Yes, because you are only successful in life by beating everyone else. And yes, there are many hungry people from other societies. What makes you so entitled to success over them?
And people wonder why America has such a large wealth disparity.
Well said. I think most users' frustration comes from the fact that most (anecdotal) companies err too far on the side of security. Example being my current prime contractor requires us to send emails encrypted, even the most mundane, yet seemingly every other day somebody's cert is out of date, incompatible, broken, whatever. It makes it impossible to do work. Instead, I pick up my unencrypted telephone and talk to the person.
Another anecdote would be the ridiculous 15 character, two upper, two lower, two numbers, two special character password requirement just because ONE of our customers (not one I work with) is military and that is the military requirement. It changes every 45 days and can't be the same on any one of the three networks I use. Yeah, right, of course I'm not gonna write down any of the three 15 character passwords anywhere in any of my notepads anywhere.
Saying software is "Too complicated" is usually a cop-out by the users and the managers that are involved in purchase and/or use of that software.
Yeah, god forbid you'd ever want to take the end-user's opinion into account. Or wait, maybe that's the cause of bad software--devs write to what they want and not what the users want.
I'm a software trainer. We spend probably 25% of our time collectively laughing at bad software practices and wondering out loud who on Earth thought that widgetX was a good idea. The cop-out is on the developer's side, not the user. If something doesn't work well or is overly cumbersome and there's a better way to do it, the user isn't copping out, the developer (or the Program Manager, or the SE, or whoever made the decision not to make the software better) copped out.
...the bigger they are, the less emphasis there is on positive IT policies or employing IT professionals who actually know what they are doing.
Wait, I thought the bigger they are, the more likely it is they work in IT? I kid, I kid...
To be fair to the IT guys, this is true throughout the entire organization. Granted IT guys' personal, err, shall we say, quirks, only amplify the problem.
It's not the film format I have a problem with, it's the quality of the projection. My film SLR camera takes every bit as good of pictures (probably better, actually) than my DSLR, so it's not the film. And even brand new theaters suffer from projection quality (uneven lighting, warped images, grainy), so it's not like they are sitting on 40 year old projectors.
I guess I'm just a little surprised that most people think that current movie theater projection is any good, or even good enough. To me, it's not good enough, which is why we usually spend the extra $$$ and go to IMAX.
Apple stuff is cool...TO ME. I don't care what other people think. Yes, people drive stupid cars and clothes for the image they want to portray. But using a mass produced ubiquitous device that is cheap is not portraying ANY image at all other than you are part of the 80% market share of music listeners who have an iPod.
If the "touch of exclusivity" were remotely true, millions of iPod owners would stop being iPod owners..."I knew the band before..." crowd. Instead, it is quite possibly the most anti-exclusive consumer device I can think of. It would be like arguing that people with smart phones are trying to portray a certain image and are elitist, when everyone on the planet has a smart phone.
And the iPod DID get traction on tech...first by integrating it with a third party music library, then by making iTunes for Windows, then by dropping firewire in favor of USB. At that point, there were no colored iPods and nothing fashionable about them..big ugly bricks with a slick interface. It was all about the tech and anyone who bought them as a fashion accessory had more money than sense.
But your post provides insight to why non-Apple users think the rest of us are so smug. It's all in their heads. Hint: the overwhelming majority of us don't really care what you think about our iPod, iPad, MacBook, etc... We don't judge or look down upon non-Apple users--we simply don't care what you think and we don't really care about your choices either.
If by "fashionable" you mean "nicely designed", then yes. This irritates the hell out of me because "fashionable" infers trendy and will look really stupid in a few years. Apple products are just well designed with good aesthetics. There's nothing "fashionable" about stuff that looks nice (with the bonus or working well). That's what I don't get about the anti-apple crowd. Nice design and nice functionality needn't be mutually exclusive, as Apple has demonstrated over the past decade or so.
