Re:DirectX 10 Is The Difficulty
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
IANAP (I am not a prophet) but I see a future where developers will be publishing their games in both directx9 and directx 10, and maybe even continuing releasing directx9 games and patching them to 10 later on.. as ignoring the huge XP market will be thought of as suicide.
I never get the "Mr [insert the name of the person talked about in the news] here's my opinion as if I'm speaking directly to you!" replies to these kind of stories..
Do you really think Kutaragi is browsing slashdot for the comments on what ppl think? He's too busy updating his myspace blog, putting his resume on monster.com and posting his latest singstar performance on youtube for that!
Copyright regardings books says that 2) is true if you try to copy the whole book, it's not if you copy just a part of it, and the right is only extended to a certain time-period.
Copyright really is the government saying : "Right, wonderful effort on your part on creating this work, jolly good of you old chap, much appreciated. Now we'll give you the right and legal protection to get all the profits off the sales you can manage in a certain time period, while of course allowing people to copy it to a certain degree and use the thing within limits, and after that it's for everyone to use as they see fit"
- The problem is that lobbying has extended that time period from a mostly-sane period to an insane period, and the certain degree has been lowered to almost-no degree.
These days no one is following the copyright laws because they're bloody stupid and completely insane, and for any law to work, it needs to make sense.
Think about it, I'm not allowed legally to download a 50 year old movie which I can't find anywhere but on the internet (a fan ripped it to his computer) because of stupid copyright laws.
the time limit should be lowered to 5 years, and reasonable use be put back in, and that should mean that strange amateur videos of people singing to songs should not only be allowed, but encouraged (maybe not liked, even loathed, but encouraged)
I'd even like a clause saying, if you can't find a legal outlet for the work (which should be impossible with the internet everywhere), then it's fine to copy it.
I work for an international Computer Support company which specializes in being lvl 1, 2 and 3 support for pc client and server infrastructure for companies (the helpdesk itself takes care of most lvl 1 and 2 problems), and the model is that we get payed if we solve the problem.
Companies know that proper computer infrastructure support is one of the best tools to keep downtime costs low as well as the employees content. 2 of the most important factors regarding tools people use everyday.
Most normal people don't think about how much their time are worth when they are doing stuff at home, they don't value their personal time the same as companies do their employees time, equaling it to being almost worthless, when in fact it isn't.
But, if you think your time has no value, that means any delays in your personal work because of computer problems are acceptable delays, acceptable loss of time, or if not acceptable, that solving the problem should cost as little as possible, again because people think personal-time value doesn't equal to company-time value and thus money spent on solving downtime issues should be low.
However, Good technical support is based on good technical people, and the only way to get good technical people is to pay them proper wages.
This means that people need to reevaluate how much their time is worth, is it better to try and figure the problem out for yourself, taking perhaps a few hours, even days to find a solution, or do you contact a support company who can help you diagnose your problem within a few minutes, and let you know the proper steps to take to solve your problem, even solving it on the phone.
If people are annoyed and angry regarding the support they are getting (for free or little value), then their expectations are what's really to blame. I do know of people who think that 1) any kind of support should be free and 2) any problem should be fixed instantly no matter how big or small or worst of all 3) that any irritation of having a problem in the first place gives you the right to be angry or annoyed towards the person you're asking for assistance. Thankfully most of the companies we support do not have these expectations, and if they do, then we make it our goal to inform them how we work as a company, who they are talking to on a daily basis and what our procedures are like and what time-frame estimates they should expect their problems to be solved in.
If a company promises quality service, but underpays their staff, has a shoddy "follow-this-manuscript" level of support, and hires people with no technical know-how because you can pay them less, then that's a breach of advertising.
If Fox could lose the rights to use "Fair and balanced" for not being fair and balanced, then tech companies should only be allowed to use "quality support service" when they actually have it, as in my humble opinion "quality support service" really should mean something.
The Canadian government has agreed that the expense of policing the theaters would be too expensive and too annoying for its citizens who go to the movies, as such they have instead banned all films from corporations who are concerned with this issue, not allowing the movie theaters or the movie companies to sell their merchandise within Canada. A statesman was commenting on saying: "If they cannot trust themselves to show their movies in our theaters, then I feel to ban them spreading their merchandise altogether is the best discourse"
- Man I'd love to see that side of the debate thrown out there.. how panicked would the mafiaa become then. It's much easier if you think about it to just eliminate the source of the merchandise rather than try to control everyone consuming the merchandise, plus they would seriously dent the profits of the big companies (I'm guessing that Canada is probably nicely profitable regarding movies, DVDs, and so on for the mafiaa, plus it'll let people know who are the bastards trying to call every canadian citizen a pirate and a thief, and who isn't as film corporations who aren't completely nuts regarding this issue would still eb allowed their movies in theaters.
I am a windows XP user, and never really bothered to check out linux because I'm prejudiced against it. I loathe Lotus notes and linux looks to me very much like as much of a torture as notes (Oh notes, how I hate thee.. let me count the ways)
I like the idea of "free", but I am married to the idea that software should be easy, and design decisions should be about the user (yes, even for the stupid ones.. no let me rephrase, especially for the stupid ones [so they leave me alone with their stupid questions])
and I'm not interested in a black screen with white letter, and a thousand page "man" to try to get things to work.
You know what I'd like? I'd like that it was as easy working with things in an OS as creating a new tiddler in a tiddlywiki.
People might not get the comparison, what I mean regarding to the tiddlywiki is that instead of having to program the whole bloody thing for yourself, editing code to get something 'just right', you click a button, set a title, set a tag, and you're off, and everything is intuitive and easy.
So make linux into a TiddlywikiOS, and I'll love it...until then I'll stay far, far, farfarfar away from vista.. infact I'm going to try out linux for a few months before I try vista (even though it'll be a complete pain learning to use it), but until then I'm going to stay with winxp as long as I can.
Oh yes, the questionmark, made infamous at Fox news and other, Highly truthful organisations?
