White Coat Ceremony 3 (Photo credit: pennstatenews)

White Coat Ceremony 2 (Photo credit: pennstatenews)

We already know that dressing appropriately for work is usually part of the condition of many of the jobs out there. Dressing inappropriately could result in not getting that job, getting fired for it, or even just giving the wrong impression.

Uniformed jobs have it the easiest, let’s face it that removal of choice makes it a hell of a lot easier to get out of the house in the morning. Men too have it easy. In office jobs men tend to wear suits, or in more ‘modern’ or relaxed environments, casual shirts can suffice. Oh no! someone came in for a short notice meeting? It’s ok I can stick a suit jacket over these tailored jeans and shirt and (given the work environment rules) hey presto, I’m business presentable again! Let’s face it if you work in an only suit and tie environment, this is not really a problem for you either as your lack of choice lets you blend with the rest of the suits, and let your performance stand out.

Women on the other hand seem to have more pitfalls in this area, in jobs where we are not required to wear uniforms. Sure, we have more choice overall, skirts gave way to trousers and now we have a plethora of attire to choose from for whatever work environment we are in. I personally like the choice of heels vs flats, jeans vs skirt but realise that there will be occasions I need to be suited and booted like the rest and as long as I can plan which days these are, tend not to have issues with wearing the ‘wrong thing’ for the day. However, I work in digital, which is a pretty relaxed environment for clothing and a lot of my clients don’t have it so lucky as while I can go to meetings slightly more smart casual or relaxed business style, while they are suited up. That is, if you consider dressing down as lucky, and not the reverse of course.

The point here is really not so much about personal taste, but how often do you feel better or worse depending on how you are dressed? We’ve all got it wrong at some point or another and felt horribly over or under dressed for the rest of the day or evening event. Now while I like the saying you can never be too overdressed or overeducated, there are occasions you should blend in!

This feeds directly into an interesting study that was done at the Kellogg Schoold of Management at the Northwestern Iniversity in America where they produced a paper called “Enclothed Cognition” which discussed the term “embodied cognition” essentially referring to how we feel bodily sensations can affect how we think and feel.  They studied subjects who wore similar white coats with half the group told they were wearing medical white coats, the rest artist’s white coats. The group who perceived they were wearing the medical coats performed better on the ‘stroop’ test than the artist coats, even though they were only different in perception.

Now this research paper does not directly move to discuss professional dress in other arenas, but the results are markedly interesting and should be tested in other industries. It is interesting that often how we are instructed to dress for work is to present a unified, business perception to those outside the organisation, but perhaps this is the wrong motivation. Similarly, dressing down is a sign of a relaxed ‘fun’ and often modern place to work, but again, is this meaning we are too relaxed and therefore paying less attention?

This is not to say that you are suddenly crap at your job on your dress down Fridays, but it does mean we should as organisations be paying more attention to the psychology behind our workplace dress codes. As individuals also, it is something we should pay more attention to than we most likely do. I am guilty of this. Sure, women need to be more careful than men in terms of dressing too provocatively to be giving the wrong impression, not just of being slutty, but possibly of being incompetent or an airhead, when in actual fact you might just have beauty AND brains (go you). It has been said that women get taken more seriously in business when they dress more masculine, however I’m curious how many women feel they had the advantage in a job interview because they are pretty, or dressed to show it off?

We don’t have the answers, but we should ask the questions until we get the research to hand. In the meantime, even though it’s the last thing we really want to think about first thing in the morning, we should probably think a bit more about what we are wearing each day, not just for the outside world, but if you feel good, you will most likely do a better job.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/new-study-what-you-wear-could-affect-how-well-you-work/2011/04/01/gIQAssHomR_blog.html

https://www.citibank.com/womenandco/article/how-your-work-wardrobe-could-impact-your-performance.jsp

http://woman.thenest.com/wear-affect-communication-job-7984.html

http://work.chron.com/wear-affect-communication-job-15923.html

http://careers.yourmoney.ca/2012/05/what-you-wear-could-affect-how-well-you-work.html

Related articles

• What to wear to work in the PR and marketing industry (prdaily.com)
• Dress to Impress (fsu.uloop.com)
• Ideas for What to Wear When You Have “Nothing to Wear”. (kate152william.wordpress.com)

$730 million dollars is utterly crippling to most companies. Even for Microsoft, struggling to retain an ever plunging market share in PCs and smartphones, losing that amount of money will hurt. But it’s not about the money, here. It’s about the principle and the utter lunacy of enforcing this old, very outdated antitrust settlement.

You see, there’s a bit of history behind this fine.

In 1998, in the wake of the very successful Windows 98 launch, a set of civil actions was filed against Microsoft Corporation, alleging that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales.

