When I call customer support, I really don't care what the rep's name is. (Nor do I care to discuss how my day is going). I care about how efficiently my question is answered by the overall experience (which is ideally resovled before I have to speak to any human at all).
Does anybody care to know what a CS rep's name is? Does anybody believe that there is something to be gained by noting that they spoke to "Randy". These are huge operations -- no surnames?
Given the evident pressure these call centers are on to churn through calls, I am suspicious of the motive behind the folksy facade that they spend their money creating (I know they don't care about the amount of my time that is wasted establishing a familiar rapport with their rep). I suspect that they are more interested in mitigating my expected disappointment, by appealing to sentimentality towards "Randy", who probably has a lousy job and is at least trying to be nice even if he can't do anything for me.
There is literally no evidence one could present to you that would convince you that people buy Apple products because they are good products and not because they say Apple on them
This is not necessarily so. If one, for example, knew people who owned Apple products but were not particularly impressed with their "goodness", that would indicate that they bought them for reasons other than their being good products. Such reasons might be:
1. Overall inclination to buy well-known brands (speaks to the success of Apple's marketing) 2. Concession to easier integration between products, despite no generally elevated level of satisfaction with individual products. E.g., My employer provides me with an Apple computer, and other Apple products better integrate with it. 3. Ignorance of or poor availability of alternatives.
Moreover, one could explore the claim of superior usability by testing Apple users on their command of the features that their Apple products provide, and their dexterity with the features they frequently use.
Option 2 starts looking very good, with option 1 becoming more reserved for “weird” or original software that no one else has written. A depressing trend.
I don't find it depressing at all. I realize that there are some people who really enjoy taking established ideas and making them "better", and that is legit, but I would rather work on something "weird" or original.
Most of the so called economic growth of the last few hundred years has been entirely based on digging things out of the ground and consuming them
No. Most of the economic growth of the last few hundred years has been due to advances in science and technology. That trend is likely to continue.
And these advances were ultimately driven by revenue generated by extracting natural resources. Until science and technology can synthesize these resources in the required amounts and deal with the waste, the original problem still exists. Now, have science and technology resulted in a net increase or decrease in available materials?
As for learning, dunno about the rest of you guys but my college education was largely an exercise in bullshit. Repeat what the professor said if you want an A. Disagree with his premises if you want an F. That's not learning. It's regurgitation. Parrots can do that too, and they don't attend college to do it.
That is a sad commentary. Certainly not similar to my experience. Of course, I was in a non-"geek" field, taught by non-"geeks". Maybe that's the difference. I graduated with a BA in a foreign language and within 2 years embarked on a 10+ year career in programming based on skills that I taught myself.
School is where you learn how to learn. Or it should be. Increasingly, it seems to be seen as a place where they tell you what employers want you to know.
This is a serious attack on people's rights. What people are forgetting is that while this Welsh footballers privacy is being protected, the big brother's star Imogen Thomas' right to publish accounts about her own private life is impeded. In this particular case, this may seem irrelevant, after all, she's just a gold digger looking to make some money selling her story, right? But what if some famous actor / sports star slept with your wife and when you wanted to expose the wanker, he slaps down a super-injunction on you. How humiliated would you feel?
How humiliated would I feel if someone famous slept with my wife and the internet was prevented from echoing that fact ad nauseum. Not humiliated at all, as a matter of fact. I would be grateful to be able to divorce her and get on with my life with a minimum amount of drama.
The only "right" in danger here is the "right" to profit, either financially or in the esteem of they type of people who follow celebrity gossip. Imogen Thomas is not prevented from prostituting the sad details of her own life. She is only prevented from using someone else's name to do so. If her story is not valuable w/o naming unwilling names, then perhaps she is not so interesting after all and should seek some other means of supporting herself.
And what if this was actually about something that had serious public interest?
That should be taken into account by the judge issuing the injunction. In this case, it clearly is not.
Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei
Egypt? Pompei? I think you are getting yourself a tad worked up here. We are talking about a ship that sank less than 100 years ago at this point. What great archaeological finds do you suppose have yet to be discovered?
Perhaps our definitions of "lost" mean different things though, in which case I'd just agree to disagree.
My definition of "lost" is distinct form my definition of "past". We don't need to study the Titanic to figure out what civilization was like in the early 1900's.