Not only does it absolve you from any accusation, but can it also make your stupid point for you?
that why you should be aware that biased, bloody stupid statements get wrapped as questions so you can always say "hey, I was just asking"... isn't that ok?
so whenever you see a question which blatantly points to bias one way or the other, ask yourself this: "Is your mother a whore?" - Hey I was just asking! No one was accusing your mother to being a whore, it's just an innocent, blatantly biased question which questions whether your mother sucks cock for cash?
Is the Wii failing? If it is, is it because the authors' mom doesn't suck his 'wii' anymore?
The reason why it won't take off is because there isn't an easy way of getting to a vast dump of intellectual property to start the wheels going.
If every textbook in the world would be available, then only maybe it would sell (unless it would be very, very cheap.. like $10-20.
If every textbook in the world, as well as every picture book would be abailable, then there's a small chance people would be interested as both porn and manga would open up for these devices (and the price would have to be lower than $50).
If every textbook, picture book, and animation would be available, then you've got a device which people would be really interested in owning, and would be then worth a pricetag of $100.
Of course now you're talking about the capabilities of cellphones and computers. why not just wait until you can get your hands on a OLPC? should meet your needs.
..No one will be able to take that away from you, even though it's racist crap.
who saw colbert report 02.08.2007 where Debra Dickerson criticizes barak obama for not being black enough?
Debra dickerson did not want to give barak the "black"-person stamp because his father immigrated from kenya. she said "in the american political context, "black" means the descendant of west african slaves brought to america"
- Is there an american political context regarding the condition of being 'black' or is this a whole new world of inverse racism?
Also, she wants him to be called an african-african-american, just to add to the contempt she's showing other black people who happen to be immigrants.... I'd think a black guy should only be called a black guy if he either: a) wants to be called black (I have no problems people calling themselves christians, persian, or 'dude' so if someone not black wants me to call him black, fine by me) or b) has dark enough skin to be able to refer to him as black.. of course I'd much prefer to just call him by his name and not skin-colour, but if I had to describe him to the police..
She goes on to say that this critique of hers is a way of critiquing "whites' self-congratulation" and not him.. because "we are embracing a black person when we're not really"
And that's a lovely bit of counterlogic to hide her own racism against other black people.. and I love the fact that colbert says "If you hadn't told me he wasn't black, I'd have thought that I was supporting a black person, and thus supporting all black people, but now I won't because he's not" - he should have changed that last bit to "because you say he's not"
And then she comes with the stupidest counter-logic that he's the racist for saying that?
I love what he says next "So it sounds to me like you're judging blackness not on the colour of someones skin, but on the content of their character, which I think realizes Dr. Kings dream in a very special way".
It's clear that she's the one who has the problem, but I wish that colbert could have made it even more clear.
Colbert could have put this debate to rest by asking her one question though.. are african people "black"?
funny thing is, I'd believe she would say "no"
- Regarding issue of faith, youtube, and the glory of freedom of speech, my view is that a) the atheist has the right to express himself on the net b) youtube has the right to censor whatever it wants to censor and c) I have the right to amuse myself as I see fit.
I once played in EVE, this story brought back memories.. (I ramble on a bit, so ignore this post if u will)
I got the game from a friend of mine who gave me a free copy, which he got because he was a game-master at the time. He and other GM friends founded a small corp which I instantly joined (this was a couple of months after the game launched).
- A small note, if you decide to try this game out, find a corp asap, a small one which is just starting out would be best.
They were GMs so they theoretically could have played it dirty, but didn't. We enjoyed the challenge of mining in our tiny frigates for the big, big prize, a THORAX original blueprint! it took alot of hard work, but it was great as a goal to get there.
the corp held together until we all had mined for our battleships, then we kinda split ways, I joined MASS, a big corp in the stain-alliance, and as I didn't have alot of time, I started producing crap to be useful.
Having to produce crap made me realise I hadn't a clue how to make sure I was profiting from it (even if it was just to break even for corp members) so I started creating an excel workbook to handle the data, and that ballooned into a really huge project (EVE Ultimate excel sheet ftw!), because I found out I could actually sell the workbook to other people for in-game currency.
After grabbing every tech 1 blueprint in the game, and alot of copies of the tech 2, an ingame friend of mine found a way to list and grab the info from every blueprint in the game by using the eve-insider information, from there the thing really came into its own.
Of course, at that time, playing eve wasn't really playing eve.. it became a chore as I had to send people the sheet, then send them upgrades, work through errors, and info, grab new info from the game periodically to insert into the sheet and so on, so I got fed up with it, and quit.
It was a really good sheet though, I was gaining about a 100 mil in a good week from it, and I had a beta going which grabbed data from your ingame wallet and went over profits and minuses from buying/selling whatever, plus I was playing with another excel sheet which was going to be a ship-module constructor, sort of an out-of-game calculator for how long you'd last in a fight depending on skills and different modules and ships.
I got a few things from that game: 1) Never be on a ship you can't afford to lose, you'll start to overly worry about losing it in fights, better to learn the basics on a piece of crap you can easily replace. 2) it's kinda dull just playing on your own. 3) the thing about assholes, is that everyone has one. 4) I wasn't as impressed by the bang as I thought I'd be, the first time I saw my own battleship go splat. 5) most people in real life are nice people.. most people in the game are trying to find a way to gank you.
It's an interesting world out there in computer land right now.. and it's all a bit of a mystery for the average Joe-user
A user today wants the equivalent to a car, he starts the car, there's a steering wheel, 2 pedals, and a automatic stick.. tools he uses to get from A to B, and right now a storebought PC with windows XP or a macintosh is the equivalent of that. you power it on, it has a few icons on the screen you can click on, and you're off emailing someone or watching crap on youtube.
A car is alot more complex than just a steering wheel, pedals and stick, but only enthusiasts would be interested in the rest of the crap. that's where linux is right now. Compared to a working car, linux is more of a barebones deal which has to be put together before it works properly, but given the time and dedication will work better than the normal user-car.