“The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.” (Source: Wikipedia)

In the fifteen years following this decision, the world has observed some valuable facts:

• Despite being the dominant PC browser until last year, Microsoft has not made any money from Internet Explorer, ever.
• Despite being the dominant PC browser, PCs themselves have declined steadily, contributing heavily to a loss of Internet Explorer market share.
• There are now twice as many smartphones as PCs being sold annually.
  • The biggest smartphone operating system on the planet is Google Android, which comes pre-packaged with its own Android Browser, which is set to search Google’s search engine by default.
  • Excuse me, where’s their browser ballot screen?
  • It is not impossible to replace Android Browser with a third party browser of your choice, but it takes about the same amount of steps as doing so with Internet Explorer on your PC.
  • Tablet sales are steadily rising: last year there were 50% as many tablets sold as PCs.
    • Of that, Microsoft has a measly 4% market share. Yet, it is the only tablet company being forced to offer users the choice to pick from 3rd party browsers by default.
• The biggest market share of tablets still belongs to Apple, which packages Safari browser in both its tablets and phones.
  • Apple makes it impossible to wholly replace Safari with a third party browser in all its iOS devices.

Being 2013, downloading a new browser is now a trivial affair in terms of time and download size required. Back in 1998 when most of the world was on dial-up, it made a little more sense that a heavy 3rd party browser download was not an attractive option. Today, it takes mere seconds to install and replace a browser on a PC. This renders the point on “restricting the market for competing web browsers that are slow to download over a modem” obsolete.

Why then, is Microsoft still being punished openly and publicly for a behaviour that is so accepted by its peers and competitors? While Microsoft is whipped and cut down for acting like a monopoly as it brings a quality third choice to the tablet and smartphone market, the world can seemingly overlook Apple and Google with a forgiving, favourable eye. No one can dispute that Apple is notoriously the most locked-down operating system on the planet, partaking in the most obvious of antitrust behaviour across all its devices: you must use Apple core programs on Apple devices.

Ever controlling the world’s online access, Google’s smartphones, Android tablets and soon, Google Glass cleverly funnel you in to default statistical sharing settings, default search engine settings and the default browser application, and no one seems to be worriedly batting an eyelid, supposedly because its company motto is “Do No Evil”?

If driving the knife into Microsoft wasn’t enough, here’s a little devilish twist: Google and Opera were the ones who tipped off the EU and put them up to this. That’s right folks, the European Union is cavorting with Microsoft’s direct competitors who allegedly even helped them throughout the investigation.

Disgusting.

And Microsoft, caught between a rock and a hard place, knows it can’t take on the EU, Google, Apple, Opera and everyone else who will come down on them with a class-action shitstorm if they put up a fight, so what has ol’ Mister Softee done about this? They’ve released this humble statement of no-contest:

“We take full responsibility for the technical error that caused this problem and have apologized for it. We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake – or anything similar – in the future.” (Source: Google & Opera Tipped EU | The Verge)

Related articles

• EU fines Microsoft $732 million over browser ballot debacle (computerworld.com)
• Firefox browser coming to Windows 8 tablets (lenovo.com)
• Mozilla, Google cry foul over Windows tablets (lenovo.com)
• Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 10 browser coming to Windows 7 PCs (mercurynews.com)
• Microsoft changes default Flash behavior in Windows 8 and RT (zdnet.com)
• Microsoft’s IE 10 browser coming to Windows 7 PCs (dawn.com)

When I instead presented him with material that says, “actually, I don’t think this is actually occurring…”

he was speechless.

I’m a “heretic”, obviously… a “denier” (reminiscent of “Holocaust denier” lol, what a horrible and fallactious ad hominem slur)

Which brings me to the question… is there heresy in science?

I was waiting for him to give me a mathematically verifiable reason about the need and effect of Climate Change  abatement.  Instead he goes into mute shock that I don’t “believe” in climate change like he does, and he stops talking to me.

I’d like to think I am fairly well versed in the scientific method, in both its principles, the mathematics and the nepotism that can creep into it.  I see many warning signs in climate science but, since “the science is settled”, nobody wants to talk mathematics (the language of science) anymore… everyone wants to talk politics.

