Is it not possible to have a product that is usable, well designed and still something that people believe is what all the cool people have. Sure seems that would be the winning combination that makes everyone happy and should be what Apple is striving for. If Apple is removing desired functionality shouldn't they be hearing complaints from their customers? I'm sure not going to let some company remove functionality that I'm using in an update without complaining. Are Apple users so caught up in the RDF that they won't do that?
I haven't had a return problem with either company but then returns are very rare.
My problem with Amazon is their sorting algorithm is poor. If I go looking for hard drives (as an example) and then sort by price (low-high) I'll get a ton of cables and other devices that aren't hard drives. Then there's the one time I did something similar in the clothes department. Page after page after page of cheap Chinese products ($1 for a shirt so it shows up first but has a $9 shipping charge and takes weeks to ship) that are just noise for the information I actually wanted.
It's something they need to work on. If I know exactly what I'm looking for then Amazon is great.
Or he is aware that America is quite large. Even with a bike it could take me hours to get from one side of the city where I live to the other. Plus it being sort of dangerous since some drivers don't seem to notice bikes at all.
Because people want to do what they want and if the AI is getting in the way many people will find a way around the AI. Then complain when they get burned. That's just human nature and until you can change that I don't see a way to fix the problem.
No idea if it works but it seems like it should already be approved given that I've been seeing ads for this drug for a while now. It doesn't seem like the company would be paying for ads if they couldn't recoup that money.
That may be but many still need to drive outside of the city or otherwise drive far beyond the current daily limits of electric vehicles. Until that is resolved I don't foresee electric vehicles replacing gas/diesel vehicles. That said I do expect more hybrids to become common.
This isn't something new. I remember talking with a guy that was graduating that year with a degree in CS from Ga Tech back in the early 80s. The guy said he hated programming and didn't know what he was going to do after graduation. Blew my mind that someone would dislike a subject and go through years of study to get a degree in that subject and then possibly decades of work in that area.
Agreed. This is the sort of problem that probably requires understanding the software and coming up with new algorithms that are much faster but still give the same results. Not something that's likely to be done in a weekend.
I always thought of it as 'engineer' being the more general term that means (for the most part) you have the engineering degree. For the licensed part the term to use is 'Professional engineer' which means you've gone the additional steps beyond the degree to become licensed in your field. So while declaring himself an engineer in a letter to the licensing board might not be the best move it still isn't the same as if he said he was a P.E.
There are general solutions that could certainly help. Perhaps not allowing anyone to vote on a movie unless the account has been on IMDB for at least a week (or a month or whatever value makes the most sense.) That won't prevent long time users from ganging up against a movie but will at least prevent someone from pulling in a bunch of new accounts that will likely only be used for that one movie vote.
Been there, done that. I worked for what was (at the time) a small company. We had our small group of devs and then a couple of sales people that sat about twenty feet away. All of us in cubicles. The one sales guy was so loud that when ever he was in the office you could hear exactly what he was saying when he was on the phone. Terribly distracting. Luckily we only stayed in that location for a year and then moved to a bigger office with the sales people located elsewhere in the building.
I can see both sides of that last bit. They need to make such an assumption if they want to make progress as some people may no longer be reachable (no known email address, passed away). Making that assumption that no response equals acquiescence lets them move forward.
The problem is that some people that they weren't able to reach may not like the new license agreement. Also I'm not sure if such an assumption would stand up in court should it come to that.
To be fair the overall company is turning a profit on every one of those phones sold in NZ. They just aren't showing the profit in NZ by hiding it with high license fees. It's much the way movies in Hollywood tend to never make a profit even when they bring in a billion dollars because the studio will charge expenses from other movies to the profitable movie. It's not what I would consider ethical but it is allowed with the existing tax codes in many countries. Though a few have talked about shutting it down.
I do not have a cell phone and have no desire to get one. I, for one, enjoy my lack of an electronic leash even though I have the money to get one and still have enough cash left over to get an airline ticket.
There's also the fact that with blended and single malt there are going to be different prices. That would also play into anyone being upset with being sold blended as single malt.
Though that doesn't play as much of a role in a chicken sandwich since you aren't buying just the chicken but the combined product. Still, I don't want someone telling me they use 100% chicken if it's 50% filler.