If linux is to really work as the average joe's OS, it needs to work fresh out of an install, you need to introduce layers of simplicity (as in introduce easier and simpler layers), and you need to create a simple and a powerful user-freedom experience.
That's why linux will never succeed, it's made by programmers, scripters and people with masters degree knowledge of computer science used to solve the problems they meet themselves.. People so self-involved that they can't get themselves to create a simpler interface to do stuff when they KNOW that all you need to do is write: "ntfs-3g/dev/hda1/mnt/windows -o silent,umask=0,locale=hu_HU.utf8" - I mean a C.S. graduate from Yale could figure that out.
So, what have we learned? Anyone who knows linux knows that there are tools, programs, drivers and solutions out there which rivals windows. The problem is the layer of complexity between not having a solution on your box like you would want and having it working properly.
What the linux community needs to do is to add an extra step or two into their normal problem solving routine. 1) a problem discovered 2) problem solved 3) simplify solution 4) can a stupid user with the problem find and apply the solution? No? go back to step 3.
So introduce layers of simplicity if you really want linux to take off.
I'm not sure of the exact figures, but doesn't microsoft own a substantial part of macintosh?
Wouldn't then any bad publicity from mac to M$ be like a dog biting its own tail, or as mac is so much smaller than M$, the tail biting the dog?
I seem to recall a vid on youtube of steve crying about having to work with M$ from around 2001.. plus, they both would suffer financially if they couldn't get each others products working harmoniously.
Of course, I would like vista to fail, and fail miserably because I tried it and I don't like it, but that's a personal opinion.
I was just wondering.. if it's ok for me to record a movie on the television on recording equipment for personal use.. why can't I record what I watch in the cinema for personal use?
Just wondering whether if someone caught with a camera in a movie theatre could infact defend his right to record his own experiences for personal use.
I'm always amazed at PH.D. people who think they can teach because they have a PH.D. in the subject...
The learning process is not the same from one student to another, especially with abstract ideals like mathematics (or computers for that matter), and the fact you have a PH.D. means you were interested enough in the subject to train your brain to remember and learn its intricacies, but now that you've learnt them, do you remember the steps you took? do you remember how much time you spent on it?
I've often been faced with bad teachers because they think that PH.D. = good teacher.. it doesn't.. a good teacher needs these qualities: 1) understand the subject 2) understand the progress from a fresh student not knowing anything about the subject to a student who does, know what concepts and exercises he should be able to work on at the end. 3) be able to empathise with students regarding issues with the subject. Abstract thinking means you have to connect ideals with things in your own experience (like many of us do) or create a totally new experience around it (which I believe many of the more capable abstract thinkers do - they spend the time, and have the motivation to create this experience) - this means you have to understand how students think about the subject, and how they understand it. 4) be able to inspire students to keep trying until they succeed.
Learning maths should be no different to a motivated student then a child motivated to learn to walk, it'll take time, effort and a little guidance. And so what if he uses a nearby chair to support himself while taking those first steps, all you have to do is guide them a little, and any support will then have merely been a stepping stone and not a crutch.
Of course, if motivation is not at hand, it's up to you to decide whether you want to motivate people or not, and if the answer is no, then maybe teaching isn't your forte.
crap.. u posted a useless website.. I can't easily find the difference between a state allowing people to carry guns and one which does not allow it.
But hey, let's compare countries.. How many people are killed by guns in america and how many are killed by guns in kanada? Both have about the same amount of guns, but I'm guessing that they don't allow people to carry guns around for the fun of it.
Or how about comparing america with a country which contains little to no guns, do you think it's safer there or in the countries allowing people to carry guns?
But hey, you got your 10 year old study, your trusty gun, your NRA membership, and the sad frown on your face knowing that when you die from a shotgun wound, you at least tried shooting the other guy full of holes and got an old innocent lady instead.
....below this comment are comments which should be construed as being just my opinion......
This whole thing is not a war between people producing a quality product and the consumers trying to skip out on paying for the product..
This is a war between the few trying to force the many to pay again, and again, and again and again for the same damn thing over and over.
Let's look at the deal at its sweetest from the consumers point of view.. In a perfect consumerist world this would be true:
1) you can browse for movies, music, books, tv shows, games, programs and start downloading it right away 2) you can watch, read, play, use the product for as long as you deem necessary to test the product, and that means watching the whole movie, reading the whole book, playing the complete game, using the software for a few months, not a few weeks until you're satisfied. 3) If you like the product, feel that it's worth the money, you support the producers by buying the rights to ownership. 4) If you don't like it, you delete it.
Let's look at the deal at it's sweetest from the **AA point of view.. In a perfect world for them, this would be true:
1) you could not buy ownership of the product, you merely lease it for a very short time period, needing to repay at various intervals. 2) you would have to buy a copy of the game/movie/music/book/software for each device you want to play it on, and for each person who wants to view/read/use the product (2 pcs, 2 tvs, an ipod, a zune, wife, 2 kids.. that's 10 different payments). 3) you could not test the product, except for the carefully designed marketing, and you could not demo the product, you would have to pay for the demo as well, a lesser price of course, severely limited in scope. 4) by agreeing to view/read/use the product you could not comment or critique about it to others, allowing only marketing through ads, trailers, payed-for-reviews to tell you what to buy, and what not to buy. This way you get a 10% discount of the product.
In the perfect consumers world, he will still buy stuff, probably more stuff as there is no hindrance for him to check new things out, but no one will control what he buys except him, and he gets to try new things as much as he likes, meaning more of a chance he'll stumble on something which benefits him and he wants to own.
In the perfect **AA world, the consumer will only buy what he's told to buy, and if he buys anything, a guaranteed moneysink has been created to keep that lease alive.
I wish that there was some way of researching which of these extremes is the most beneficial for both parties.. The internet P2P is what is keeping the consumer extreme alive.. the DRM fiasco is the **AA extreme..
We all know that DRM is the least profitable way forward.. you can't profit from restricting peoples' access to stuff in the long term, but there's no real research proving this..
