Outstanding comments from linker, ian, and rucs hack. How reassuring to hear such well-reasoned arguments! Being here in the states, I've pretty much lost hope for our society to have ANY analytical skills whatsoever. This FUD about absolutely needing to use m$ office is so completely untrue, that it's less than FUD. It is a lie that is repeated only by the weak-minded.
In my job, I've supported clients that only use m$ garbage. I take all their word, ppt, and excel docs and fix all the screwed up stuff in them (because they can't figure out how to use the convoluted m$ gui) by using OpenOffice or NeoOffce. Then I email the fixed docs back to them and they are happy.
YAH!!! You NEED to learn to use m$ office. If they keep believing that, I'll have job security.
First off, I don't think that the airstrip nearby is an extreme of self-indulgence. I imagine they calculated what it cost at other airstrips, travel time between HQ and the airstrip plus other costs incurred, etc. That whole cost-analysis thing. And NASA could use the extra revenue.
But I think what people are reacting to is the excess seen in executive compensation. When the execs are getting obscene bonuses even after being only marginally effect or worse (Home Depot comes to mind), people have a right to be upset. The reason for their frustration is that more costs are being transferred to the employees while the execs get bigger perks. Most employees are contributing to a company's success every day, yet they are getting less and less by comparison. This is bad form.
Another component of the 'American Dream' is the idea of sharing success. Everyone that contributes should benefit in some way. And NOT the old 'you're lucky you still got a job' garbage.
A company cannot exist for the success of a few. It must exist for the success of all employed by that company. Otherwise, it's just another Enron, Tyco, GE, etc. These organizations or morally bankrupt (if not literally bankrupt) [Note re GE: It sounds like Immelt is trying to change that if the board doesn't jerk him around.]
The REAL question to be asked is, "How much money do you need to live comfortably?" At some point the pursuit of money is all about greed. It is not a positive, constructive effort. The more one person gets, the less someone else can have. Instead of taking huge bonuses, the execs should be plowing that money back into the organization to offset increases in medical insurance, etc. Take care of the employees and the company will have long-term success.
Don't misunderstand me. I detest the entitlement attitude as much as you. Maybe even more. That attitude is every bit as destructive as greed. But my experience as a manager has been that most people make a sincere effort at contributing to the success of an organization. They should share in it, too.
But again, without knowing more details, this airstrip thing doesn't sound that bad to me.
We cancelled our cable subscription several years ago, because what was originally going to be advertising-free TV (because it was based on subscriptions) had turned into a freakin' nightmare of obnoxious ads.
Now we watch broadcast TV and on every remote that we've owned, the first button that fails is the MUTE button because it gets used so much. If I'm guilty of stealing ad revenue from these web sites by using an ad-blocker, then the makers of TV remotes are guilty of the same by enabling me to ignore the intellectually insulting TV ads.
Here is the same flawed perception by rookie, half-witted marketers that, simply by putting an ad in front of me, they are going to create a need. Ah, HELLO!!! Are there ANY marketing people out there? Remember Marketing 101? The need comes from the consumer, it is not generated by the manufacturers' pitchmen.
To finish my rant, what's up with all the goofy video effects now? I'm waiting for someone to do their Masters or Doctorate about TV commercials and how they are contributing to the attention deficit in our children (not to mention adults). And the sudden increase of volume is enough to make me toss my TV out the window (like at the beginning of SCTV).
Web advertisers must learn to provide informative advertising that is not intellectually insulting, irritating, and intrusive. If the need exists, consumers will buy it given that it is reasonably priced and has quality. If they don't, then you guys don't understand your market. As for my ad-blocker, you can have it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Registered Coward's advice about attending a meeting or two is spot on. Actually, you should join the club and attend on a regular basis. This will give you a chance to see what other people are using and doing. This is really important. If you have the impression that you're going to set up a camera and start capturing a bunch of beautiful, full-color images of nebulae and globular clusters and galaxies, think again.
