This ought to be the customer's decision. If they know the trade offs, there are times when a quick and dirty solution is appropriate.
But, it is a rare customer who has the experience and knowledge to know what the trade offs are. If you're lucky enough to work for a company that explains those trade offs to the customer, you can push for the decision to be made there.
If you work for an outfit that takes requirements and then never talks to the customer, you have a problem.
Customers often don't think about maintenance or upgrades, or tech support. So, they don't often remember to add it to their list of requirements. In my experience, it is a rare development shop that will tell the customer that they're probably going to need that, and more. Most vendors I've dealt with abhor chasing down requirements (and the customers loathes the process even more). So, they build to incomplete and incorrect requirements. Invariably, the first time customers gets their hands on real, working, code, they start to realize what they really need. The result: bashing on the vendor because "yes, you met the requirements but you didn't give me what I want..."
I have seen a few vendors submit two-tier proposals. One is the quick and dirty bid, the other the doctinaire bid. If a vendor honestly explains the differences, the buyer can make an intelligent call.
>> hy will weapons research and detection get more funding, attention and support than space exploration?
Because you can't do research if you're dead.
NASA isn't synonomous with space exploration. If we're going to get off the planet in a serious fashion, we need better propulsion, bigger vehicles, better life support, and better managers than NASA has ever provided. NASA has not enhanced our capability to travel in space since the launch of the first Shuttle. If fear of asteroid hits sparks a lot of money to DoD to fund engineering and space operations, I'm all for it.
Glad you mentioned customs delays and "disapperances" of packages inside the post office. both have happenied to me. And, don't forget that custom officers often assume that anyone who can afford to ship something from the U.S. can afford to slip them some cash. It's amusing how money can help find you "lost" package.
You say you'd give up all your protections, but what if you change your mind? And what about everyone else? Will they promise not to call cutomer service, file a warranty claim, send the thing back?
I've lived in countries where you just can't buy what you need, but that's the way it goes. If a company thinks selling into a country is a losing proposition, that's it.
The FCC rulings can't affect s station's objective to hold an audience. This applies to ClearChannel and the like as much as it does to a 250-watt college station with an audience of a few hundred.
You're placing too much emphasis on that "indepedence" thing.
Radio stations carry programming that they think will appeal to their audience. Some stations go after a broad mainstream market, so they program mainstream music. That music happens to be contolled by the RIAA, but even if it wasn't, they'd still play it.
So-called independent stations and webcasters also carry programming to attract their chosen audience. If this turns out to be cheaper non-RIAA music, perhaps the cheapness has more to do with it being played by these stations than the "independent" status.
The objective of every broadcaster, commercial and non-commercial, is to attract and keep an audience. If the station puts being independent ahead of playing something the audience likes, it will flounder.
There's a world of difference between the examples you cite and the expertise required to engineer a car. Do you really think that knowing how to change the oil and keep the tires inflated qualifies you to design a new engine, or a transmission, or a suspension system? One level of knowledge is the equivalent of knowing how to "drive" a computer. The other level of knowledge is comparable to the level of expertise many/. posters want us to believe they have. And a lot of those folks seem to think that everyone else is "stupid" because they lack that specialized expertise. Smells like arrogance to me.
Why read more when arrogance is always unjustified?
I don't believe that "the masses" exist, and I certainly don't believe that people are "mindless". What you term "the masses" (in just a shopworn elitist way of setting yourself apart) is really just a bunch of people just like you.
Do people need to know the jargon used in Ford and GM's engineering and design shops before they can drive? No.
Do people need to know the jargon used on the job by techs and geeks in order to use a computer? No.
If techs and geeks deliberately keep their jargon unnecesarily obscure, does the rest of the world have reason to be annoyed and to think they're simply building job security? Yes.
Does the ability to toss around jargon imply real knowledge. No.
>>...if someone doesn't know what basic medical terms like "pancreas," "antibody," "virus," and "cell" mean, there's not a whole lot a doctor can do to communicate with them
Of course there is. The doctor can take the time to explain what "pancreas," "antibody," "virus," and "cell" mean. If he doesn't he risks putting his patient's health at risk, which is his problem.
It isn't dumbing down. It is simply explaining what the jargon means. How'd you learn it in the fist place?
If somone can't explain what a gigabyte is, maybe they don't really know.