So that's what we need.. we need sales & marketing scientific research into whether a consumer controlled market, or a conglomerate controlled market is the better model regarding profiting from a product.
Although I do feel action must be taken, I believe that you should at least give the radio station a chance to react to this.
This should be researched properly, and the radio station should of course pay their dues regarding this issue, and as I don't know whether they're honourable and a respectful station or not, I can't say whether they'll do the right thing and settle this to the satisfaction of all parties.. or not.
If they do, then there's no need I feel to reprimand them by emailing their advertisers, they should then rather be applauded for helping the poor family in a tragic situation which no one wanted to happen.
If they don't, then that email list is gold, and you should use it.. just remember, if you send a mass-email, put the email list into BCC.
...and I can say that because I didn't RTFA (so I must be some kind of an expert at procrastinating)
Being lazy has a direct relationsship to how you feel about the thing you're being lazy about.
Anything with negative feelings will be put off, and anything with neutral or positive feelings will be done on time.
So the formula slims down to : Amount of negative feelings towards task X (V) > persons threshhold for amount of V = job not done (L).
So the only thing which makes or breaks a task, is how we feel about it, and that's why our own moods can help or hurt a task's amount of V
Then there's the resistance factor.. the more times a task gets a positive amount of V, the more V it actually gets, and the harder it is to change it from a L to a non-L.. making it more likely a non-L task becomes a L task.
If you hate going to the gym from day one, but still go because you know you'll die from something or other if you don't, then you'll always hate going to the gym, and so V increases until it meets your threshold for V, and going to the gym becomes a L-positive task, and each time you don't go means more V in and of itself.
Also some tasks get an automatic amount of V because they are categorised similarly in our brains.. for instance.. doing the dishes might get a high amount of V, and thus get a L-task... but some people would categorize doing the dishes as "any work in the kitchen" and thus any_work_in_the_kitchen gets a L-mark.. however, another might categorize doing the dishes with any work in the house.. and yet another might just categorize doing the dishes as just doing the dishes and have no problems doing other things in the kitchen or house.
So if you're procrastinating about things that really do matter in your life, or about things that would make your life alot better, then it's because of the negativity you've put onto the task (whether rational negativity, or irrational.. and face it, most of our negativity is irrational).
so L = V > a persons threshhold for V... I cooked this up while writing it.. didn't take me 10 years.. Can I get a doctorate?
I've always viewed this "downloading illegally" the same way I view libraries..
I'm guessing that the cost you pay for owning a library card is merely for upkeep and staff, am I right?
If so, then getting stuff off the internet in my opinion is no more illegal than getting stuff from the library.
I accepted the small price I had to pay to get access to the vast amounts of material at hand, and was fine with it. The internet merely seems to extend that library philosophy in my mind to make it easier for me to grab stuff with almost no hassle at all, and I can freely use the material, and if I like it, I'll support it by buying it.
I download daily show and colbert report for instance, and if comedy central was available in my country, I'd have looooooong ago jumped at the chance to grab it, same with top gear. Many of the books I read online I won't purchase (same as would happen in a library) but those I find particularly valuable to me, I definitely buy.
It's the same with games, I download full games because demos suck, and if I barely play that game, then it isn't worth my money, if I play it through, and want to play it again, then that's a game I'll support.
I really do feel that the internet downloading reflects what people do in the library, people use it to familiarize itself with what they are interested in, and if they find stuff they like, they'll support it, like people have always done with libraries, and like people will always continue to do with the internet.
I'll even go as far as saying that what MPAA/RIAA is doing is limiting their sales of movies and music because they're trying to criminalize normal people, and really just alienating their target market of music and movies, which is as ridiculous to me as if barnes&noble would sue someone for borrowing a book from a library.
We all have the same inbuilt moral code, so it's no wonder that musicians download music without paying for it, comedians download comedic audio, tv people downloading tv stuff, advertisers downloading ads, movie producers downloading movies, directors of MPAA/RIAA downloading music/movies (or the children of theirs), we all download stuff, but we also all purchase the stuff we find valuable and worthwhile to own. I'm pretty sure that the biggest downloaders of movies, for instance are the ones who already have a passion for them, and buy alot of them, why would you alienate the very person who wants your stuff by suing him for what we all think of in the same terms as using the library?
I'm mostly defending the normal persons downloading and sharing.. I'm against people downloading and then selling the stuff for personal profit, that's what I'd call copyright infringement.
Why do people think that dark matter still exists?
Has everyone forgotten we're looking at light which is millions, even billions of years old? The fact that we're inventing "dark matter" to explain inaccuracies in light which has moved billions of AU through billions of years.. it's just bloody stupid.
the phenomena which dark matter tries to explain only really says that something has happened to the light while traveling through space, probably some kind of expansion or change in the time/space continuum, which is more interesting from a historical perspective regarding the universe, and in my view not indicative of "dark matter".
Dark matter must be one of the dumbest popular 'belief' in astrophysics, and is only hindering people from trying to find the real reason for why the light has changed its' course this way in the universes history. Sometimes I think people forget we're looking at reflections of objects millions of years old, and millions of lightyears away.. not the objects themselves.
K.
1) the "Rabbit that is so dangerous it can cut your head off" - I believe most of my research will be around the castle Aaaaaargh. 2) The "Chuck Norris move that's so dangerous that it doesn't exist" - Even chuck norris would perhaps have to spend more than 20 minutes researching it. 3) the "solution to the iraq war which is so useful it doesn't exist" - and now I've passed from the plausible to the ridiculous, sorry about that.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAP (I am not a prophet) but I see a future where developers will be publishing their games in both directx9 and directx 10, and maybe even continuing releasing directx9 games and patching them to 10 later on.. as ignoring the huge XP market will be thought of as suicide.
K.
I never get the "Mr [insert the name of the person talked about in the news] here's my opinion as if I'm speaking directly to you!" replies to these kind of stories..
