I'm frequently amused at such great test procedures that catch things like my 12 cup coffee resevoir on my 10 cup coffee pot. I love me some 2 cups of over filled coffee in the mornings!
And how about the "testing" that goes into ovens/ranges/microwaves? It's as if those things get a pass when it comes to usability. Shit, those things can blow your house up and kill your entire family if not used correctly, but they have the lowest UI standards (tied with cars!) on the market.
As one of my design expert coworkers frequently says--it doesn't cost any more money to design something to work correctly, but it does cost more to fix a bad design. Example, my 12 cup coffee maker with a 10 cup pot. It wouldn't have cost any less money to limit the resevoir to 10 cups.
Testing doesn't "save" money any more or less than "training" saves money. They both cost the company money.
Without either, however, you are less likely to receive future revenue because your software will garner the reputation of being bad (because it wasn't tested) and being hard to use (because there is no training).
There's always the old adage that you've got to spend money to make money. I think that holds true in this case.
I read no such Troll or Apple vs. Android fight in his post. He merely posits that you get what you pay for, which is proving to be one of the most accurate cliches of my lifetime.
He also clearly states that he'd rather save and spend on something that is perceivably better than having a "rickety piece of crap" now. This is a common strategy with many consumers. The opposite (buying the cheapest thing) is also a viable consumer practice...just not one he is a fan of, apparently. I'm not sure how you think that is even debatable, considering people are free to spend their own money however they please.
He is also right in that Apple generally shows no interest in garnering market share in the low end, much like Mercedez/Daimler-Benz and BMW don't make economical cars.
"Just Works" is a target of getting about 90% of the stuff that 90% of the people want or need working well. Just because you don't like the tradeoffs that Apple has made doesn't make it a bad product. Yes, that's right, I don't care that the iPod still doesn't have an FM tuner. Call me a fanboi.
No wonder the outliers are the ones who complain about iStuff, while the rest of us churn happily along.
I think the key to "it just works" comes from a long track record of things "just working" in Apple land (generally speaking) versus the (perhaps unfair) perception that open-source is necessarily complex.
I know it worked for me. I had two Macbooks and an iMac at home. I could have easily bought an Android phone, but I knew an iPhone would just work with my current configuration. There's no benefit of taking a risk at trying a Android phone.
Do you want something that "just works" out of the box, but with somewhat limited customization options?
Gee, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, that's right, with every product Apple has ever released since about 1984. Why are people surprised that Apple is committed to the walled-garden approach when it works so well for many of us (and apparently for Apple's coffers as well)?
So being relevent enough to not fail is "winning". In that case, iPhone and Android are both winners.
I moved on in about 1989 with the attitude that Macs are obsolete because they have no market share. As long as there's ENOUGH market share, there will be the less popular product "winning".
When you have proof that God doesn't exist, please, direct me to it.
This is like arguing with a 3rd grader. Science doesn't work that way. You prove something DOES exist, through observation and the ability to recreate that observation, not by proving something doesn't exist. You need to read Carl Sagan, Dragon in my Garage, or you should have paid attention in about 5th grade when they teach the scientific method.
I'm almost at the point of saying 'How dare you claim I am not a rational, thinking person.
How can I not when you wan't me to prove your imaginary being is real?
How dare you call me a simpelton when you don't even seem to know my rational basis for my beliefs.
Simpletons demand that I prove something that doesn't exist.
You don't really seem interested in my evidence,
Faith, by definition, is not evidence. You said so yourself..you want me to disprove your evidence (that doesn't exist and thus is unprovable).
Why should you be the judge of that? Why not just let them take the exam same as everyone else and see if you're right or not?
Because most of our material is classified and you have to come to class to access it. No matter how smart you are, you have to have access to learn the materials.
I don't have a problem with them learning other ways. I merely stated that the materials I teach aren't learned outside of the classroom (security classifications being the primary blockade to self-study).
If a kid is skipping class (not mine, but ones like yours) because they don't NEED to go to learn, that's one thing, but if they are skipping class because they are lazy/tired/unmotivated and there are NO ramifications (they'll get a bad grade but parents will continue to pony up the tuition), then I have a problem with those students.
We can never agree, because your belief requires that you just believe, with no reason to not believe, even when presented with science and facts to the contrary.
I wasn't baiting a discussion about whose belief is right, I was merely stating HOW atheism is distinct from religious beliefs, as the original post asked.
One side is skeptical and asks questions, the other side has faith. It's fairly obvious which one I think is better, but I didn't post anything that said either way, just how they are different.
Yes, I fully agree. I actually teach Education, so I know very well of what you speak. Granted, some disciplines don't need the tried-and-true methods that work in others, but in general, the low level lecture courses at University are extremely deficient in educational effectiveness.
