I think the value here is more for non-technical (or just less-technical) folks. "Just dive into a startup" is fine advice for programmers, but for those of us who aren't at that skill level, it's easier said than done. Nobody wants to hire a 'product guy' with financial skills and business acumen to help them manage their pet project. I see this program as being valuable to allow semi-technical folks like myself to learn more directly useful skills without spending years becoming a developer first.
Absolutely true. A tablet isn't as capable as a PC is, yet. Trying to do my taxes on my Nexus 7 would be a nightmare. But it satisfies a very good use case: a cheap, portable device for casual computing and media consumption. The only fundamental thing standing in the way of tablets completely eclipsing PCs is the input method. If we can get a good replacement for the keyboard/mouse on a touchscreen device, the days of traditional PCs could be numbered.
If you're talking specifically tablets, then you won't get any extra input methods - when a tablet is used, your hands are in a position that only the touchsceen can be used effectively and your other appendages are not that useful for input.
So either we figure out how to make touchscreen+voice to work effectively for content creation, or we'll have to use something other than a tablet experience for that.
You're right about input. But I doubt a touchscreen will ever suffice for a lot of professional work.
For graphics and CAD work, I need the precision of a mouse cursor. My laptop's trackpad works great, and my mouse works even better. My fingertip on a screen, by contrast, will always feel clumsy in comparison. Fingers are just too fat. The only way they become not too fat is with a gigantic screen. But then that's not really a tablet. And gigantic screens can be ergonomically bad, because they force you to bend your neck looking at them.
Likewise, for serious typing, I need the tactile response of a keyboard. Touch-typing on a touchscreen is frustrating.
Of course, there's no reason you can't attach a mouse and keyboard to a tablet. But then you basically have a laptop that doesn't fold closed. It's hard to consider that a uniquely tablet-esque experience.
Freedom in learning is so, so important. This case study illuminates that pretty well. It's a great look into an example of allowing children to truly learn at their own pace, with gentle guidance regarding subject areas and provided with the resources they need to discover new knowledge. The story is heartwarming and a great read, and a useful comparison to the modern American style of education.
As others have pointed out, there is no magic bullet. This method would work incredibly well for 90% of subjects taught in elementary school. However, for non-English language learning, additional guidance would be needed - the teachers could nudge them towards Duolingo, various online multilingual dictionaries, etc. I do believe that this system could be used as the core of a new teaching paradigm, but it is not solely sufficient for a complete learning experience to the standards that we have come to expect in America.
For developing countries (which, sadly, Mexico bears much resemblance to), this could be an incredible tool. An internet-connected computer and guidance from involved teachers can easily produce students who are ready to help lift their countries out of economic malaise. In this way, I believe the internet can serve as the Great Equalizer many of us hoped it would someday become. If this method used alone is capable of producing students 70% as capable (by some nonexistent perfect metric) as those in first-world nations, that would still be an enormous leap forward for developing nations. I think these guys are really on to something in this regard.
I find it interesting that as our civilizations mature, we find ourselves oscillating back away from the industrialized American education system paradigms and towards a more holistic, broadly-focused educational strategy using qualitative methods rather than quantitative objectives. Students are not a homogeneous population, and historically we have tried to deal with this issue by ignoring it and cramming them all into the same mold, with minor variations. It makes me glad to see that we are starting to consider that we should instead allow for this variance by designing systems with broader definitions and qualitative goals, to allow the students to grow in the directions they are best suited or disposed to.
To be cynical, a lot of things are possible. It's possible that anaerobic bacteria still live in small pockets beneath the surface of Mars. It's possible, if unlikely, that extremophiles survive on the sweltering surface of Venus, or floating in its sulphurous clouds.
Of course, the fact that these things are possible is still incredibly cool. While this article lacks much technical substance, this is the kind of thinking that gave us Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot. I hope enough people retain this author's sense of scientific curiosity and excitement for discovery. While cold logic, expected-value calculations, and cynicism are important in a research setting, outside of the lab it's important for people to be able to get excited about little (or big!) things like this.
We can have scientific progress and childish glee coexist. Thank you for posting this.