Do you really think Kutaragi is browsing slashdot for the comments on what ppl think? He's too busy updating his myspace blog, putting his resume on monster.com and posting his latest singstar performance on youtube for that!
You forget to define "true" on the 2) part.
Copyright regardings books says that 2) is true if you try to copy the whole book, it's not if you copy just a part of it, and the right is only extended to a certain time-period.
Copyright really is the government saying : "Right, wonderful effort on your part on creating this work, jolly good of you old chap, much appreciated. Now we'll give you the right and legal protection to get all the profits off the sales you can manage in a certain time period, while of course allowing people to copy it to a certain degree and use the thing within limits, and after that it's for everyone to use as they see fit"
- The problem is that lobbying has extended that time period from a mostly-sane period to an insane period, and the certain degree has been lowered to almost-no degree.
These days no one is following the copyright laws because they're bloody stupid and completely insane, and for any law to work, it needs to make sense.
Think about it, I'm not allowed legally to download a 50 year old movie which I can't find anywhere but on the internet (a fan ripped it to his computer) because of stupid copyright laws.
the time limit should be lowered to 5 years, and reasonable use be put back in, and that should mean that strange amateur videos of people singing to songs should not only be allowed, but encouraged (maybe not liked, even loathed, but encouraged)
I'd even like a clause saying, if you can't find a legal outlet for the work (which should be impossible with the internet everywhere), then it's fine to copy it.
K.
I work for an international Computer Support company which specializes in being lvl 1, 2 and 3 support for pc client and server infrastructure for companies (the helpdesk itself takes care of most lvl 1 and 2 problems), and the model is that we get payed if we solve the problem.
Companies know that proper computer infrastructure support is one of the best tools to keep downtime costs low as well as the employees content. 2 of the most important factors regarding tools people use everyday.
Most normal people don't think about how much their time are worth when they are doing stuff at home, they don't value their personal time the same as companies do their employees time, equaling it to being almost worthless, when in fact it isn't.
But, if you think your time has no value, that means any delays in your personal work because of computer problems are acceptable delays, acceptable loss of time, or if not acceptable, that solving the problem should cost as little as possible, again because people think personal-time value doesn't equal to company-time value and thus money spent on solving downtime issues should be low.
However, Good technical support is based on good technical people, and the only way to get good technical people is to pay them proper wages.
This means that people need to reevaluate how much their time is worth, is it better to try and figure the problem out for yourself, taking perhaps a few hours, even days to find a solution, or do you contact a support company who can help you diagnose your problem within a few minutes, and let you know the proper steps to take to solve your problem, even solving it on the phone.
If people are annoyed and angry regarding the support they are getting (for free or little value), then their expectations are what's really to blame. I do know of people who think that 1) any kind of support should be free and 2) any problem should be fixed instantly no matter how big or small or worst of all 3) that any irritation of having a problem in the first place gives you the right to be angry or annoyed towards the person you're asking for assistance. Thankfully most of the companies we support do not have these expectations, and if they do, then we make it our goal to inform them how we work as a company, who they are talking to on a daily basis and what our procedures are like and what time-frame estimates they should expect their problems to be solved in.
If a company promises quality service, but underpays their staff, has a shoddy "follow-this-manuscript" level of support, and hires people with no technical know-how because you can pay them less, then that's a breach of advertising.
If Fox could lose the rights to use "Fair and balanced" for not being fair and balanced, then tech companies should only be allowed to use "quality support service" when they actually have it, as in my humble opinion "quality support service" really should mean something.
K.
The Canadian government has agreed that the expense of policing the theaters would be too expensive and too annoying for its citizens who go to the movies, as such they have instead banned all films from corporations who are concerned with this issue, not allowing the movie theaters or the movie companies to sell their merchandise within Canada. A statesman was commenting on saying: "If they cannot trust themselves to show their movies in our theaters, then I feel to ban them spreading their merchandise altogether is the best discourse"
- Man I'd love to see that side of the debate thrown out there.. how panicked would the mafiaa become then. It's much easier if you think about it to just eliminate the source of the merchandise rather than try to control everyone consuming the merchandise, plus they would seriously dent the profits of the big companies (I'm guessing that Canada is probably nicely profitable regarding movies, DVDs, and so on for the mafiaa, plus it'll let people know who are the bastards trying to call every canadian citizen a pirate and a thief, and who isn't as film corporations who aren't completely nuts regarding this issue would still eb allowed their movies in theaters.
I didn't read T.F.A., and I didn't really read T.F.S. but I did read T.FUBAR.S.
I'd hate to have to fight against them 3-times Borking cleeems myself.
K.
I am a windows XP user, and never really bothered to check out linux because I'm prejudiced against it. I loathe Lotus notes and linux looks to me very much like as much of a torture as notes (Oh notes, how I hate thee.. let me count the ways)
..until then I'll stay far, far, farfarfar away from vista.. infact I'm going to try out linux for a few months before I try vista (even though it'll be a complete pain learning to use it), but until then I'm going to stay with winxp as long as I can.
I like the idea of "free", but I am married to the idea that software should be easy, and design decisions should be about the user (yes, even for the stupid ones.. no let me rephrase, especially for the stupid ones [so they leave me alone with their stupid questions])
and I'm not interested in a black screen with white letter, and a thousand page "man" to try to get things to work.
You know what I'd like? I'd like that it was as easy working with things in an OS as creating a new tiddler in a tiddlywiki.
People might not get the comparison, what I mean regarding to the tiddlywiki is that instead of having to program the whole bloody thing for yourself, editing code to get something 'just right', you click a button, set a title, set a tag, and you're off, and everything is intuitive and easy.
So make linux into a TiddlywikiOS, and I'll love it.
K.
Oh yes, the questionmark, made infamous at Fox news and other, Highly truthful organisations?
Not only does it absolve you from any accusation, but can it also make your stupid point for you?
that why you should be aware that biased, bloody stupid statements get wrapped as questions so you can always say "hey, I was just asking"... isn't that ok?
so whenever you see a question which blatantly points to bias one way or the other, ask yourself this: "Is your mother a whore?"