Browsers are about the most complex piece of software you will find anywhere
So much the better then to keep them simple by omitting useless features like autofill. I don't need my browser to remember my personal information for me. (Seriously, who needs help typing in their own name!?) This is is a gimmicky feature thrown in to impress rubes. It is near worthless for legitimate use and and a crack waiting to happen.
The real root cause here is suspicion of all the inscrutable computers in the world. Car with electronic controls crashes - gee its probably a problem with the electronics. Analysis of the black box shows otherwise - gee, its probably a problem with the black box too!
Its not even "arguably correct". If someone makes off with my SSN etc., even if it is my fault, having this information is not a crime AFAIK and I am neither culpable for exposing it nor a victim of someone obtaining it. The crime occurs when some other party is defrauded, and they are a victim of both the fraud and their own lack of diligence.
This only becomes a problem for me when these third parties take their problem and make it mine via a central credit reporting system that I am forced to be subject to.
GP needs to vent his spleen at the banks and lenders, not 100% innocent bystanders who are being screwed.
65 bugs that I won't get patches for in my 1st Generation Ipod Touch. What is the point of paying a premium for hardware, when the control-freak sole arbiter of software patches renders it functionally obsolete long before its useful life has expired?
"Drop dead gorgeous" has nothing to do with the technology being used.
The key is the ease of creating "drop dead gorgeous". An entrenched technology typically has the edge there unless its capabilities are surpassed, not merely matched.
Slashdot Mirror
When I call customer support, I really don't care what the rep's name is. (Nor do I care to discuss how my day is going). I care about how efficiently my question is answered by the overall experience (which is ideally resovled before I have to speak to any human at all).
Does anybody care to know what a CS rep's name is? Does anybody believe that there is something to be gained by noting that they spoke to "Randy". These are huge operations -- no surnames?
Given the evident pressure these call centers are on to churn through calls, I am suspicious of the motive behind the folksy facade that they spend their money creating (I know they don't care about the amount of my time that is wasted establishing a familiar rapport with their rep). I suspect that they are more interested in mitigating my expected disappointment, by appealing to sentimentality towards "Randy", who probably has a lousy job and is at least trying to be nice even if he can't do anything for me.
There is literally no evidence one could present to you that would convince you that people buy Apple products because they are good products and not because they say Apple on them
This is not necessarily so. If one, for example, knew people who owned Apple products but were not particularly impressed with their "goodness", that would indicate that they bought them for reasons other than their being good products. Such reasons might be:
1. Overall inclination to buy well-known brands (speaks to the success of Apple's marketing)
2. Concession to easier integration between products, despite no generally elevated level of satisfaction with individual products. E.g., My employer provides me with an Apple computer, and other Apple products better integrate with it.
3. Ignorance of or poor availability of alternatives.
Moreover, one could explore the claim of superior usability by testing Apple users on their command of the features that their Apple products provide, and their dexterity with the features they frequently use.
Option 2 starts looking very good, with option 1 becoming more reserved for “weird” or original software that no one else has written. A depressing trend.
I don't find it depressing at all. I realize that there are some people who really enjoy taking established ideas and making them "better", and that is legit, but I would rather work on something "weird" or original.
Most of the so called economic growth of the last few hundred years has been entirely based on digging things out of the ground and consuming them
No. Most of the economic growth of the last few hundred years has been due to advances in science and technology. That trend is likely to continue.
And these advances were ultimately driven by revenue generated by extracting natural resources. Until science and technology can synthesize these resources in the required amounts and deal with the waste, the original problem still exists. Now, have science and technology resulted in a net increase or decrease in available materials?
As for learning, dunno about the rest of you guys but my college education was largely an exercise in bullshit. Repeat what the professor said if you want an A. Disagree with his premises if you want an F. That's not learning. It's regurgitation. Parrots can do that too, and they don't attend college to do it.
That is a sad commentary. Certainly not similar to my experience. Of course, I was in a non-"geek" field, taught by non-"geeks". Maybe that's the difference. I graduated with a BA in a foreign language and within 2 years embarked on a 10+ year career in programming based on skills that I taught myself.
School is where you learn how to learn. Or it should be. Increasingly, it seems to be seen as a place where they tell you what employers want you to know.
