it will be more difficult to take advantage of features beyond the advertised mass-appeal feature set (particularly in areas that conflict with the desires of our corporate masters).
Second, the depression-era mentality of reusing and repairing everything until there's nothing left to work with is likely to die with us. I don't really know why this happened, but I would guess that cheap replacements, fast-evolving product lines, pop culture distractions, and flimsy plastic are key factors. Looking back at my own childhood, I would also point a finger at today's overly risk-averse parenting methods that restrict kids from learning about the world in an attempt to keep them safe. Everything real that we played with in our childhoods is being replaced by a fiercely-marketed "safe" alternative. Even many of the toys from that era have since been deemed unsafe and have been replaced. The problem with this mentality of raising kids in a safer alternate reality is that it leaves them unprepared for the challenges they will face in the real reality. Chemistry sets no longer contain chemicals. Woodworking kits no longer contain wood. Do they even allow kids to use electricity, fire, metal tools, or sharp objects anymore? Sure, there are safety concerns to be aware of (hence the need for parental supervision, which should always be a given with anything), and doing something can still be beneficial without any real-world applications, but replacing something real with a "safe" alternative adds another layer between doing and understanding. All of this extra safety only serves to delay the introduction of key life lessons while protecting against the occasional splinter, cut, scrape, etc. (which kids will still find a way to cause). If you don't learn to interact with real things early, you might not get used to thinking inside the black box, instead forever treating it as an unchangeable entity that either works or is trash.
Maybe you should read more carefully. On all the carriers I've activated global roaming (T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon - I can't imagine Sprint being different), when activating, you are expressly advised that billing reconciliation with international providers may take several weeks and "charges may not be reflected until a later bill".
Did you read the rest of the post? Maybe YOU should read more carefully, this had nothing to do with international providers, it was a case of the domestic carrier changing the plan after the fact against the wishes of the customer. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that...
In reality, they just left the service on until well after I had returned, then retroactively changed my plan back to my regular data plan for the days I hadn't requested it. And a couple that I had.
Yeah, there it is. I agreed to unlimited data for the days specified and still had this unlimited data plan active for a period of time afterward. There could be no data charges involving international providers until the global data plan was deactivated, which happened long after I had returned. The charges appeared because they retroactively canceled my global data plan two days before I requested it to be canceled. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. When a charge can show up has nothing to do with whether a charge should be possible in the first place.
When I taught, we had a fool proof way to stop illegal cheat sheets. Just let the students bring a cheat sheet.
This is basically how it works in engineering exams - either one sheet of notes is allowed or the exams are open note / open book. Hilarity ensues when students who didn't bother to learn the material try to cram all of the course material onto one sheet (usually by scanning multiple pages and printing them out together at such a small size that you would need a magnifying glass to read anything). I would just add key concepts to a running list as the course went on, usually only adding three or four lines per exam. And then I would go through the exam without referring to my sheet (because the process of isolating the key concepts forces you to learn them).
High-tech anti-cheating systems just aren't particularly useful for most engineering exams. Most methods of cheating are either easy to spot by a live proctor ("I wonder why that guy keeps looking at his left shoe...") or take too much time to be effective on a fast-paced exam. In the end, the results often don't even justify punishing the cheater. The worst case I ever saw was a guy who had his eyes practically glued to the exam next to him and did nothing to hide it. I considered reporting the incident, but realized that it didn't matter after I finished grading the exam; his efforts only got him 13 points (out of 100). If you don't know the material, cheating at the last minute is pure desperation, not a recipe for success.
Homeworks are another matter, but with group collaboration encouraged, cheating just has to be accepted and marginalized by minimalizing the impact of homework on the overall grade in favor of exams and projects. At worst, bad cheating on routine homework assignments is insulting to the grader and singles you out as a target. If you're too lazy to even cheat properly, you're just wasting everyone's time.