No, I'm not lecturing punctuality. I'm lecturing linguistics, language acquisition, education, cognition, and memory...things dealing with acquiring a language to non-native language learners. I'm also lecturing working adults who WANT to be in class, so I don't have the problems associated with slacker 18-year olds spending their parents' retirement to stay up late, sleep in, and skip class.
It IS insulting because I put a lot of work into my work. If you can't be bothered to come to class, then don't even sign up for it. You can't learn the stuff in my class on your own, and even if you could, then why bother signing up in the first place?
Abortion and birth control are not the same thing. If you think they are, then this is another problem I have with organized religion--the illogical jumps to conclusion and red herrings like this that ensue. I never said anything about abortion.
I said I've never seen a Bible verse that prohibits *birth control*. I'm convinced the Bible does prohibit abortion, but I never posited that it didn't.
I don't take attendance. If you don't come to my lectures, there is no chance you will pass the exams. It is fairly obvious who comes to lectures and who doesn't by their grades.
This is really a bad precedent for our society. College kids can't get up for 9 am class, but in a few short years, the majority of them will be required to be at work, professionally dressed, by 8 am. This notion that they can come and go as they please is not setting them up for success after college. It's also insulting to me as a lecturer.
If you don't need the lectures because you are just going to study on your own and take the test, then you don't need the education in the first place.
The problem with you and your type is that you "think" every call is important. You are in every class, you are at every movie theater, you are in every restaurant. Turn your damned phone off for 60 minutes.
If you have a sick family member, put it on vibrate. If you insist on letting your phone ring, even when told not to, and given the viable alternative of putting it on vibrate, then you are a child...a petulant little child...that needs to be treated exactly as such.
I shouldn't have to ask you to leave if you get a call. When your phone vibrates (not rings), you should quietly get up and leave my classroom before answering.
People have had sick relatives long before the advent of instant-communication, and we did just fine. Deal with it. You aren't as important as you think.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm frequently amused at such great test procedures that catch things like my 12 cup coffee resevoir on my 10 cup coffee pot. I love me some 2 cups of over filled coffee in the mornings!
And how about the "testing" that goes into ovens/ranges/microwaves? It's as if those things get a pass when it comes to usability. Shit, those things can blow your house up and kill your entire family if not used correctly, but they have the lowest UI standards (tied with cars!) on the market.
As one of my design expert coworkers frequently says--it doesn't cost any more money to design something to work correctly, but it does cost more to fix a bad design. Example, my 12 cup coffee maker with a 10 cup pot. It wouldn't have cost any less money to limit the resevoir to 10 cups.
The fact that "test/don't test" is even up for debate explains a lot of bad software out there.
Testing doesn't "save" money any more or less than "training" saves money. They both cost the company money.
Without either, however, you are less likely to receive future revenue because your software will garner the reputation of being bad (because it wasn't tested) and being hard to use (because there is no training).
There's always the old adage that you've got to spend money to make money. I think that holds true in this case.
Yes. $80 is actually cheap. $120 is more in line with the packages that offer all the extended cable channels (sports and movies added).
IMHO Android would have been a non-starter if the iPhone had been available to all carriers (GSM & CDMA both) and not restricted to AT&T.
The iPhone would have been a non-starter if it weren't restricted to AT&T.
I read no such Troll or Apple vs. Android fight in his post. He merely posits that you get what you pay for, which is proving to be one of the most accurate cliches of my lifetime.
He also clearly states that he'd rather save and spend on something that is perceivably better than having a "rickety piece of crap" now. This is a common strategy with many consumers. The opposite (buying the cheapest thing) is also a viable consumer practice...just not one he is a fan of, apparently. I'm not sure how you think that is even debatable, considering people are free to spend their own money however they please.
He is also right in that Apple generally shows no interest in garnering market share in the low end, much like Mercedez/Daimler-Benz and BMW don't make economical cars.
"Just Works" is a target of getting about 90% of the stuff that 90% of the people want or need working well. Just because you don't like the tradeoffs that Apple has made doesn't make it a bad product. Yes, that's right, I don't care that the iPod still doesn't have an FM tuner. Call me a fanboi.
No wonder the outliers are the ones who complain about iStuff, while the rest of us churn happily along.
I think the key to "it just works" comes from a long track record of things "just working" in Apple land (generally speaking) versus the (perhaps unfair) perception that open-source is necessarily complex.
I know it worked for me. I had two Macbooks and an iMac at home. I could have easily bought an Android phone, but I knew an iPhone would just work with my current configuration. There's no benefit of taking a risk at trying a Android phone.
Do you want something that "just works" out of the box, but with somewhat limited customization options?
Gee, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, that's right, with every product Apple has ever released since about 1984. Why are people surprised that Apple is committed to the walled-garden approach when it works so well for many of us (and apparently for Apple's coffers as well)?