- Hey I was just asking! No one was accusing your mother to being a whore, it's just an innocent, blatantly biased question which questions whether your mother sucks cock for cash?
Is the Wii failing? If it is, is it because the authors' mom doesn't suck his 'wii' anymore?
K.
The reason why it won't take off is because there isn't an easy way of getting to a vast dump of intellectual property to start the wheels going.
If every textbook in the world would be available, then only maybe it would sell (unless it would be very, very cheap.. like $10-20.
If every textbook in the world, as well as every picture book would be abailable, then there's a small chance people would be interested as both porn and manga would open up for these devices (and the price would have to be lower than $50).
If every textbook, picture book, and animation would be available, then you've got a device which people would be really interested in owning, and would be then worth a pricetag of $100.
Of course now you're talking about the capabilities of cellphones and computers. why not just wait until you can get your hands on a OLPC? should meet your needs.
I wonder, probably a stupid question, but if you close one eye does it become harder or easier to function more normally?
Just wondering out loud.
K.
..No one will be able to take that away from you, even though it's racist crap.
... I'd think a black guy should only be called a black guy if he either: a) wants to be called black (I have no problems people calling themselves christians, persian, or 'dude' so if someone not black wants me to call him black, fine by me) or b) has dark enough skin to be able to refer to him as black.. of course I'd much prefer to just call him by his name and not skin-colour, but if I had to describe him to the police..
who saw colbert report 02.08.2007 where Debra Dickerson criticizes barak obama for not being black enough?
Debra dickerson did not want to give barak the "black"-person stamp because his father immigrated from kenya. she said "in the american political context, "black" means the descendant of west african slaves brought to america"
- Is there an american political context regarding the condition of being 'black' or is this a whole new world of inverse racism?
Also, she wants him to be called an african-african-american, just to add to the contempt she's showing other black people who happen to be immigrants.
She goes on to say that this critique of hers is a way of critiquing "whites' self-congratulation" and not him.. because "we are embracing a black person when we're not really"
And that's a lovely bit of counterlogic to hide her own racism against other black people.. and I love the fact that colbert says "If you hadn't told me he wasn't black, I'd have thought that I was supporting a black person, and thus supporting all black people, but now I won't because he's not" - he should have changed that last bit to "because you say he's not"
And then she comes with the stupidest counter-logic that he's the racist for saying that?
I love what he says next "So it sounds to me like you're judging blackness not on the colour of someones skin, but on the content of their character, which I think realizes Dr. Kings dream in a very special way".
It's clear that she's the one who has the problem, but I wish that colbert could have made it even more clear.
Colbert could have put this debate to rest by asking her one question though.. are african people "black"?
funny thing is, I'd believe she would say "no"
- Regarding issue of faith, youtube, and the glory of freedom of speech, my view is that a) the atheist has the right to express himself on the net b) youtube has the right to censor whatever it wants to censor and c) I have the right to amuse myself as I see fit.
K.
I once played in EVE, this story brought back memories.. (I ramble on a bit, so ignore this post if u will)
I got the game from a friend of mine who gave me a free copy, which he got because he was a game-master at the time. He and other GM friends founded a small corp which I instantly joined (this was a couple of months after the game launched).
- A small note, if you decide to try this game out, find a corp asap, a small one which is just starting out would be best.
They were GMs so they theoretically could have played it dirty, but didn't. We enjoyed the challenge of mining in our tiny frigates for the big, big prize, a THORAX original blueprint! it took alot of hard work, but it was great as a goal to get there.
the corp held together until we all had mined for our battleships, then we kinda split ways, I joined MASS, a big corp in the stain-alliance, and as I didn't have alot of time, I started producing crap to be useful.
Having to produce crap made me realise I hadn't a clue how to make sure I was profiting from it (even if it was just to break even for corp members) so I started creating an excel workbook to handle the data, and that ballooned into a really huge project (EVE Ultimate excel sheet ftw!), because I found out I could actually sell the workbook to other people for in-game currency.
After grabbing every tech 1 blueprint in the game, and alot of copies of the tech 2, an ingame friend of mine found a way to list and grab the info from every blueprint in the game by using the eve-insider information, from there the thing really came into its own.
Of course, at that time, playing eve wasn't really playing eve.. it became a chore as I had to send people the sheet, then send them upgrades, work through errors, and info, grab new info from the game periodically to insert into the sheet and so on, so I got fed up with it, and quit.
It was a really good sheet though, I was gaining about a 100 mil in a good week from it, and I had a beta going which grabbed data from your ingame wallet and went over profits and minuses from buying/selling whatever, plus I was playing with another excel sheet which was going to be a ship-module constructor, sort of an out-of-game calculator for how long you'd last in a fight depending on skills and different modules and ships.
I got a few things from that game:
1) Never be on a ship you can't afford to lose, you'll start to overly worry about losing it in fights, better to learn the basics on a piece of crap you can easily replace.
2) it's kinda dull just playing on your own.
3) the thing about assholes, is that everyone has one.
4) I wasn't as impressed by the bang as I thought I'd be, the first time I saw my own battleship go splat.
5) most people in real life are nice people.. most people in the game are trying to find a way to gank you.
K.
It's an interesting world out there in computer land right now.. and it's all a bit of a mystery for the average Joe-user
/dev/hda1 /mnt/windows -o silent,umask=0,locale=hu_HU.utf8" - I mean a C.S. graduate from Yale could figure that out.
A user today wants the equivalent to a car, he starts the car, there's a steering wheel, 2 pedals, and a automatic stick.. tools he uses to get from A to B, and right now a storebought PC with windows XP or a macintosh is the equivalent of that. you power it on, it has a few icons on the screen you can click on, and you're off emailing someone or watching crap on youtube.
A car is alot more complex than just a steering wheel, pedals and stick, but only enthusiasts would be interested in the rest of the crap. that's where linux is right now. Compared to a working car, linux is more of a barebones deal which has to be put together before it works properly, but given the time and dedication will work better than the normal user-car.