Fashionable is buying a cheap t-shirt with the word Hollister embroidered on the front, not using a $120 consumer electronic gadget that everyone else on the planet also has.
Seriously, is a MacBook Pro "fashionable" because it has a nice industrial design that functions well? Is it that hard to make an iPod in multiple colors (to appeal to different tastes) and not get labeled "fashion item"?
By the way, the Apple headphones were white because every device they made at that time came in white. So it wasn't the headphones that were "fashionable" it was everything made by Apple and their brand marketing strategy. If people think they are impressing me with white headphones, then this is indeed a sad country.
If there was a shooting, and your licensed gun was the murder weapon, wouldn't the police assume you had done it unless you could show otherwise?
I don't know what country you live in, but the burden of proof is not on my to prove my innocence. The police can assume all the want about who used my gun to shoot somebody, but they have to prove I was the one that did it, or prove that I was negligent in letting somebody else use my gun.
You make is sound like the first generation iPod was a problem that needed fixing for those of us using OSX at the time. Granted, it didn't take off until iTunes for PC + USB, but I sure do miss the 4-songs-per-second data transfer rate of the firewire iPods.
What the iPod did was make MP3 players cool, it made them a fashion accessory.
What a tired, stupid, cliche. What the iPod did was make carrying our music around easier and remove lots of moving parts that are no longer necessary.
You are claiming the headphone cord hanging in front is some sort of statement? That would make virtually all headphones a statement. I personally use ones that go behind the head for running, but sitting on a commuter train, I don't really care what color the headphone cord is or where it dangles.
Only the most vapid teenager cares about white headphones. Foremost, the iPod is successful because it's a good product.
Lastly, how impressive is it to "proclaim ownership" of a mass marketed and relatively cheap product? It's not a badge of honor to own a $120 device that millions of other people also own.
Technology was the driving factor for its success, especially in the early Mac + iTunes only ecosystem. Once it opened up to PC and changed to USB, it really took off.
I deposited $400 cash in the ATM last week, and I deposit checks with my phone. Every time I go IN the bank, they try to sell me on a loan or a credit card. It is safe to say that I don't ever need to go into a bank anymore unless I need a loan or a new credit card. So maybe BANKS are the dead tech, and ATMs live forever.
Except you have to write the law first. They do have that in Europe, not so sure our small-minded municipal leaders can think that all the way through here in the US though.
Germany, UK for sure (because I got a ticket from both of those places), and I think I've read that Maryland and DC have speed cameras, as well as several other Eastern states that take a picture of your license plate and then the owner of the vehicle is mailed the citation, regardless of who was driving.
We have red light cameras in Austin, TX, but since I'm not an asshole driver, I don't know what kind of proof they get with those (i.e. can you tell it's me driving?)
Bin is the short form of Ibn, which means son. Bin Laden is also a shortened (for ease of speech) form of Ibn al-Din, which means Son of Religion (or child of religion), which is a perfectly common last name in Islamic culture. Kind of like how western culture last names often come from the profession of our ancestors (Smith, Hunter, etc. etc.)
Bin is short for Ibin, which means "son". Bin Laden is actually Ibn Al Din, which means son of religion. So it's probably a nickname, since his dad's name probably isn't "Religion".
Your George example would be like people calling George, "Larry's son".
Since Arab speakers refer to Bin Laden as Bin Laden and not Osama, I would say his name is Bin Laden.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because you are only successful in life by beating everyone else. And yes, there are many hungry people from other societies. What makes you so entitled to success over them?
And people wonder why America has such a large wealth disparity.
Well said. I think most users' frustration comes from the fact that most (anecdotal) companies err too far on the side of security. Example being my current prime contractor requires us to send emails encrypted, even the most mundane, yet seemingly every other day somebody's cert is out of date, incompatible, broken, whatever. It makes it impossible to do work. Instead, I pick up my unencrypted telephone and talk to the person.