For 30 years, I was a key-holding member of a group that has several scopes with an observatory on a parcel of land on a small hill in the country. The premier instrument is a 16-inch Cassegrain with some great optics in a really nice building with a dome. For several years, I ran the public viewing nights. The things that impressed people the most were the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and several open and globular clusters. Nebulae and galaxies all appear as very indistinct objects. The first time someone looks through a telescope at something like the Andromeda galaxy, they find it a bit disappointing. It's just a vague, hazy, blue blob.
Doing photography requires an enormous amount of patience and excellent equipment especially if you intend to do any deep-sky stuff. Deep sky will require long exposures and a good deal of guiding. I was successful in getting several shots of Andromeda and a few nebulae. I also have several shots of Jupiter and a bunch of the moon. Nothing that would ever get publish.
My point is again, Reg Coward's advice is on target. First look at some things in the night sky. Get a sense for what you can do and understand what the results might be. In combination with the advice you get from the club members, you'll have a good idea about what to buy.
And if you live in the northern climate, I'd spend about $1000 on ways to stay warm or keeping mosquitoes off you.
I agree completely. The concept of 'all in one' introduces a whole new set of limitations when, if fact, it's an attempt to remove limitations. This design philosophy never fails to amuse me. I see it as another form of bloat-ware.
As much as I criticize the perversion of wealth in this capitalist economy, I just can't get behind Moore and his approach. I'm concerned that he does more harm than good to the credibility of any criticism that is directed at healthcare, politicians, or the concentration of wealth in a tiny percentage of our nation's population.
So I guess I'm saying that I don't care what anyone does in response to this wanna-be investigative reporter's offerings.
I can't tell you just how good it is to hear someone else make the same observation re "the latest 'pop' show... for stupid teenagers." I have seen this pattern appear over and over again. I swear the writers for these shows are targeting 14 to 16 year-old girls. But I thought that I was just getting old. (Well, actually, I am getting old, but that's beside the point.)
I caught the tail-end of the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS yesterday. He was interviewing the producer or director (whatever, I didn't catch his name.) of 'Law and Order.' His comment about why this show has been so phenomenally successful was (listen up all you writers out there) "It's about the writing." He went on to say that the subject matter is taken from the front page of the 'Times.' This is REAL stuff that is being used to write REALLY GOOD scripts.
And as far as the sponsors go and a demographic with discretionary income goes... how many 14 to 16 year girls are out there buying houses and cars and appliances, you morons?
This is why I almost always watch PBS now when I do watch TV. I don't want to watch a panel of people humiliating and insulting some delusional 20-something that thinks they're entertaining. I don't want to watch a bunch of losers who are trapped in some sort of bad fantasy island practicing rituals to vote somebody off and acting like it's actually serious.
Bottom line... When you throw in all the over-the-top macho I've-gotta-have-a-truck commercials, all the absolutely inane self-centered I've-gotta-be-a-model brain washing, all the strobing, fast image clips going to slow mo clips back to fast, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, 98% of commercial TV is utterly useless, non-entertaining, waste.
Some advice for the Jericho fans... Move on. Go to the library. Read. Learn to think. Stop following the fashion crowd. Get an education. Get a life.
This sounds more like the classic 'freeze the market' ploy by m$. Scare everyone into thinking that they have patents, and now, anyone thinking of switching to Linux will reconsider or, at the very least, hold off on the switch. There still is no evidence of any patent violations. This is still only posturing and FUD.
Now I know why a marginally entertaining, psuedo-news show like 60min would have this no-talent, self-centered, ego-maniac on. It was part of a new PR campaign leading up to this announcement. Stern's presence on satellite is irrelevant. He's not getting the attention he needs to generate the cash his promoters expect. So, just like the over-acheiving, brown-nosing kid in class that desparately waves his hand in the air to get the attention of the teacher, Howie is back on TV first in an attempt to regain some form of visibility and now s/he's on the web. Oh, joy.
I think I almost yawned just now, too.
Slashdot Mirror
...to the GIMP project. PLEASE send them to the GIMP project. I'm begging you.