If linux is to really work as the average joe's OS, it needs to work fresh out of an install, you need to introduce layers of simplicity (as in introduce easier and simpler layers), and you need to create a simple and a powerful user-freedom experience.
That's why linux will never succeed, it's made by programmers, scripters and people with masters degree knowledge of computer science used to solve the problems they meet themselves.. People so self-involved that they can't get themselves to create a simpler interface to do stuff when they KNOW that all you need to do is write: "ntfs-3g
So, what have we learned? Anyone who knows linux knows that there are tools, programs, drivers and solutions out there which rivals windows. The problem is the layer of complexity between not having a solution on your box like you would want and having it working properly.
What the linux community needs to do is to add an extra step or two into their normal problem solving routine.
1) a problem discovered
2) problem solved
3) simplify solution
4) can a stupid user with the problem find and apply the solution? No? go back to step 3.
So introduce layers of simplicity if you really want linux to take off.
K.
That's when grandma turns to you and asks "empty what now?"
K.
I'm not sure of the exact figures, but doesn't microsoft own a substantial part of macintosh?
Wouldn't then any bad publicity from mac to M$ be like a dog biting its own tail, or as mac is so much smaller than M$, the tail biting the dog?
I seem to recall a vid on youtube of steve crying about having to work with M$ from around 2001.. plus, they both would suffer financially if they couldn't get each others products working harmoniously.
Of course, I would like vista to fail, and fail miserably because I tried it and I don't like it, but that's a personal opinion.
K.
I was just wondering.. if it's ok for me to record a movie on the television on recording equipment for personal use.. why can't I record what I watch in the cinema for personal use?
Just wondering whether if someone caught with a camera in a movie theatre could infact defend his right to record his own experiences for personal use.
K.
I'm always amazed at PH.D. people who think they can teach because they have a PH.D. in the subject...
The learning process is not the same from one student to another, especially with abstract ideals like mathematics (or computers for that matter), and the fact you have a PH.D. means you were interested enough in the subject to train your brain to remember and learn its intricacies, but now that you've learnt them, do you remember the steps you took? do you remember how much time you spent on it?
I've often been faced with bad teachers because they think that PH.D. = good teacher.. it doesn't.. a good teacher needs these qualities:
1) understand the subject
2) understand the progress from a fresh student not knowing anything about the subject to a student who does, know what concepts and exercises he should be able to work on at the end.
3) be able to empathise with students regarding issues with the subject. Abstract thinking means you have to connect ideals with things in your own experience (like many of us do) or create a totally new experience around it (which I believe many of the more capable abstract thinkers do - they spend the time, and have the motivation to create this experience) - this means you have to understand how students think about the subject, and how they understand it.
4) be able to inspire students to keep trying until they succeed.
Learning maths should be no different to a motivated student then a child motivated to learn to walk, it'll take time, effort and a little guidance. And so what if he uses a nearby chair to support himself while taking those first steps, all you have to do is guide them a little, and any support will then have merely been a stepping stone and not a crutch.
Of course, if motivation is not at hand, it's up to you to decide whether you want to motivate people or not, and if the answer is no, then maybe teaching isn't your forte.
K.
crap.. u posted a useless website.. I can't easily find the difference between a state allowing people to carry guns and one which does not allow it.
But hey, let's compare countries.. How many people are killed by guns in america and how many are killed by guns in kanada? Both have about the same amount of guns, but I'm guessing that they don't allow people to carry guns around for the fun of it.
Or how about comparing america with a country which contains little to no guns, do you think it's safer there or in the countries allowing people to carry guns?
But hey, you got your 10 year old study, your trusty gun, your NRA membership, and the sad frown on your face knowing that when you die from a shotgun wound, you at least tried shooting the other guy full of holes and got an old innocent lady instead.
K.
....below this comment are comments which should be construed as being just my opinion......
This whole thing is not a war between people producing a quality product and the consumers trying to skip out on paying for the product..
This is a war between the few trying to force the many to pay again, and again, and again and again for the same damn thing over and over.
Let's look at the deal at its sweetest from the consumers point of view.. In a perfect consumerist world this would be true:
1) you can browse for movies, music, books, tv shows, games, programs and start downloading it right away
2) you can watch, read, play, use the product for as long as you deem necessary to test the product, and that means watching the whole movie, reading the whole book, playing the complete game, using the software for a few months, not a few weeks until you're satisfied.
3) If you like the product, feel that it's worth the money, you support the producers by buying the rights to ownership.
4) If you don't like it, you delete it.
Let's look at the deal at it's sweetest from the **AA point of view.. In a perfect world for them, this would be true:
1) you could not buy ownership of the product, you merely lease it for a very short time period, needing to repay at various intervals.
2) you would have to buy a copy of the game/movie/music/book/software for each device you want to play it on, and for each person who wants to view/read/use the product (2 pcs, 2 tvs, an ipod, a zune, wife, 2 kids.. that's 10 different payments).
3) you could not test the product, except for the carefully designed marketing, and you could not demo the product, you would have to pay for the demo as well, a lesser price of course, severely limited in scope.
4) by agreeing to view/read/use the product you could not comment or critique about it to others, allowing only marketing through ads, trailers, payed-for-reviews to tell you what to buy, and what not to buy. This way you get a 10% discount of the product.
In the perfect consumers world, he will still buy stuff, probably more stuff as there is no hindrance for him to check new things out, but no one will control what he buys except him, and he gets to try new things as much as he likes, meaning more of a chance he'll stumble on something which benefits him and he wants to own.
In the perfect **AA world, the consumer will only buy what he's told to buy, and if he buys anything, a guaranteed moneysink has been created to keep that lease alive.
I wish that there was some way of researching which of these extremes is the most beneficial for both parties.. The internet P2P is what is keeping the consumer extreme alive.. the DRM fiasco is the **AA extreme..