Another anecdote would be the ridiculous 15 character, two upper, two lower, two numbers, two special character password requirement just because ONE of our customers (not one I work with) is military and that is the military requirement. It changes every 45 days and can't be the same on any one of the three networks I use. Yeah, right, of course I'm not gonna write down any of the three 15 character passwords anywhere in any of my notepads anywhere.
Saying software is "Too complicated" is usually a cop-out by the users and the managers that are involved in purchase and/or use of that software.
Yeah, god forbid you'd ever want to take the end-user's opinion into account. Or wait, maybe that's the cause of bad software--devs write to what they want and not what the users want.
I'm a software trainer. We spend probably 25% of our time collectively laughing at bad software practices and wondering out loud who on Earth thought that widgetX was a good idea. The cop-out is on the developer's side, not the user. If something doesn't work well or is overly cumbersome and there's a better way to do it, the user isn't copping out, the developer (or the Program Manager, or the SE, or whoever made the decision not to make the software better) copped out.
"If you don't give me a spec, whatever I give you meets spec."
Yeah, let's skip the whole, maybe-I-should-ask-the-customer-what-it-is-they-want business and just jump right in!
say it, mean it and give em a lot of shit when they balk at the end result. Next time, they find time for the non coding parts of the SDLC.
Next time they hire somebody else.
...the bigger they are, the less emphasis there is on positive IT policies or employing IT professionals who actually know what they are doing.
Wait, I thought the bigger they are, the more likely it is they work in IT? I kid, I kid...
To be fair to the IT guys, this is true throughout the entire organization. Granted IT guys' personal, err, shall we say, quirks, only amplify the problem.
You can't do something "covertly" "by accident", because covert implies it was done on purpose.
It's not the film format I have a problem with, it's the quality of the projection. My film SLR camera takes every bit as good of pictures (probably better, actually) than my DSLR, so it's not the film. And even brand new theaters suffer from projection quality (uneven lighting, warped images, grainy), so it's not like they are sitting on 40 year old projectors.
I guess I'm just a little surprised that most people think that current movie theater projection is any good, or even good enough. To me, it's not good enough, which is why we usually spend the extra $$$ and go to IMAX.
Apple stuff is cool...TO ME. I don't care what other people think. Yes, people drive stupid cars and clothes for the image they want to portray. But using a mass produced ubiquitous device that is cheap is not portraying ANY image at all other than you are part of the 80% market share of music listeners who have an iPod.
If the "touch of exclusivity" were remotely true, millions of iPod owners would stop being iPod owners..."I knew the band before..." crowd. Instead, it is quite possibly the most anti-exclusive consumer device I can think of. It would be like arguing that people with smart phones are trying to portray a certain image and are elitist, when everyone on the planet has a smart phone.
And the iPod DID get traction on tech...first by integrating it with a third party music library, then by making iTunes for Windows, then by dropping firewire in favor of USB. At that point, there were no colored iPods and nothing fashionable about them..big ugly bricks with a slick interface. It was all about the tech and anyone who bought them as a fashion accessory had more money than sense.
But your post provides insight to why non-Apple users think the rest of us are so smug. It's all in their heads. Hint: the overwhelming majority of us don't really care what you think about our iPod, iPad, MacBook, etc... We don't judge or look down upon non-Apple users--we simply don't care what you think and we don't really care about your choices either.
If by "fashionable" you mean "nicely designed", then yes. This irritates the hell out of me because "fashionable" infers trendy and will look really stupid in a few years. Apple products are just well designed with good aesthetics. There's nothing "fashionable" about stuff that looks nice (with the bonus or working well). That's what I don't get about the anti-apple crowd. Nice design and nice functionality needn't be mutually exclusive, as Apple has demonstrated over the past decade or so.
Fashionable is buying a cheap t-shirt with the word Hollister embroidered on the front, not using a $120 consumer electronic gadget that everyone else on the planet also has.