Here are the main reasons I am very suspicious about this debate:

• When the word “belief” comes into a scientific debate, I am very worried! When the words “prove” and “fact” are bandied around science, I am also very worried!
• Models and extrapolation are not evidence.  When the model does not conform to the real world, the model on which the hypothesis becomes invalid (hence the hypothesis is invalid!).  The current “elephant in the room” is the data that shows a disconnect between carbon dioxide emissions and a plateau in temperature.
• Data can be manipulated to present a particular result, so access to the raw, unnormalised data is important for auditing particular conclusions, or else mathematical tricks can be used to “hide the decline.”
• Proxy data (such as tree rings) is even easier to manipulate than raw data.
• Detailed information must be provided on the method of experiment, i.e. where measurements were taken, how they were taken, how the averaged values were derived and any homogenisation that was done to the raw data.  If this data is denied Freedom of Information disclosure for “proprietary” or other reasons, the experiments should be ruled invalid until everything is submitted for audit.
• Conclusions should be based on a hypothesis that should be verifiable by a repeatable experiment, and the result should be demonstrated a 3 standard deviation confidence level as statistically significant.
• There is a cadre of people who have a vested interest in continuing the climate change industry, such as politicians up for re-election and scientists interviewing to receive grants on fashionable topics.  Ergo, we have to take the human element and vested interest out of the debate.
• I am very worried when someone says, “the science is settled” to shut down debate and prevent the audit or revision in scientific results.

For me, this chart is the nail in the coffin, where no statistically significant warming has occurred despite skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions:

At current, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature initiative is doing a re-evaluation of the data and has conclusions which, at current, are leaning towards supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  It remains to be seen, however, that this study must complete peer review and, furthermore, convince climate skeptics through transparency that the mathematics is correct.

The science definitely isn’t settled- jury is still out.

Montreal Berri-UQAM metro station – Counter Strike – Global Offensive – Level Designer Fined 50,000 (Source: YouTube screenshot)

When popular games are released to the public, quite often a level generator is also released, so that enthusiastic and creative gamers can design their own levels and share them with the world. This is nothing new; it’s been going on for, well, decades, and is most common among FPS (first-person shooter) games.

As games move ever closer to photorealism however, level designers now have the opportunity to re-create real-world places with ever increasing detail and accuracy. Many gamers can recount times they’ve entered a simulation of places familiar to them such as boroughs of New York City or the Budapest underground metro, with eery accuracy made ever the more terrifying by some post-apocalyptic or terror-inducing military lockdown situation.

This was the idea that gamer-turned-level-designer Diego Liatis and his friends had when they began creating a fun level that was accurately mapped to Montreal’s Berri-UQAM metro station for the insanely popular game Counter Strike: Global Offensive.

However… the Société de transport de Montreal got wind of this and became worried that the level will cause panic among Metro users presumably because it garantees would-be terrorists a handy guide to the underground system. The transport agency is now threatening legal action and a $50,000 fine if the custom level gets released to the public.

Is this fair? Popular Science reports:

“Liatis told Le Journal de Montreal that he asked for permission to create and release the map to the public, was denied, then went ahead and did it anyway, figuring it was a public place and his right to do so.”

Denis, a programmer on the project, described the situation as “ridiculous” and said that terrorists who want to learn the details of the station’s layout can just go there and ride around on the subway, like he did.

The level’s creators rightly point out how they made the metro stop in the first place: by going down there and looking around. No one is being stopped from doing that, and the game doesn’t reveal some secret important information that could be detrimental to the public. If the transit authorities think it does, they’re just demonstrating that they don’t understand what goes into making a level like this: simple observation.”

If this goes to trial, it will open up a can of worms for copyright infringement, artistic creation, public rights, liability and risk.

If somebody takes photographs of a public place and paste them up online, or yes, even build a 3D model of such a place, why should they be held liable for giving would-be evil-doers convenient access to plotting terrorism? Especially when services like  Microsoft Photosynth and Google Streetview exist? It seems like a double standard if ever I heard one; an example of bullying the little guy because Montreal’s transport authority know they have no leg to stand on if they try to take this issue to big companies.

But why is this an issue at all? Has there been any link between terrorism occurring and game level design? Not to my knowledge. I, like many, am sick of games and gamers being the target of criticism, controversy, censorship and punishment just because real-life simulations happens to contain violence and military situations.

If anything, an accurate simulation of how to survive in a real place in the event of a terrorist situation should be praised. Why? Because it allows members of the general public the chance to practice how to survive and keep their wits about them if such a situation were ever to occur.

Realistic simulations of real life places under attack may therefore actually save lives in the event of terrorism, not endanger them.

Source and Related articles

• Source: Gamer Faces $50K Fine For Mapping A Train Station (popsci.com)
• Video game showing Montreal metro ordered to stop production (cbc.ca)
• Counter-Strike map maker could be sued if he releases Montreal Metro map publicly (vg247.com)
• Montreal Transit Threatens Lawsuit Over Counter-Strike Map (escapistmagazine.com)
• Counter-Strike: GO mapper threatened with legal action by Montreal transit authority (pcgamer.com)
• Why gamers are still loyal to their PCs (lenovo.com)
• Gamer’s dilemma: The desktop or the laptop (lenovo.com)
• Montreal designer remains defiant, plans to release new Counter-Strike map (arstechnica.com)
• Video game designer ordered to delete Montreal metro scene (cbc.ca)
• He’s Getting Threatened With Legal Action Over A Counter Strike Map (kotaku.com)

Add to that, the scenes that were not pumped up with now fake-looking CGI looked like they were obviously shot in a studio on a very fake looking set, complete with b-grade lighting and no polish to the film, as if we were watching raw footage before it had gone to post production.