We all know that DRM is the least profitable way forward.. you can't profit from restricting peoples' access to stuff in the long term, but there's no real research proving this..
So that's what we need.. we need sales & marketing scientific research into whether a consumer controlled market, or a conglomerate controlled market is the better model regarding profiting from a product.
Although I do feel action must be taken, I believe that you should at least give the radio station a chance to react to this.
This should be researched properly, and the radio station should of course pay their dues regarding this issue, and as I don't know whether they're honourable and a respectful station or not, I can't say whether they'll do the right thing and settle this to the satisfaction of all parties.. or not.
If they do, then there's no need I feel to reprimand them by emailing their advertisers, they should then rather be applauded for helping the poor family in a tragic situation which no one wanted to happen.
If they don't, then that email list is gold, and you should use it.. just remember, if you send a mass-email, put the email list into BCC.
K.
Relearn a UI????
Omg! Office 2007 will sooooooo fail! Look at the Steeeeeeep learning curve!
I'm rather off playing on my Wii, I mean the Wiimote rocks! No one has done such a cool new way of interacting.. ah you get the point.
K.
...and I can say that because I didn't RTFA (so I must be some kind of an expert at procrastinating)
Being lazy has a direct relationsship to how you feel about the thing you're being lazy about.
Anything with negative feelings will be put off, and anything with neutral or positive feelings will be done on time.
So the formula slims down to : Amount of negative feelings towards task X (V) > persons threshhold for amount of V = job not done (L).
So the only thing which makes or breaks a task, is how we feel about it, and that's why our own moods can help or hurt a task's amount of V
Then there's the resistance factor.. the more times a task gets a positive amount of V, the more V it actually gets, and the harder it is to change it from a L to a non-L.. making it more likely a non-L task becomes a L task.
If you hate going to the gym from day one, but still go because you know you'll die from something or other if you don't, then you'll always hate going to the gym, and so V increases until it meets your threshold for V, and going to the gym becomes a L-positive task, and each time you don't go means more V in and of itself.
Also some tasks get an automatic amount of V because they are categorised similarly in our brains.. for instance.. doing the dishes might get a high amount of V, and thus get a L-task... but some people would categorize doing the dishes as "any work in the kitchen" and thus any_work_in_the_kitchen gets a L-mark.. however, another might categorize doing the dishes with any work in the house.. and yet another might just categorize doing the dishes as just doing the dishes and have no problems doing other things in the kitchen or house.
So if you're procrastinating about things that really do matter in your life, or about things that would make your life alot better, then it's because of the negativity you've put onto the task (whether rational negativity, or irrational.. and face it, most of our negativity is irrational).
so L = V > a persons threshhold for V... I cooked this up while writing it.. didn't take me 10 years.. Can I get a doctorate?
K.
I've always viewed this "downloading illegally" the same way I view libraries..
I'm guessing that the cost you pay for owning a library card is merely for upkeep and staff, am I right?
If so, then getting stuff off the internet in my opinion is no more illegal than getting stuff from the library.
I accepted the small price I had to pay to get access to the vast amounts of material at hand, and was fine with it. The internet merely seems to extend that library philosophy in my mind to make it easier for me to grab stuff with almost no hassle at all, and I can freely use the material, and if I like it, I'll support it by buying it.
I download daily show and colbert report for instance, and if comedy central was available in my country, I'd have looooooong ago jumped at the chance to grab it, same with top gear. Many of the books I read online I won't purchase (same as would happen in a library) but those I find particularly valuable to me, I definitely buy.
It's the same with games, I download full games because demos suck, and if I barely play that game, then it isn't worth my money, if I play it through, and want to play it again, then that's a game I'll support.
I really do feel that the internet downloading reflects what people do in the library, people use it to familiarize itself with what they are interested in, and if they find stuff they like, they'll support it, like people have always done with libraries, and like people will always continue to do with the internet.
I'll even go as far as saying that what MPAA/RIAA is doing is limiting their sales of movies and music because they're trying to criminalize normal people, and really just alienating their target market of music and movies, which is as ridiculous to me as if barnes&noble would sue someone for borrowing a book from a library.
We all have the same inbuilt moral code, so it's no wonder that musicians download music without paying for it, comedians download comedic audio, tv people downloading tv stuff, advertisers downloading ads, movie producers downloading movies, directors of MPAA/RIAA downloading music/movies (or the children of theirs), we all download stuff, but we also all purchase the stuff we find valuable and worthwhile to own. I'm pretty sure that the biggest downloaders of movies, for instance are the ones who already have a passion for them, and buy alot of them, why would you alienate the very person who wants your stuff by suing him for what we all think of in the same terms as using the library?
I'm mostly defending the normal persons downloading and sharing.. I'm against people downloading and then selling the stuff for personal profit, that's what I'd call copyright infringement.
K.
Why do people think that dark matter still exists? Has everyone forgotten we're looking at light which is millions, even billions of years old? The fact that we're inventing "dark matter" to explain inaccuracies in light which has moved billions of AU through billions of years.. it's just bloody stupid. the phenomena which dark matter tries to explain only really says that something has happened to the light while traveling through space, probably some kind of expansion or change in the time/space continuum, which is more interesting from a historical perspective regarding the universe, and in my view not indicative of "dark matter". Dark matter must be one of the dumbest popular 'belief' in astrophysics, and is only hindering people from trying to find the real reason for why the light has changed its' course this way in the universes history. Sometimes I think people forget we're looking at reflections of objects millions of years old, and millions of lightyears away.. not the objects themselves. K.
I'd like a grant to theorise about a few things:
1) the "Rabbit that is so dangerous it can cut your head off"
- I believe most of my research will be around the castle Aaaaaargh.
2) The "Chuck Norris move that's so dangerous that it doesn't exist"
- Even chuck norris would perhaps have to spend more than 20 minutes researching it.
3) the "solution to the iraq war which is so useful it doesn't exist"
- and now I've passed from the plausible to the ridiculous, sorry about that.
K.