Seriously, is a MacBook Pro "fashionable" because it has a nice industrial design that functions well? Is it that hard to make an iPod in multiple colors (to appeal to different tastes) and not get labeled "fashion item"?
By the way, the Apple headphones were white because every device they made at that time came in white. So it wasn't the headphones that were "fashionable" it was everything made by Apple and their brand marketing strategy. If people think they are impressing me with white headphones, then this is indeed a sad country.
I use Chase too, and so far I've been lucky enough to have not seen that on our ATMs.
If there was a shooting, and your licensed gun was the murder weapon, wouldn't the police assume you had done it unless you could show otherwise?
I don't know what country you live in, but the burden of proof is not on my to prove my innocence. The police can assume all the want about who used my gun to shoot somebody, but they have to prove I was the one that did it, or prove that I was negligent in letting somebody else use my gun.
...even worse support for those of us who use free software.
I didn't realize iTunes wasn't free.
I for one am greatly disappointed that movie theater projection quality is no better now than it was in the 1970s (for the most part).
iPods don't carry the $140 month fee that a phone does.
You make is sound like the first generation iPod was a problem that needed fixing for those of us using OSX at the time. Granted, it didn't take off until iTunes for PC + USB, but I sure do miss the 4-songs-per-second data transfer rate of the firewire iPods.
What the iPod did was make MP3 players cool, it made them a fashion accessory.
What a tired, stupid, cliche. What the iPod did was make carrying our music around easier and remove lots of moving parts that are no longer necessary.
You are claiming the headphone cord hanging in front is some sort of statement? That would make virtually all headphones a statement. I personally use ones that go behind the head for running, but sitting on a commuter train, I don't really care what color the headphone cord is or where it dangles.
Only the most vapid teenager cares about white headphones. Foremost, the iPod is successful because it's a good product.
Lastly, how impressive is it to "proclaim ownership" of a mass marketed and relatively cheap product? It's not a badge of honor to own a $120 device that millions of other people also own.
Technology was the driving factor for its success, especially in the early Mac + iTunes only ecosystem. Once it opened up to PC and changed to USB, it really took off.
Who ever said OSX or Linux are trying to destroy Windows on the desktop? Why would you even put that in quotes?
An ATM machine can't sell you a bunch of stuff like humans inside the bank can, though.
I deposited $400 cash in the ATM last week, and I deposit checks with my phone. Every time I go IN the bank, they try to sell me on a loan or a credit card. It is safe to say that I don't ever need to go into a bank anymore unless I need a loan or a new credit card. So maybe BANKS are the dead tech, and ATMs live forever.
Except you have to write the law first. They do have that in Europe, not so sure our small-minded municipal leaders can think that all the way through here in the US though.
Germany, UK for sure (because I got a ticket from both of those places), and I think I've read that Maryland and DC have speed cameras, as well as several other Eastern states that take a picture of your license plate and then the owner of the vehicle is mailed the citation, regardless of who was driving.
We have red light cameras in Austin, TX, but since I'm not an asshole driver, I don't know what kind of proof they get with those (i.e. can you tell it's me driving?)
Yeah, that's my point. OCR is great, but what if I wasn't the one driving the car?
Or any Dutchman with the last name Van Der ....
Bin is the short form of Ibn, which means son. Bin Laden is also a shortened (for ease of speech) form of Ibn al-Din, which means Son of Religion (or child of religion), which is a perfectly common last name in Islamic culture. Kind of like how western culture last names often come from the profession of our ancestors (Smith, Hunter, etc. etc.)
Bin is short for Ibin, which means "son". Bin Laden is actually Ibn Al Din, which means son of religion. So it's probably a nickname, since his dad's name probably isn't "Religion".
Your George example would be like people calling George, "Larry's son".
Since Arab speakers refer to Bin Laden as Bin Laden and not Osama, I would say his name is Bin Laden.