So since using marked cards is illegal and it seems many believe these cards count as being marked AND the cards were provided by the casino then shouldn't the casino be liable for using the cards? After all they provided the cards and likely used them in many (all?) of their games.
Not that anyone will care but the Wall Street Journal has an interesting article pointing out the link that Trump and his companies have to many other countries. Including places that many people in the USA would regard as less than desirable. It sets up a potential conflict of interest with Trump should he become President but no one wants to talk about that when there's a Clinton to hang.
The problem is that as I understand it many of the devices being abused were made by companies that no longer exist. Others are Chinese companies over which we have no control and until/unless China is attacked I don't see the Chinese government having much interest in forcing them to fix the issue. Hell, even if they did fix the issue how do you get all of the devices updated when they don't have a remote update feature?
As far as I know they've had no such releases on Trump. Then you add in the staggered release at the end of the campaign when it seems like they had this data months ago so it definitely looks to me like they are trying to hurt Clinton's campaign at the end of the race when the release can do the most damage. If they were just interested in exposing the information why not release it months ago when they got the data?
So what if the thief cuts the chain instead of the lock? Is the normal lock that much easier to cut than the chain? Or is the design such that it's all lock and nothing else?
Agreed. I've seen too many stories of people that are stuck in jail for minor violations simply because they can't pay the bail costs. What's worse is for those people it often means they lose their jobs and can lose their possessions and home if they are kept in jail long enough even though they've never been tried. There's no way to support that behavior by our (USA) legal system.
No one cares. Not even the FTC. People are regularly breaking this rule because they don't know about the regulations and the FTC takes no action. I believe they are only likely to act if someone is continually breaking the rules. That would seem worthy of the effort (and expense) of taking action while taking action on what is likely 100s of people are breaking the rules each day for the first time isn't a worthwhile usage of the FTC's time.
Yeah, this was my observation when I first saw this mentioned. It made no sense to call the 28 domains mentioned web sites especially when a few appear to be nameservers (hence the ns. prefix.) Oh well. I guess it's too much to expect the original reporter to actually talk to someone who knows what they are talking about or maybe they did and went with the headline that would garner more views.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it not possible to have a product that is usable, well designed and still something that people believe is what all the cool people have. Sure seems that would be the winning combination that makes everyone happy and should be what Apple is striving for. If Apple is removing desired functionality shouldn't they be hearing complaints from their customers? I'm sure not going to let some company remove functionality that I'm using in an update without complaining. Are Apple users so caught up in the RDF that they won't do that?
I haven't had a return problem with either company but then returns are very rare.
My problem with Amazon is their sorting algorithm is poor. If I go looking for hard drives (as an example) and then sort by price (low-high) I'll get a ton of cables and other devices that aren't hard drives. Then there's the one time I did something similar in the clothes department. Page after page after page of cheap Chinese products ($1 for a shirt so it shows up first but has a $9 shipping charge and takes weeks to ship) that are just noise for the information I actually wanted.
It's something they need to work on. If I know exactly what I'm looking for then Amazon is great.
Or he is aware that America is quite large. Even with a bike it could take me hours to get from one side of the city where I live to the other. Plus it being sort of dangerous since some drivers don't seem to notice bikes at all.
Because people want to do what they want and if the AI is getting in the way many people will find a way around the AI. Then complain when they get burned. That's just human nature and until you can change that I don't see a way to fix the problem.
No idea if it works but it seems like it should already be approved given that I've been seeing ads for this drug for a while now. It doesn't seem like the company would be paying for ads if they couldn't recoup that money.
That may be but many still need to drive outside of the city or otherwise drive far beyond the current daily limits of electric vehicles. Until that is resolved I don't foresee electric vehicles replacing gas/diesel vehicles. That said I do expect more hybrids to become common.
This isn't something new. I remember talking with a guy that was graduating that year with a degree in CS from Ga Tech back in the early 80s. The guy said he hated programming and didn't know what he was going to do after graduation. Blew my mind that someone would dislike a subject and go through years of study to get a degree in that subject and then possibly decades of work in that area.
I'm going to need some intensive care after reading that post. :)
Agreed. This is the sort of problem that probably requires understanding the software and coming up with new algorithms that are much faster but still give the same results. Not something that's likely to be done in a weekend.