Of course, this viewpoint is really limited to engineering, and even then probably only certain disciplines (and I've been out of the loop for a decade or so). Written assignments are always risky, but in-class essays and presentations are an easy low-tech solution. Even just the occasional Google search can have significant benefit; the professor in one of my grad classes tended to assign essays as homework assignments and would routinely run web searches on key pieces of the answers that were turned in. Inevitably, he would find something copied verbatim without citation, even though it was stated up front that he would be checking the web (and it was a small class of less than 20 people). Though I suppose that doesn't make a strong case for these detection systems preventing cheating... Maybe instead of focusing on analyzing the assignments, teachers should work on getting to know their students. That's not exactly practical in many situations (especially in larger classes and with overworked teachers), but the alternative of a never-ending cat-and-mouse game doesn't look much more promising. Encouraging an adversarial relationship already makes people distrust other authority figures, I don't see it helping education outside of impersonal exam-processing facilities (which seems to be the conclusion of the article as well).
I spent a month in NZ at a friends house a year ago, and the internet connections where like we had in Finland 10 years ago... Or even worse. They had an ADSL connection limited to 1Mb/s down (and very slow up) with a 2GB monthly limit. After the limit is full it would throttle down to 5KB/s for the rest of the month. The price of the connection was more then I payed for a full rate (8/1) ADSL back at home, with no caps. I guess if this was somewhere far in the countryside I could understand it, but it was in one of the better areas of Auckland!
I spent two weeks in New Zealand earlier this year, and the countryside is lucky to have wired telephones. The North Island wasn't too bad (cell phone service available except where terrain blocked, somewhat slow but reliable free wireless at one hotel), but the South Island felt like a completely different country. If it was available, internet access at hotels tended to be slow and pricey (browsing web sites was often difficult or impossible and 10 cents per megabyte was typical) and prices were similar at internet cafes. Many hotels were stuck with satellite internet, so this is understandable. Cellular service (my unlimited data plan only cost about a dollar a day above what I paid in the US) fell off to nothing as soon as you left any densely populated area but was very good in any of the major cities. I can't speak to residential connectivity, but the image presented to visitors is not a pretty one, especially when you get out of the cities; it's so bad that you have to actually go outside to entertain yourself. They're just lucky that there's so much to see and do over there...
They could have done a lot of neat things with tying down loose ends, explaining the island and completing their work. Instead they gave us this. And finally I see no further point in discussing it because there's no hope of ever explaining anything.
The final twist was that the show wasn't about the island at all, it was about a bunch of annoying characters. I passed on the first season because I had no interest in a "bunch of people stuck on an island" show (without even a million dollar prize), but decided to watch when it looked like the show was more than that. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. It was a good show, and the ending was fitting, but it's still frustrating for the creators to basically say that all of the mysteries never really mattered. The numbers? Just numbers. Walt? He's busy trying to live while being officially dead. The rules? Oh, that was just a Jacob thing, he's gone now. The Frozen Donkey Wheel? That's just the magical escape hatch, no big deal. The statue? Just a statue that got hit by a ship a while back. The smoke monster? Hey, Target has smoke detectors for $10.99. And the light? Just leave the key in the ignition and the world won't end. What was the point? As Charlton Heston would say, "It's people. Lost is made out of people."
So out of 20'100 photos, only about 20 were great? C'mon, give yourself a little more credit than that.
Actually, it's the reality of photography that, given a sufficient sample size of photographs, roughly 10% will be passable, 10% of those will be good, and 10% of those may be great. I'm sure someone could prove it mathematically based on lighting conditions, composition, subject matter variations, operator error, etc.
The trick is to call the $9.99 $10.00 and then stop looking at the damn number.
Do that often enough and you end up in the opposite situation - you end up reading $9.00 as $10 because you're used to the extra 99 cents, thus making prices seem higher than they are. Everything seems a lot more expensive in countries where merchants don't engage in psychological warfare with their customers (though prices usually are higher due to taxes and different purchasing habits, but that's a different issue). Don't get me started with the recent trend of never listing the single purchase price on groceries (5 for $5.55, 3 for $11.75, 7 for $69.93, etc.). All of this only reinforces one simple fact that nobody ever wants to point out (especially if they are running for public office) - people are stupid. Not specific individuals, but the entire species. We spend our entire lives trying to avoid being total morons, usually in the most superficial and totally ineffective ways. Make people feel smart and they'll gladly do any number of stupid things. After all, if 1 for $1 is a good deal, then 9 for $9.99 must be a great deal, right?