Floating in the clouds of Venus, sure. There's some semi-Earthlike zones in the cloud layer. On the surface, very probably not. It is unlikely that there is any structure that could pump entropy out of the cell faster than the horrific surface environment of Venus would be pumping it in. (More conventionally known as heat, but I find this formulation helps focus on the fact that "too hot" really is an intrinsic problem for life, not merely an incidental one that might be overcome by more chemistry.) I'm not even 100% convinced that a technological solution is possible that could work over geologic time frames, let alone adding the restrictions of abiogenesis on to the structure. (Though on the topic of abiogenesis, it's difficult to see how to apply any of the current thoughts on that to an atmospheric environment; Venusian extremophiles would also probably be immigrants from Earth.)
It has always intrigued me that we consider the possibility of other life forms in a manner that is largely relative to our understanding of life on earth and, hence, biology. But, even our understanding of DNA need not be applicable to other life forms.
I don't see why there has to be any real limitation on conditions or otherwise. As the article mentions, we have been surprised to find extremophiles near thermal vents right here on Earth (which reach temperatures roughly equivalent to the Venusian surface). There we find, for instance, bacteria that rely upon hydrogen sulfide vs sunlight for energy. This is what we consider a "harsh" environment of chemicals, heat, pressure, etc. However, when we attempt to remove organisms from that environment to study them, they usually die pretty quickly. In other words, ours is the harsh environment as far as they are concerned.
Elsewhere, we have found organisms whose DNA was thought to be composed of arsenic vs phosphorous. While this was ultimately refuted, for a period we once again thought we'd discovered something that, in an instant, completely changed our understanding of life.
So, I guess my point is that we assume life must conform to certain requirements and/or conditions until we find life forms that violate our assumptions. Given a Universe as vast and diverse as our own, I sincerely believe that anything is possible and perhaps even likely.
Information theory is a fundamental constraint on any halfway sensible theory of life. If you can't pump out entropy faster than it comes in, you will, by definition, be randomized, which pretty much by definition is not alive.
I know people think they're being sophisticated when they insist no limits can be placed on the form of life, but it's not true; it's naive. There are in fact certain very powerful and generic limits that can be placed on life with some powerful mathematics, such as the one I mentioned. It's fun to imagine a life form in science fiction that lives on the surface of the sun, but in reality they are not possible; there's no way they could retain any interesting structure in such a high entropy environment. To argue otherwise is basically to be arguing against thermodynamics. This basically puts this position firmly on the "crank" side, not the scientifically knowledgeable one.
Also, the idea that there are no limits on what life can look like is observationally false. The vast majority of places we look, we do not see life. Even if we manage to find a few simple life forms in a few of the slightly less hostile places in the solar system, it still won't change that fact; life is observationally not abundant everywhere, regardless of conditions. There definitely is a difference between conditions conducive to life and those not. Even what we call "extremophiles" are only surprising in purely local terms; in absolute terms in the Solar System, volcanic vents are still incredibly hospitable places compared to what is out there. In its own way, trying to argue from extremophiles to the general case is its own perversively parochial argument; the idea that extremophiles are actually "extreme" is a very terra-centric viewpoint.
>"If you can't pump out entropy faster than it comes in, you will, by definition, be randomized, which pretty much by definition is not alive
You're essentially just saying "if you can't stay alive, then you're dead". It's a non-statement.
My point was that's a big if. There are environments in which we wouldn't have thought it possible, until it was proven otherwise.
"I know people think they're being sophisticated when they insist no limits can be placed on the form of life, but it's not true; it's naive"
I don't think it particularly sophisticated to hold this view. I think it simply acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge (limitations which have been proven time and again). As a result, "naive" is actually the word I'd use to describe those who believe that their prior observations represent the full set of possibilities. The world was once flat and all of that.
So, ironically, I would say that your entire argument is based on a profound naivete. It is limited to what we currently understand/have observed and it assumes that it is foolish to consider otherwise.
>the idea that there are no limits on what life can look like is observationally false. The vast majority of places we look, we do not see life...
What does that mean? I don't think that anyone's asserting that life must exist in every single place we look; rather simply that some form of life could exist in virtually every single place we look, because we truly do not know what the bounds are. And, at a minimum, it almost certainly exists in places that we don't expect. The more general point is that it's extraordinarily presumptive to conclude that we know definitively what life could be, based simply on our own observations to date.
>the idea that extremophiles are actually "extreme" is a very terra-centric viewpoint.
Well, exactly. That's my point. We've dubbed them "extremophiles" because of our own limited reference point at a particular place in time. Their existence is simply evidence of our limited observational knowledge in the past. Ironically, enough, that's a term that is still generally accepted because even in spite of them showing us that we were wrong about life at some point, we still can't quite wrap our minds around the fact that we were wrong.