So being relevent enough to not fail is "winning". In that case, iPhone and Android are both winners.
I moved on in about 1989 with the attitude that Macs are obsolete because they have no market share. As long as there's ENOUGH market share, there will be the less popular product "winning".
Unless you were teaching at DLI, I suppose).
oooh, so close...
When you have proof that God doesn't exist, please, direct me to it.
This is like arguing with a 3rd grader. Science doesn't work that way. You prove something DOES exist, through observation and the ability to recreate that observation, not by proving something doesn't exist. You need to read Carl Sagan, Dragon in my Garage, or you should have paid attention in about 5th grade when they teach the scientific method.
I'm almost at the point of saying 'How dare you claim I am not a rational, thinking person.
How can I not when you wan't me to prove your imaginary being is real?
How dare you call me a simpelton when you don't even seem to know my rational basis for my beliefs.
Simpletons demand that I prove something that doesn't exist.
You don't really seem interested in my evidence,
Faith, by definition, is not evidence. You said so yourself..you want me to disprove your evidence (that doesn't exist and thus is unprovable).
Why should you be the judge of that? Why not just let them take the exam same as everyone else and see if you're right or not?
Because most of our material is classified and you have to come to class to access it. No matter how smart you are, you have to have access to learn the materials.
Those people should go to University of Phoenix online if they just want the piece of paper. Easier and cheaper.
I don't have a problem with them learning other ways. I merely stated that the materials I teach aren't learned outside of the classroom (security classifications being the primary blockade to self-study).
If a kid is skipping class (not mine, but ones like yours) because they don't NEED to go to learn, that's one thing, but if they are skipping class because they are lazy/tired/unmotivated and there are NO ramifications (they'll get a bad grade but parents will continue to pony up the tuition), then I have a problem with those students.
We can never agree, because your belief requires that you just believe, with no reason to not believe, even when presented with science and facts to the contrary.
I wasn't baiting a discussion about whose belief is right, I was merely stating HOW atheism is distinct from religious beliefs, as the original post asked.
One side is skeptical and asks questions, the other side has faith. It's fairly obvious which one I think is better, but I didn't post anything that said either way, just how they are different.
The longer we continue to have low wages for teachers, the longer we will have less-than-ideal candidates becoming teachers.
Certification has nothing to do with it.
Yes, I fully agree. I actually teach Education, so I know very well of what you speak. Granted, some disciplines don't need the tried-and-true methods that work in others, but in general, the low level lecture courses at University are extremely deficient in educational effectiveness.
No, I'm not lecturing punctuality. I'm lecturing linguistics, language acquisition, education, cognition, and memory...things dealing with acquiring a language to non-native language learners. I'm also lecturing working adults who WANT to be in class, so I don't have the problems associated with slacker 18-year olds spending their parents' retirement to stay up late, sleep in, and skip class.
It IS insulting because I put a lot of work into my work. If you can't be bothered to come to class, then don't even sign up for it. You can't learn the stuff in my class on your own, and even if you could, then why bother signing up in the first place?
Abortion and birth control are not the same thing. If you think they are, then this is another problem I have with organized religion--the illogical jumps to conclusion and red herrings like this that ensue. I never said anything about abortion.
I said I've never seen a Bible verse that prohibits *birth control*. I'm convinced the Bible does prohibit abortion, but I never posited that it didn't.
if I can gain the skills/knowledge without attending, then why require me to attend?
Or the other way around...if you can acquire the skills/knowledge without attending, then why are you in college?
You are demonstrating logical thinking, critical reasoning and independence. We frown on that sort of thing in the USA.
Well, we mostly frown on it for the 18-21 year old demographic because they consistently give us no reason to expect them to be able to do so.
I don't take attendance. If you don't come to my lectures, there is no chance you will pass the exams. It is fairly obvious who comes to lectures and who doesn't by their grades.
This is really a bad precedent for our society. College kids can't get up for 9 am class, but in a few short years, the majority of them will be required to be at work, professionally dressed, by 8 am. This notion that they can come and go as they please is not setting them up for success after college. It's also insulting to me as a lecturer.
If you don't need the lectures because you are just going to study on your own and take the test, then you don't need the education in the first place.
The problem with you and your type is that you "think" every call is important. You are in every class, you are at every movie theater, you are in every restaurant. Turn your damned phone off for 60 minutes.
If you have a sick family member, put it on vibrate. If you insist on letting your phone ring, even when told not to, and given the viable alternative of putting it on vibrate, then you are a child...a petulant little child...that needs to be treated exactly as such.
I shouldn't have to ask you to leave if you get a call. When your phone vibrates (not rings), you should quietly get up and leave my classroom before answering.
People have had sick relatives long before the advent of instant-communication, and we did just fine. Deal with it. You aren't as important as you think.