Was this the BlueRay‘s fault? Or was this the television?

“A Guy Thing sleeps its way onto Blu-ray with a 1080p HD transfer and … it should come as no surprise that little work was done for the transfer.” –http://moviemansguide.com

Perception problems with the picture on HD “Smart” televisions are widespread, as Danny Sullivan from CNET explains:

“Why does everything on the new TV look like video out of a bad soap opera,” my wife asked me, about a day after our new set arrived.

“You’re crazy,” was my response. I figured the move from a 40-inch set to a 55-inch one was taking some time to get used to.

As it turned out, she was right. After a few more days, even I conceded that unless “Game of Thrones” was now being shot in the same studio as “The Young and the Restless,” something was wrong.

It was annoying. In the store, the television — a Samsung 7000 Series — had a picture that looked great. There was George Clooney playing over and over again in a clip from “The Descendants,” looking as handsome as ever. Had I gotten a bad set? Maybe it was just me. The set was so nice that I kind of wanted to just blame myself.

Eventually, I started hunting through the menu options. One of the set’s features is a 240Hz refresh rate. Maybe this was to blame?

I never found an option that specifically said it controlled the refresh rate. But buried two menus deep, I found one called Auto Motion Plus. Guessing this was related to the problem, I turned it off. Voila! The bad soap opera look was gone.

Everything on my TV looks like Days Of Our Lives | Intentious

Unfortunately only some televisions have this ability to control the refresh rate or motion/frame enhancement settings. If your television doesn’t come with this ability, you’re probably out of luck.

If you’re really interested in why the effect happens, it’s because soap operas (and some other television shows) are shot on video, which is cheaper than film. But shooting on video increases the number of frames displayed per second, giving them that particular look.

Many modern televisions seem to automatically create additional frames, even for filmed content. This “motion interpolation” is meant to smooth motion, which might be useful if you’re watching a fast-action sporting event. But it also effectively makes content that was shot on expensive film appear to have been recorded on cheap video.
TelevisionInfo.com had a nice, recent article explaining this in more detail. This CNET article also explains it briefly, though it doesn’t name it as the Soap Opera Effect.

What I found remarkable is that people have been complaining about this for several years. Complaints are all over the Internet. How did I end up with a new set configured by default to show images in a way that you’d think manufacturers know plenty of people dislike. Why do I even need it at all?

My TV, I’d argue, is trying to be smarter than I am. It’s trying to smooth out “blur” and “judder” and remake the picture in a way it assumes will be better. But instead, it transforms the picture into something that feels unnatural.

Really, I just want a dumb TV that shows me a great picture.

Read the whole article: The Soap Opera Effect: When your TV tries to be smarter than you | news.cnet.com – Danny Sullivan

Indeed, the problem seems to be infiltrating cinemas too, with higher film projection rates (48fps) being used in Peter Jackson‘s upcoming holiday epic, the highly anticipated “The Hobbit“. It seem as though film and screen companies are trying to be smarter than our eyes, but failing dismally. Check out these recent reviews of preview screenings of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey;

The Los Angeles Times quoted a projectionist who complained, “It looked like a made-for-TV movie.”

Variety spoke with the owner of a mid-sized movie-theater chain who said, “It looked to me like a behind-the-scenes featurette.”

Writing at Slashfilm, Peter Sciretta offered a more detailed negative response. “It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake,” he wrote.

“Hobbiton and Middle Earth didn’t feel like a different universe, it felt like a special effect, a film set with actors in costumes. It looked like behind the scenes footage. The movement of the actors looked… strange. Almost as if the performances had been partly sped up…. It didn’t look cinematic.”

Source: StudioDaily.com | The Hobbit, The Soap Opera Effect, and 48fps Future of Movies 

Source: http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

Is your TV plagued with these problems?

Do you regret your purchase?

Tell us in the comments below.

Related articles

• “The Young and the Restless” Sets New Milestone: 24 Years at Number 1 (news.softpedia.com)
• 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution (reviews.cnet.com)
• Bored of the Rings (slate.com)
• What is refresh rate? (reviews.cnet.com)
• Marshall Fine: Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (huffingtonpost.com)
• Living with a Smart TV (Part 1) (technologytell.com)
• Why does “The Hobbit” look so weird? (salon.com)
• The High-Tech Filming of The Hobbit (techland.time.com)
• “‘The Hobbit’ looks really, really strange.” (althouse.blogspot.com)
• ‘The Hobbit’ apparently not only looks crazy, but may make you barf (deathandtaxesmag.com)