Now, you are simply arguing from a slightly evolved set of observational knowledge that happens to accommodate the existence of those "extremophiles". But, you're simply saying "OK, we might have been wrong once. But, we can't be wrong again". It's really an odd argument to make. And you're adding that volcanic vents aren't such a bad place to live after all. Well, yeah. Because we now know that life exists there. You can follow that line of reasoning until we find life at the center of the Sun.
In terms of on-paper efficiency, I agree. However, doesn't the wi-fi network solution require shoppers to have wi-fi enabled on their device in order for it to work? Most people I know with smartphones keep wi-fi off unless they need it, and asking shoppers to "pretty please turn on wi-fi while you're shopping" is a questionable proposition.
I currently work in the procurement department of a major defense contractor. This company likes to throw its weight around, but we never (to my knowledge) intend to not pay our vendors - our Terms and Conditions are just exceptionally onerous; but I digress. I would recommend, in any communication with a large customer (such as my company), to be as formulaic and procedural as possible. An example of a letter that would draw our attention and get you the result you want would be:
"Dear [Customer POC],
Your account has a past due balance of $XXXXX.XX. This payment was [agreed/scheduled] to be made by XX/XX/XXXX, in accordance with [our/your] Terms and Conditions. If this balance is not paid before YY/YY/YYYY, we will follow with the appropriate legal action. Please send payment to [address].
Sincerely,
[you]"
You want this to look official and direct. Be brief, and don't be afraid to reference legal action even if you don't intend to sue; "appropriate legal action" leaves the next step up to your discretion while still making a material threat to the delinquent customer.
If your customer is a single person, or a very small business, your more emotionally targeted approach will work well. However, with large companies, you need to give them clear-cut rules with consequences outlined if they should break them. Lawsuits are expensive for big companies as well.
To say that this is extremely suspicious is an understatement. I'll be very interested to see what comes of this. If it comes out that someone carried out a hit on a fairly renowned journalist in order to cover up some dirty laundry, there will be hell to pay.
This would be a big step in the right direction. However, heavy-hitting legislation like this that prioritizes civil rights at the expense of government power rarely passes the Senate. We could try and push it through with a SOPA-like activism blitz (which I think we should, honestly), but it would take some serious effort to overcome legislative protectionism.
I agree, if industry leaders jumped on the band wagon like they did for SOPA we may have a chance.
Some of the big tech companies are already willing to fight back we just need to gain momentum for the cause. Some legislators are with us but I doubt the senate will be on our side.
It's a distinct possibility. The C-suite is finally starting to understand the flaws in shareholder value theory, and going private/independent allows them to focus on long term value without having shareholders clamoring for their resignation due to poor short-term balance sheet results. Giant conglomerates such as GE or P&G will stay public, but I wouldn't be surprised if more focused technology firms - or even companies in other areas of consumer goods - start following this trend. It could be good for industry to have some variety in this way.
Maybe. See letter to shareholders by Jeff Bezos. If the business can handle it, and the leadership is capable, I don't see why they would avoid the benefits of being public either. When public, among other things, you have access to a huge amount of capital if you want it (if you can handle the effects of the increased dilution).
No one should expect Bezos to speak for all companies in -Amazon's- letter to the shareholder.
The problem with the stock market is that it is optimizing for a different thing than most companies, and even society at large. If the minimum holding period for an asset was, say, 20 years, the subprime mortgage crash would have been much less likely. (One could make a similar argument for democratic office. But I digress.)
Shareholder value theory induces a sort of hysterical myopia, where ideas and results are evaluated in these Q2Q or Y2Y window. Growth is only evaluated within the context of the company, which creates perverse incentives wrt externalizing costs. Furthermore, if growth initiatives require no additional external funding, then the public stock market -really- makes no sense, and that is likely the case for Blizzard and Dell.
Getting away from shareholder value theory's myopia is the surest way to begin a sustainable recovery of our capital markets.
If the minimum holding period for an asset was, say, 20 years, the subprime mortgage crash would have been much less likely.
One wonders what rules Microsoft stockholders are playing by. They seem to have the patience of a Zen master. Are their dividends enough to justify another 'lost decade' with Ballmer in charge?
True and true, but what good is 'improving the future' if there's nothing to enjoy once we get there? A lot of modern technology revolves around content distribution and consumption. Someone has to make that content in the first place in order for consumer tech to improve our benefit from it. Both sides are important.