Seems like a gimmick, to me. You know, as opposed to an innovative idea.
For gossip-mongers: Get a life of your own.
This is a serious attack on people's rights. What people are forgetting is that while this Welsh footballers privacy is being protected, the big brother's star Imogen Thomas' right to publish accounts about her own private life is impeded. In this particular case, this may seem irrelevant, after all, she's just a gold digger looking to make some money selling her story, right? But what if some famous actor / sports star slept with your wife and when you wanted to expose the wanker, he slaps down a super-injunction on you. How humiliated would you feel?
How humiliated would I feel if someone famous slept with my wife and the internet was prevented from echoing that fact ad nauseum. Not humiliated at all, as a matter of fact. I would be grateful to be able to divorce her and get on with my life with a minimum amount of drama.
The only "right" in danger here is the "right" to profit, either financially or in the esteem of they type of people who follow celebrity gossip. Imogen Thomas is not prevented from prostituting the sad details of her own life. She is only prevented from using someone else's name to do so. If her story is not valuable w/o naming unwilling names, then perhaps she is not so interesting after all and should seek some other means of supporting herself.
And what if this was actually about something that had serious public interest?
That should be taken into account by the judge issuing the injunction. In this case, it clearly is not.
Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei
Egypt? Pompei? I think you are getting yourself a tad worked up here. We are talking about a ship that sank less than 100 years ago at this point. What great archaeological finds do you suppose have yet to be discovered?
Perhaps our definitions of "lost" mean different things though, in which case I'd just agree to disagree.
My definition of "lost" is distinct form my definition of "past". We don't need to study the Titanic to figure out what civilization was like in the early 1900's.
Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D.
As did I. But frankly, is the actual project any more compelling? Its not like the Titanic is a remnant of a lost civilization.
Browsers are about the most complex piece of software you will find anywhere
So much the better then to keep them simple by omitting useless features like autofill. I don't need my browser to remember my personal information for me. (Seriously, who needs help typing in their own name!?) This is is a gimmicky feature thrown in to impress rubes. It is near worthless for legitimate use and and a crack waiting to happen.
If you don't want/need/use them, and you can't get rid of them, how are they not bloat/crap/shovel- ware?
Bringing the conversation all the way back around: no bloatware on the iPhone.
Are you saying there are no pre-installed apps on the iPhone that can't be removed?
The real root cause here is suspicion of all the inscrutable computers in the world. Car with electronic controls crashes - gee its probably a problem with the electronics. Analysis of the black box shows otherwise - gee, its probably a problem with the black box too!
No, and no. Deal with it.
They are trying to control information in a very Orwellian way (i.e. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."). . .
Make that "Attenuation is Strength".
Its not even "arguably correct". If someone makes off with my SSN etc., even if it is my fault, having this information is not a crime AFAIK and I am neither culpable for exposing it nor a victim of someone obtaining it. The crime occurs when some other party is defrauded, and they are a victim of both the fraud and their own lack of diligence.
This only becomes a problem for me when these third parties take their problem and make it mine via a central credit reporting system that I am forced to be subject to.
GP needs to vent his spleen at the banks and lenders, not 100% innocent bystanders who are being screwed.
They are distinguished from other species of batfish by their oiliness.
Q: "Its just another smart-phone, right?"
A: "No, no, no it is a revolutionary, virtually magical device that will defy every expectation of what mere smart-phone can be"
Q: "So how come I can't get an update a mere three years later?"
A: "Its just a phone. Why would you expect to be using it for more than two years?"
Let us know when we can join you.
Right after you turn off the TV, presumably.
65 bugs that I won't get patches for in my 1st Generation Ipod Touch. What is the point of paying a premium for hardware, when the control-freak sole arbiter of software patches renders it functionally obsolete long before its useful life has expired?
In that case, the "World" Cup should be like Major League Baseball's "World" Series.
As far as I know, you can use katakana to write any foreign word. It's not absolutely necessary to add kanji characters.
Kanji has the advantage of succinctness over phonetic systems.
"Drop dead gorgeous" has nothing to do with the technology being used.
The key is the ease of creating "drop dead gorgeous". An entrenched technology typically has the edge there unless its capabilities are surpassed, not merely matched.
Its the diet soft drink of game consoles -- healthy relative to gaming that requires no physical exertion at all.