I always thought of it as 'engineer' being the more general term that means (for the most part) you have the engineering degree. For the licensed part the term to use is 'Professional engineer' which means you've gone the additional steps beyond the degree to become licensed in your field. So while declaring himself an engineer in a letter to the licensing board might not be the best move it still isn't the same as if he said he was a P.E.
There are general solutions that could certainly help. Perhaps not allowing anyone to vote on a movie unless the account has been on IMDB for at least a week (or a month or whatever value makes the most sense.) That won't prevent long time users from ganging up against a movie but will at least prevent someone from pulling in a bunch of new accounts that will likely only be used for that one movie vote.
Been there, done that. I worked for what was (at the time) a small company. We had our small group of devs and then a couple of sales people that sat about twenty feet away. All of us in cubicles. The one sales guy was so loud that when ever he was in the office you could hear exactly what he was saying when he was on the phone. Terribly distracting. Luckily we only stayed in that location for a year and then moved to a bigger office with the sales people located elsewhere in the building.
I can see both sides of that last bit. They need to make such an assumption if they want to make progress as some people may no longer be reachable (no known email address, passed away). Making that assumption that no response equals acquiescence lets them move forward.
The problem is that some people that they weren't able to reach may not like the new license agreement. Also I'm not sure if such an assumption would stand up in court should it come to that.
To be fair the overall company is turning a profit on every one of those phones sold in NZ. They just aren't showing the profit in NZ by hiding it with high license fees. It's much the way movies in Hollywood tend to never make a profit even when they bring in a billion dollars because the studio will charge expenses from other movies to the profitable movie. It's not what I would consider ethical but it is allowed with the existing tax codes in many countries. Though a few have talked about shutting it down.
I do not have a cell phone and have no desire to get one. I, for one, enjoy my lack of an electronic leash even though I have the money to get one and still have enough cash left over to get an airline ticket.
There's also the fact that with blended and single malt there are going to be different prices. That would also play into anyone being upset with being sold blended as single malt.
Though that doesn't play as much of a role in a chicken sandwich since you aren't buying just the chicken but the combined product. Still, I don't want someone telling me they use 100% chicken if it's 50% filler.
So since using marked cards is illegal and it seems many believe these cards count as being marked AND the cards were provided by the casino then shouldn't the casino be liable for using the cards? After all they provided the cards and likely used them in many (all?) of their games.
Not that anyone will care but the Wall Street Journal has an interesting article pointing out the link that Trump and his companies have to many other countries. Including places that many people in the USA would regard as less than desirable. It sets up a potential conflict of interest with Trump should he become President but no one wants to talk about that when there's a Clinton to hang.
Just face it. We are screwed.
The problem is that as I understand it many of the devices being abused were made by companies that no longer exist. Others are Chinese companies over which we have no control and until/unless China is attacked I don't see the Chinese government having much interest in forcing them to fix the issue. Hell, even if they did fix the issue how do you get all of the devices updated when they don't have a remote update feature?
As far as I know they've had no such releases on Trump. Then you add in the staggered release at the end of the campaign when it seems like they had this data months ago so it definitely looks to me like they are trying to hurt Clinton's campaign at the end of the race when the release can do the most damage. If they were just interested in exposing the information why not release it months ago when they got the data?
So what if the thief cuts the chain instead of the lock? Is the normal lock that much easier to cut than the chain? Or is the design such that it's all lock and nothing else?
Agreed. I've seen too many stories of people that are stuck in jail for minor violations simply because they can't pay the bail costs. What's worse is for those people it often means they lose their jobs and can lose their possessions and home if they are kept in jail long enough even though they've never been tried. There's no way to support that behavior by our (USA) legal system.
No one cares. Not even the FTC. People are regularly breaking this rule because they don't know about the regulations and the FTC takes no action. I believe they are only likely to act if someone is continually breaking the rules. That would seem worthy of the effort (and expense) of taking action while taking action on what is likely 100s of people are breaking the rules each day for the first time isn't a worthwhile usage of the FTC's time.
You mean like Paul Allen's super-yachts? He's got enough space for his family and any friends he wants to bring along with any desired support staff.
Yeah, this was my observation when I first saw this mentioned. It made no sense to call the 28 domains mentioned web sites especially when a few appear to be nameservers (hence the ns. prefix.) Oh well. I guess it's too much to expect the original reporter to actually talk to someone who knows what they are talking about or maybe they did and went with the headline that would garner more views.