Also, 500 words is not a long essay. And standardized tests and grades are a poor judge of talent.
Agreed on both points. I think what all this boils down to is that the key to getting better answers is to do away with the questions. More schools are making SAT scores optional because, while it makes for easy racking and stacking, it tells you very little about the applicant beyond "alble/unable to score well on a big test." In reality, most of the application items are little more than good/neutral/bad check boxes (insert generic off-topic D&D joke here if you must). Outside of the truly exceptional and the painfully unqualified, most applicants are largely indistinguishable when judged by the typical criteria.
And then there's the essay. This should be an opportunity for the applicant to fill in some of the gaps left by the application, but all too often it is filled with trite nonsense like the example essay. The alternative is the set of mini-essays, but I personally despise that sort of application (any school that required one of those types of applications was immediately crossed off my list). Judging from the comments here, people tend to strongly prefer one, the other, or something else entirely. Maybe there's some utility in using the format to narrow the focus to particular personality types, but I don't see how employing a rigid structure in this part of the application is any more useful than requiring SAT scores.
My own opinion is that all of this should be optional but encouraged, with no limitations or requirements. Applicants who don't include something aren't penalized, but those who do have the advantage of presenting a more complete picture of themselves to the admissions staff (and anyone who sends a thousand-page manuscript is automatically rejected, no matter how ornate the binding is). The minimum/maximum lengths and BS topics absolutely have to go. Giving examples of preferred topics is helpful, but any required elements will make the essay less about the applicant and more about the requirement. Opening this part up to more than just essays (while requiring that it be the applicant's own work) is probably ideal, but I can understand why an admissions office would want to avoid truckloads of abstract sculptures and creative uses of fecal matter.
Personally, it didn't take me long to realize that I could just take something that I wanted to write and fit that to the essay topics. Once you understand the purpose of the essay, it becomes a simple matter to come up with an answer without knowing the question. When I applied to college, I wrote one essay and sent it with each of my applications. Aside from the 500-word limit (mine is 1850 words), it fits the topic of the MIT essay in question (not perfectly, but it wouldn't take too much massaging to fix that). It didn't get me into Harvard or anything, but it served its purpose and didn't require any effort to be wasted on bullshitting.
(Padding to reach 500 words.)
>If their DRM only effected pirates,
DRM has nothing to do with pirates. The goal of DRM is to give the content providers full control of the distribution system, right up until the point where the light hits your eyeballs (and I doubt they'll stop once they get that far). Ideally, they would want every viewer to pay every time their content is heard or viewed, but for now they'll settle for ensuring that every view is through an approved path that they have been directly compensated for. This ensures that people aren't using content in any non-approved manner, regardless of whether such non-approved use is legal. The pirates may be inconvenienced, but they will continue to operate. The real payoff is in convincing the public that following the **AA's mandates is perfectly acceptable, thus allowing them to do as they please with home entertainment, without regard for individual rights.
This is a dangerous path to go down, but we're already a fair way along and there seems to be no way back. HDMI and Firewire are already locked down, so it's not surprising that they want to turn off component. Regardless of their "pre-DVD release" example cited in the article, it is clear that if this is allowed, it would be applied to all HD content across the board by default, except where otherwise required by law (e.g., DTCP). From there, it's only a small step to disabling SD video altogether (after all, everyone has an approved HD viewing device now, right?).
The biggest threat to this industry isn't the pirates, it's a population that believes that how they view content should be up to them and not dictated by a higher power. This is the mentality that allows people to justify turning to piracy when the legal route is too difficult. Rather than making the legal route easier (as the music industry seems to have figured out in only a decade or so), the MPAA is committed to creating a world where they are an altruistic god showering the people with "high-value content," asking only for our money and obedience in return. The scariest part is the thought that some of the people in control might actually believe that what they are doing is for the public good.
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson