I like the cord. I hate the batteries. The headphone with a plug fits into every device I own, ipod, ipad, phone (android and iphone), desktop computer, laptop computer, thunderbolt breakout box, automobile stereo, television, and Roku remote control. Also some older stuff I don't use anymore.
Wireless is not automatically better. Many problems with Bluetooth. While I agree that theoretically one can do a lot better than Bluetooth most companies won't bother and will stick to what everyone else uses.
Batteries are the biggest problem for me, and the fact that most of the stuff I use a headphone for also has a jack. Jumping to Bluetooth is not about being better but is about forcing customers to buy new products and peripherals and charging pads and whatnot. We still don't have a functional way to recycle all the batteries we use today, so why accelerate and try to use even more?
If they make a fake band, then they pay that fake band money, then they're just losing that money. There's no financial benefit here unless they're into money laundering. More likely that someone is trying to scam Spotify.
Many companies do deal with it. Some products with electronics have to last for a few decades. But those aren't for consumers, I think consumers take the brunt of the planned obscolesence plague.
Overlapping windows isn't that big a deal. There was even a Linux window manager that avoided overlapping them. It was the "desktop" orientation that encourage treating windows like pieces of paper on a desk.
Yes of course. We can fire all the scientists everywhere and just have everyone head to Slashdot when they want to know what's what in the world of science. It's cheaper and faster since no one ever bothers to research or experiment or any of that unnecessary science stuff.
No one tests as they should now. The goal of startups is to get bought out fast rather than develop a serious long term product. The time pressures to release a demo every Friday means you can't waste time on quality.
Xerox Parc and some other workstations at the time had the advanced GUIs. The NeXT computer came long after the Mac and was basically a simple competitor to other workstations.
Maybe, maybe not. I had used a mouse before this, and the original mac was sort of a joke among people I knew,. It looked nice but didn't do much. The GUI with the desktop orientation was odd (most people hadn't seen the Xerox workstations), prefacing the later arrival of Microsoft Bob. The GUI at the time was fine on very expensive workstations with much bigger screens, but for a "home micro" it didn't add much.
On the other hand it created devotees almost immediately. Certainly easier to use and more sophisticated than Apple II, PC, and other DOS based home computers. So to users who had never seen anything other than microcomputers it was pretty astounding. The price point however put a lot of people off. Even the PC XT was extremely expensive for the little that it could do, and the Mac took that price to usefulness level even higher.
Wages for salaried workers will never be uniform. They are not paid on a fixed and predictable scale. The pay tiers often have a huge range between top and bottom pay, so even with the same title and duties and tier there can be a $50K difference in pay or more.It is also up to the manager to decide how much of the pay increase granted to the group is to be spread around, who gets the bonuses, and so forth, and after that the directors and VPs will often go and revise the manager's decisions. And of course, whoever negotiates the best gets the most pay, which is utterly unfair (except to the good negotiator who firmly believes it is deserved).
If you want predictability and uniformity in pay, then you need a union. But that comes with its own baggage, such as pay by seniority rather than merit.
All companies do this. What Google failed to do though was keep the internal memos secret. There's a reason that companies don't like to share things like how much your coworkers make, who can get promoted, and so forth. Because someone will always be upset when they find out. No one really gets paid on merit. I know one group where the best worker is paid the least and the least effective worker is paid the most, and the reasons for this have to do with the initial starting salary and the inability to either rapidly promote or cut pay once granted.
Sort of a bit off though. A single research report is often wrong. But multiple reports all backing the science with evidence lean towards being correct.
Also too many fall into the trap of thinking that since one side is possibly biased that they will intentionally bias themselves the opposite way.
Where did I suggest this? Agile actually adds MORE meetings if you count the daily scrums, the long planning sessions every two weeks, and of course the fallout because no one ever does Agile perfectly and the scrums end up lasting too long. It seems if anyone criticizes even the smallest aspect of Agile that they get accused of being a Waterfall heretic.
Developers should be developing. They should not be the business drivers, they should not tell operations how to run the company. You can have a sane and predictable release schedule while still using Agile. It falls apart when the entire company decides that they want to be Agile, and have continuous delivery and think that thay can push out a new update every month when the testing cycle is longer than that.
Yes, but such coding should be planned out in advance. Coders should not be coding without a direction from management. That means they should have a release schedule, a list of features going into the release, a list of bugs that need fixing, and ultimately a set of detailed release notes. That's where you get stability. And you can do his sort of development while also using Agile! Agile does not preclude long term planning.
Customer push 1 fixes a bug. Two weeks later customer push 2 fixes the security hole in the earlier push, while also adding a new UI widget. Two weeks later the security patch is tweaked because it wasn't working, and at the same time there is a patch to have tighter integration with the monetization store. Two weeks later a patch is out to fix actually encrypt the monetizing transaction, along with a new dark UI theme. Two weeks later the software now pops up a notification to remind users to not turn off automatic updates.
Not true. Upgrades and security should be separate things. If there is a security fix then the upgrade notes must mention this. Upgrading by itself does not increase security. If the company can't take the time to accurately communicate what is in an upgrade then the consumer rightfully should refuse the upgrades, or uninstall the product. If the company insists on automatic upgrades then that is a problem in itself. Rapid release cycles do not promote security and can actually worsen security because of the lack of adequate testing that a break-neck release schedule discourages.
That may be for PC software, but in many areas of software it isn't true. Ie, embedded medical devices - you sell the expensive device, plus some amount of maintenance that gives up updated software, and every release gives you a detailed list of what changed. Since some customes may be optionally paying for the update, it is good business to list what the new features are and why they are worth paying for.
Right now with one product I worked on there was a bump in a version number just to keep it matched with the version for a related component. But it's causing me headaches because a partner is demanding to know what changed so that they can test it, and the product manager is exacerbating this by failing to understand that nothing changed. The point being that many customers are paying attention to releases.
Probably the whole continuous integration and dev-ops crap. Developers are being conditioned/trained to rapidly release changes, and use the customer as the tester, rather than stick to a reliable and predictable release schedule. It should be the job of the rest of the company to push back and insist on a reliable release schedule. This lets the company predict and communicate to customers what upcoming features will be, engage and figure out what customers want, and so forth. Letting developers run the show on a sprint schedule is failing.
I don't upgrade itunes often, because every time I do they radically change the user interface. I only use it to sync podcasts, never to buy music, and it only runs when I ask it to.
Upgrading rarely does anything useful. Yes, if there's a security hole then upgrading is good. But applications insist on upgrading when there is not need and even when the upgraded version becomes less useful or introduces dubious features. The concept that a new version is automatically more secure is naive.
Well, Ad Block stops 100% of Youtube ads for me, so I never even knew Youtube had ads until I started watching it via television instead. Since Youtube started on the computer I suspect most users who have ad block are fine with it, and those without ad blockers may find that other web sites are far more annoying with ads.
The ACLU does not have a rigid policy for all of its members. So just because a few members are abandoning the civil-rights part of the oganization does not mean that the organization itself has abondoned those ideals. Also, don't believe everything you read from the right-of-center news mill, it is a popular tactic to stick "ACLU" in headlines because it's good for click-bait. There's a lot of fake news out there that doesn't hold up when examined; just because a headline matches your preconcieved bias doesn't mean it's accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the smartphone wears out most of it's parts and gets shoved into a landfill long before the headphone jack wears out.
I like the cord. I hate the batteries. The headphone with a plug fits into every device I own, ipod, ipad, phone (android and iphone), desktop computer, laptop computer, thunderbolt breakout box, automobile stereo, television, and Roku remote control. Also some older stuff I don't use anymore.
Wireless is not automatically better. Many problems with Bluetooth. While I agree that theoretically one can do a lot better than Bluetooth most companies won't bother and will stick to what everyone else uses.
Batteries are the biggest problem for me, and the fact that most of the stuff I use a headphone for also has a jack. Jumping to Bluetooth is not about being better but is about forcing customers to buy new products and peripherals and charging pads and whatnot. We still don't have a functional way to recycle all the batteries we use today, so why accelerate and try to use even more?
If they make a fake band, then they pay that fake band money, then they're just losing that money. There's no financial benefit here unless they're into money laundering. More likely that someone is trying to scam Spotify.
Many companies do deal with it. Some products with electronics have to last for a few decades. But those aren't for consumers, I think consumers take the brunt of the planned obscolesence plague.
Overlapping windows isn't that big a deal. There was even a Linux window manager that avoided overlapping them. It was the "desktop" orientation that encourage treating windows like pieces of paper on a desk.
Yes of course. We can fire all the scientists everywhere and just have everyone head to Slashdot when they want to know what's what in the world of science. It's cheaper and faster since no one ever bothers to research or experiment or any of that unnecessary science stuff.
No one tests as they should now. The goal of startups is to get bought out fast rather than develop a serious long term product. The time pressures to release a demo every Friday means you can't waste time on quality.
Xerox Parc and some other workstations at the time had the advanced GUIs. The NeXT computer came long after the Mac and was basically a simple competitor to other workstations.
Maybe, maybe not. I had used a mouse before this, and the original mac was sort of a joke among people I knew,. It looked nice but didn't do much. The GUI with the desktop orientation was odd (most people hadn't seen the Xerox workstations), prefacing the later arrival of Microsoft Bob. The GUI at the time was fine on very expensive workstations with much bigger screens, but for a "home micro" it didn't add much.
On the other hand it created devotees almost immediately. Certainly easier to use and more sophisticated than Apple II, PC, and other DOS based home computers. So to users who had never seen anything other than microcomputers it was pretty astounding. The price point however put a lot of people off. Even the PC XT was extremely expensive for the little that it could do, and the Mac took that price to usefulness level even higher.
Wages for salaried workers will never be uniform. They are not paid on a fixed and predictable scale. The pay tiers often have a huge range between top and bottom pay, so even with the same title and duties and tier there can be a $50K difference in pay or more.It is also up to the manager to decide how much of the pay increase granted to the group is to be spread around, who gets the bonuses, and so forth, and after that the directors and VPs will often go and revise the manager's decisions. And of course, whoever negotiates the best gets the most pay, which is utterly unfair (except to the good negotiator who firmly believes it is deserved).
If you want predictability and uniformity in pay, then you need a union. But that comes with its own baggage, such as pay by seniority rather than merit.
All companies do this. What Google failed to do though was keep the internal memos secret. There's a reason that companies don't like to share things like how much your coworkers make, who can get promoted, and so forth. Because someone will always be upset when they find out. No one really gets paid on merit. I know one group where the best worker is paid the least and the least effective worker is paid the most, and the reasons for this have to do with the initial starting salary and the inability to either rapidly promote or cut pay once granted.
Sort of a bit off though. A single research report is often wrong. But multiple reports all backing the science with evidence lean towards being correct.
Also too many fall into the trap of thinking that since one side is possibly biased that they will intentionally bias themselves the opposite way.
Where did I suggest this? Agile actually adds MORE meetings if you count the daily scrums, the long planning sessions every two weeks, and of course the fallout because no one ever does Agile perfectly and the scrums end up lasting too long. It seems if anyone criticizes even the smallest aspect of Agile that they get accused of being a Waterfall heretic.
Developers should be developing. They should not be the business drivers, they should not tell operations how to run the company. You can have a sane and predictable release schedule while still using Agile. It falls apart when the entire company decides that they want to be Agile, and have continuous delivery and think that thay can push out a new update every month when the testing cycle is longer than that.
Yes, but such coding should be planned out in advance. Coders should not be coding without a direction from management. That means they should have a release schedule, a list of features going into the release, a list of bugs that need fixing, and ultimately a set of detailed release notes. That's where you get stability. And you can do his sort of development while also using Agile! Agile does not preclude long term planning.
Agile comes from bottom up. The developers push for Agile while not caring at all about the fiducial reports.
Customer push 1 fixes a bug. Two weeks later customer push 2 fixes the security hole in the earlier push, while also adding a new UI widget. Two weeks later the security patch is tweaked because it wasn't working, and at the same time there is a patch to have tighter integration with the monetization store. Two weeks later a patch is out to fix actually encrypt the monetizing transaction, along with a new dark UI theme. Two weeks later the software now pops up a notification to remind users to not turn off automatic updates.
Not true. Upgrades and security should be separate things. If there is a security fix then the upgrade notes must mention this. Upgrading by itself does not increase security. If the company can't take the time to accurately communicate what is in an upgrade then the consumer rightfully should refuse the upgrades, or uninstall the product. If the company insists on automatic upgrades then that is a problem in itself. Rapid release cycles do not promote security and can actually worsen security because of the lack of adequate testing that a break-neck release schedule discourages.
So trying to avoid malware is being selfish?
That may be for PC software, but in many areas of software it isn't true. Ie, embedded medical devices - you sell the expensive device, plus some amount of maintenance that gives up updated software, and every release gives you a detailed list of what changed. Since some customes may be optionally paying for the update, it is good business to list what the new features are and why they are worth paying for.
Right now with one product I worked on there was a bump in a version number just to keep it matched with the version for a related component. But it's causing me headaches because a partner is demanding to know what changed so that they can test it, and the product manager is exacerbating this by failing to understand that nothing changed. The point being that many customers are paying attention to releases.
Probably the whole continuous integration and dev-ops crap. Developers are being conditioned/trained to rapidly release changes, and use the customer as the tester, rather than stick to a reliable and predictable release schedule. It should be the job of the rest of the company to push back and insist on a reliable release schedule. This lets the company predict and communicate to customers what upcoming features will be, engage and figure out what customers want, and so forth. Letting developers run the show on a sprint schedule is failing.
I don't upgrade itunes often, because every time I do they radically change the user interface. I only use it to sync podcasts, never to buy music, and it only runs when I ask it to.
Upgrading rarely does anything useful. Yes, if there's a security hole then upgrading is good. But applications insist on upgrading when there is not need and even when the upgraded version becomes less useful or introduces dubious features. The concept that a new version is automatically more secure is naive.
Well, Ad Block stops 100% of Youtube ads for me, so I never even knew Youtube had ads until I started watching it via television instead. Since Youtube started on the computer I suspect most users who have ad block are fine with it, and those without ad blockers may find that other web sites are far more annoying with ads.
The ACLU does not have a rigid policy for all of its members. So just because a few members are abandoning the civil-rights part of the oganization does not mean that the organization itself has abondoned those ideals. Also, don't believe everything you read from the right-of-center news mill, it is a popular tactic to stick "ACLU" in headlines because it's good for click-bait. There's a lot of fake news out there that doesn't hold up when examined; just because a headline matches your preconcieved bias doesn't mean it's accurate.
If songs are too short, then we'll never find out what Meatloaf won't do for love!