Outstanding comments from linker, ian, and rucs hack. How reassuring to hear such well-reasoned arguments! Being here in the states, I've pretty much lost hope for our society to have ANY analytical skills whatsoever. This FUD about absolutely needing to use m$ office is so completely untrue, that it's less than FUD. It is a lie that is repeated only by the weak-minded.
In my job, I've supported clients that only use m$ garbage. I take all their word, ppt, and excel docs and fix all the screwed up stuff in them (because they can't figure out how to use the convoluted m$ gui) by using OpenOffice or NeoOffce. Then I email the fixed docs back to them and they are happy.
YAH!!! You NEED to learn to use m$ office. If they keep believing that, I'll have job security.
First off, I don't think that the airstrip nearby is an extreme of self-indulgence. I imagine they calculated what it cost at other airstrips, travel time between HQ and the airstrip plus other costs incurred, etc. That whole cost-analysis thing. And NASA could use the extra revenue.
But I think what people are reacting to is the excess seen in executive compensation. When the execs are getting obscene bonuses even after being only marginally effect or worse (Home Depot comes to mind), people have a right to be upset. The reason for their frustration is that more costs are being transferred to the employees while the execs get bigger perks. Most employees are contributing to a company's success every day, yet they are getting less and less by comparison. This is bad form.
Another component of the 'American Dream' is the idea of sharing success. Everyone that contributes should benefit in some way. And NOT the old 'you're lucky you still got a job' garbage.
A company cannot exist for the success of a few. It must exist for the success of all employed by that company. Otherwise, it's just another Enron, Tyco, GE, etc. These organizations or morally bankrupt (if not literally bankrupt) [Note re GE: It sounds like Immelt is trying to change that if the board doesn't jerk him around.]
The REAL question to be asked is, "How much money do you need to live comfortably?" At some point the pursuit of money is all about greed. It is not a positive, constructive effort. The more one person gets, the less someone else can have. Instead of taking huge bonuses, the execs should be plowing that money back into the organization to offset increases in medical insurance, etc. Take care of the employees and the company will have long-term success.
Don't misunderstand me. I detest the entitlement attitude as much as you. Maybe even more. That attitude is every bit as destructive as greed. But my experience as a manager has been that most people make a sincere effort at contributing to the success of an organization. They should share in it, too.
But again, without knowing more details, this airstrip thing doesn't sound that bad to me.
Hey PalmerEldritch, what an excellent assessment!
We cancelled our cable subscription several years ago, because what was originally going to be advertising-free TV (because it was based on subscriptions) had turned into a freakin' nightmare of obnoxious ads.
Now we watch broadcast TV and on every remote that we've owned, the first button that fails is the MUTE button because it gets used so much. If I'm guilty of stealing ad revenue from these web sites by using an ad-blocker, then the makers of TV remotes are guilty of the same by enabling me to ignore the intellectually insulting TV ads.
Here is the same flawed perception by rookie, half-witted marketers that, simply by putting an ad in front of me, they are going to create a need. Ah, HELLO!!! Are there ANY marketing people out there? Remember Marketing 101? The need comes from the consumer, it is not generated by the manufacturers' pitchmen.
To finish my rant, what's up with all the goofy video effects now? I'm waiting for someone to do their Masters or Doctorate about TV commercials and how they are contributing to the attention deficit in our children (not to mention adults). And the sudden increase of volume is enough to make me toss my TV out the window (like at the beginning of SCTV).
Web advertisers must learn to provide informative advertising that is not intellectually insulting, irritating, and intrusive. If the need exists, consumers will buy it given that it is reasonably priced and has quality. If they don't, then you guys don't understand your market. As for my ad-blocker, you can have it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Registered Coward's advice about attending a meeting or two is spot on. Actually, you should join the club and attend on a regular basis. This will give you a chance to see what other people are using and doing. This is really important. If you have the impression that you're going to set up a camera and start capturing a bunch of beautiful, full-color images of nebulae and globular clusters and galaxies, think again.
For 30 years, I was a key-holding member of a group that has several scopes with an observatory on a parcel of land on a small hill in the country. The premier instrument is a 16-inch Cassegrain with some great optics in a really nice building with a dome. For several years, I ran the public viewing nights. The things that impressed people the most were the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and several open and globular clusters. Nebulae and galaxies all appear as very indistinct objects. The first time someone looks through a telescope at something like the Andromeda galaxy, they find it a bit disappointing. It's just a vague, hazy, blue blob.
Doing photography requires an enormous amount of patience and excellent equipment especially if you intend to do any deep-sky stuff. Deep sky will require long exposures and a good deal of guiding. I was successful in getting several shots of Andromeda and a few nebulae. I also have several shots of Jupiter and a bunch of the moon. Nothing that would ever get publish.
My point is again, Reg Coward's advice is on target. First look at some things in the night sky. Get a sense for what you can do and understand what the results might be. In combination with the advice you get from the club members, you'll have a good idea about what to buy.
And if you live in the northern climate, I'd spend about $1000 on ways to stay warm or keeping mosquitoes off you.
I agree completely. The concept of 'all in one' introduces a whole new set of limitations when, if fact, it's an attempt to remove limitations. This design philosophy never fails to amuse me. I see it as another form of bloat-ware.
As much as I criticize the perversion of wealth in this capitalist economy, I just can't get behind Moore and his approach. I'm concerned that he does more harm than good to the credibility of any criticism that is directed at healthcare, politicians, or the concentration of wealth in a tiny percentage of our nation's population.
So I guess I'm saying that I don't care what anyone does in response to this wanna-be investigative reporter's offerings.
I can't tell you just how good it is to hear someone else make the same observation re "the latest 'pop' show ... for stupid teenagers." I have seen this pattern appear over and over again. I swear the writers for these shows are targeting 14 to 16 year-old girls. But I thought that I was just getting old. (Well, actually, I am getting old, but that's beside the point.)
I caught the tail-end of the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS yesterday. He was interviewing the producer or director (whatever, I didn't catch his name.) of 'Law and Order.' His comment about why this show has been so phenomenally successful was (listen up all you writers out there) "It's about the writing." He went on to say that the subject matter is taken from the front page of the 'Times.' This is REAL stuff that is being used to write REALLY GOOD scripts.
And as far as the sponsors go and a demographic with discretionary income goes... how many 14 to 16 year girls are out there buying houses and cars and appliances, you morons?
This is why I almost always watch PBS now when I do watch TV. I don't want to watch a panel of people humiliating and insulting some delusional 20-something that thinks they're entertaining. I don't want to watch a bunch of losers who are trapped in some sort of bad fantasy island practicing rituals to vote somebody off and acting like it's actually serious.
Bottom line... When you throw in all the over-the-top macho I've-gotta-have-a-truck commercials, all the absolutely inane self-centered I've-gotta-be-a-model brain washing, all the strobing, fast image clips going to slow mo clips back to fast, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, 98% of commercial TV is utterly useless, non-entertaining, waste.
Some advice for the Jericho fans... Move on. Go to the library. Read. Learn to think. Stop following the fashion crowd. Get an education. Get a life.
Let him know that I heard Apple is bankrupt and going out of business, too.
This sounds more like the classic 'freeze the market' ploy by m$. Scare everyone into thinking that they have patents, and now, anyone thinking of switching to Linux will reconsider or, at the very least, hold off on the switch. There still is no evidence of any patent violations. This is still only posturing and FUD.
Now I know why a marginally entertaining, psuedo-news show like 60min would have this no-talent, self-centered, ego-maniac on. It was part of a new PR campaign leading up to this announcement. Stern's presence on satellite is irrelevant. He's not getting the attention he needs to generate the cash his promoters expect. So, just like the over-acheiving, brown-nosing kid in class that desparately waves his hand in the air to get the attention of the teacher, Howie is back on TV first in an attempt to regain some form of visibility and now s/he's on the web. Oh, joy. I think I almost yawned just now, too.