Comment Re:And why not fix rge problem? (Score 1) 456
Comment Re:Nobody reads manuals. (Score 1) 332
Sure, in the 80's and 90's when UX was in its infancy, nobody was very good at it. After accumulating decades of use-case experience and improved technological affordances a baby can find videos they like on an android or apple tablet. I got tired of explaining over-complicated and poorly designed industrial user interfaces a long time ago and started to study up on UX myself so I don't need to rely on art school dropouts, or even worse, crotchety old programmers such as yourself, to fix it for me. If you're having struggles with UX designers, maybe you can benefit from reading a couple of books on the subject too. Both of the complaints you have are well-understood and documented in the most basic of UX books.
Comment Nobody reads manuals. (Score 2) 332
No product these days should ever require a manual - we have the tools available to make it possible to produce products intuitive enough that manuals are unnecessary. If you'd like some help learning about it yourself, I suggest you read Steve Krug's "Don't Make Me Think" and Don Norman's books for more extensive advice. If your everyday consumer product requires a manual, you're a failure as a designer. The only exceptions to this are really, crazy advanced products, and even then a lot more could usually be done to make them easier to use.
If you want a book on Android, you can buy several, there's no shortage.
Check out the winner of this years Ignobel prize in Literature: Life Is Too Short to RTFM: How Users Relate to Documentation and Excess Features in Consumer Products
Comment Re:It is the pace of the change that matters (Score 1) 201
Computers were on a slow rise from the 1940's on. Even the Apple II didn't get us to 50% adaption. I think the adaptation speed of modern tech is overstated. Better examples are the stablemen who used to keep after horses being caught in the whirlwind of the Model T suddenly taking over, which was as fast or faster than any other recent technology adaption we've had. What happened to them will be similar to what happens to career drivers when the vehicles that took the place of wagons no longer need someone commanding them.
Although I'm not sure what will happen to this large unskilled labor pool, no one was sure during the Model T era either. You're arguing that this is different somehow, but I'm not seeing the differences. The large unskilled labor pool might bring us back to the days when it was way more common to have home servants. That might not seem like a good thing, but I'm not sure what's so much worse about that than being a driver or factory line worker. In Singapore most people have a live-in maid. The oversupply of cheap labor created by their relaxed worker visa laws actually works against automation despite it being one of the most modern cities in the world - I've never seen a dishwashing machine there and most people don't use their clothes dryers. There will be an economic dividing line where it's cheaper to use labor than to use machines that require expensive automation workers to repair, re-program and maintain them. It's there today, it'll be there tomorrow too. There isn't yet a visible horizon where affordable and reliable humanoid robots can replace all of us.
Comment Re:Amazon (Score 1) 210
Comment Bigger problems than this (Score 4, Interesting) 822
http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/N... "Unintentional suffocation - which also includes strangulation and choking on food or other objects - killed 1,176 U.S. children in 2010."
Just search a little and find all the other ways toddlers kill themselves and others. One of my friends with kids described it as largely being comprised of keeping his kid from killing himself all the time until he got old enough to try to kill himself less often. That's what happens when anything dangerous is anywhere near a toddler for whatever small amount of time it takes for them to do the wrong thing with it - and there are LOTS of dangerous things around, with plastic bags being higher on the list than firearms.
Comment Oil bubble bursted (Score 2) 102
Meanwhile, all of the tech equipment purchasing supporting those activities has come to a grinding halt.
Comment Re:I strongly disagree. (Score 1) 95
I leave mine in the aquarium, safely out of reach from the kids.
Comment Re:temporary (Score 1) 363
On the other hand, why would you bury the charcoal? There's lots of demand for it. Then we can stop doing whatever we're doing for charcoal now, which is obviously less efficient since we're not capturing the gases, and probably aren't using direct solar thermal.
Right now I believe most is made from waste wood from lumber factories. They do a low-oxygen burn in charcoal sheds. It doesn't seem efficient, but it is more efficient than turning perfectly good lumber straight to charcoal.
Comment I just got a message from the future! (Score 1) 151
Comment Frack! Propaganda, anyone? (Score 1) 104
And.. innovative?? Innovation? Involving fossil fuels? The only trade secrets they are likely protecting is the toxicity and environmental impact of fracking.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are a lot of trade secrets in fracking. There are trade secrets in the instruments that monitor and improve drilling. There are a lot of trade secrets developed to improve production efficiency. There's a lot of essentially "public" knowledge too, but even that is hard to come by, so internal training materials can be extremely valuable to capture that knowledge that is typically only accrued with experience or being an insider at a reputable company. Just because fossil fuels have been down there a long time doesn't mean there is no innovation involved in getting them, otherwise we (the USA) wouldn't have just passed up Saudi Arabia as the worlds biggest energy producer. American fracturing companies dominate the world market for fracturing.
China has a problem trying to exploit its shale reserves. They aren't as flat and even as those in the USA. So they may be looking for ways to make similar improvements exploiting their own shale reserves by looking at how we fracture reserves in states that do have some geological variance in their shale reserves, like Pennsylvania and Colorado. Chinese companies are making often pitiful attempts to compete in the international market with sub-par technology. It won't always be pitiful though, I think. They're obviously trying to improve and the only thing holding them back is the trade secrets.
Comment Alarmist BS (Score 4, Informative) 651
But precisely finishing the last 20 percent of a lower receiver has still required access to a milling machine that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Whatever. I made mine with a $350 micro milling machine from Harbor Freight. The template kit to mill & drill the other 20% of the incomplete lower receiver was about the same cost as the 80% complete lower receiver. So all of the parts & tooling in sum total less than $550. Plus I use the mill for other things and the template has resale value. Also FTA:
Defense Distributedâ(TM)s machine canâ(TM)t carve pieces as large as its competitors, but its small size makes it more rigid and precise, allowing it to cut an aluminum lower receiver from an 80 percent lower in around an hour. Thatâ(TM)s a task Wilson says would still be impossible with todayâ(TM)s cheapest hobbyist mills but doesnâ(TM)t require five-figure professional tools. âoeWeâ(TM)re making this easier by an order of magnitude,â he says.
I think that they meant to quote him as saying it is POSSIBLE. An order of magnitude is a gross overstatement, given that this was the 3d milling version of trace paper.
Subversive ambitions aside, Wilson doesnâ(TM)t hide the fact that the Ghost Gunner is also a money-making project.
Indeed.