I gotta tell you, I've hired, fired and worked with a lot of techs, and every time one of them told a roomful of the MBA's who were paying his or her salary that "It's complicated. You wouldn't understand; just trust me on this one", they came off my list of people interested in getting things done.
>> We need accurate terminology in order to have meaningful discussions about technological products. Dismissing new names for new technology as "jargon" is naive.
Techs do need an accurate vocabulary. But, people who buy that technology don't need to have someone prattle on about Bluetooh or 802.11 to find out if the bloody laptop will work in the backyard. Their goal is to read email. not learn about wireless protocols.
I didn't there's anything amiss with knowing what a gigabyte is. I just said you ought not to need to know to buy or use a computer. Will knowing make you a smarter consumer? Sure.
And I really do think it is arrogant for someone with speciaoized knowledge to expect others to share that knowledge, especially if he lacks the patience to explain himself.
Beats me what you might try, except to go for shorter paragraphs.
I'm not arguing that you need to be overly simplistic, or dumb it down, just explain things using a vocabulary that others can understand. Jargon is just shorthand; it encompasses a range of knowledge into one word or phrase. Dropping the jargon doesn't mean dumbing down, it just means taking the long way around, using a vocabulary that is familiar to your audience.
After all, that's how we all need to learn something the first time you're exposed to it.
>> Why does my knowledge of computers, knowledge which I have gained through my own effort, for my own benefit, make me responsible for keeping other people informed?
Who said it does? This isn't a moral thing, you know. If you don't wanna help your dad understand what you're talking about, go ahead. My guess is it's your loss, not his. If you want people to understand you, you have to make an effort to be understood.
Nah, I'm not "justifying the stupidity" of the average person.
First, having acquired some expertise in one speciality or another is not a sign of intelligence. So, I reject your assertion that people who don't understand techspeak are stupud. Neither of us probably know much about how plant and harvest a successful crop of wheat. Does that make us stupid.
No, the problem is that too many techs don't have the patience, willingness or skills to explain what they're talking about to ordinary folks. So, if a tech has the arrogance to condemn other people as being stupid because they choose not to be an expert in his speciality, well...tht's the tech's problem.
Can't disagree that tech vocabulary is prone to change, perhaps to much, but I can't agree that I've heard much in the way of legitimate auto engineering lingo when I;ve subjected myself to an auto sales room. I suspect the typical auto salesperson knows little more about cars than the typical CompUSA salesperson knows about computers. Sales people know a great deal about people, sine that's what they work with. If you wanna find tech experts, look in a coding shop or in Ford's engineering shops.
Ranting aside, it is up to techs and geeks to explain what they're talking about to the rest of the world, not to snow folks with an avalanche of jargon and then get huffy when no one understands.
>>...the biggest obstacle seems to be accurately communicating
That, amigo, is your problem, not theirs. Like it or not. If someone doesn't know what you mean when you say "scroll bar", it is up to you to explain it to them.
>> Sure they should know what it is if they are BUYING a computer..just as a consumer should know what horsepower is when buying an automobile. The problem isn't that the vocabulary is too difficult, it's that people are too lazy to learn it.
Why would anyone need to know what a gigabyte is in order to buy a computer? People want to know if the thing will hold all their stuff. Techs ought to be able to answer that question without giving a condescending lecture about "gigabytes".
And, speaking about condescending, this epitomizes it: The problem isn't that the vocabulary is too difficult, it's that people are too lazy to learn it.
Just more self-congratulatory ego jerking from people who pretend there "better" just because they know a little bit about a speciality,
>> A better idea would be to educate those who need to understand the vocabulary wouldn't it?
With respect, this is more than just a very bad idea. This is why real people think techs and geeks are arrogant dweebs who live on another planet.
The vocabulary is important to people inside the industry because it (usually) allows them to communicate quickly and precisely about matters that are important to them. These matters are not important to the rest of the world.
The vocabulary is not important to the people who consume what techs and geeks build. They have their own vocabulary. Since almost everyone in the world is neither a tech nor a geek, it might be wise for techs and geeks to start speaking something other than gibberish to the people who ensure their incomes.
For example, I'm sure that an entirely different vocabulary has grown up around automotive engineering during the last century. Do people who buy and drive cars need to learn that vocabulary in order to use an automobile? No. They know what is important to them, and if an auto maker fails to deliver that, regardless of what words are used to name or describe it, they'll sell few cars.
Ditto for tech stuff. People need to know "How many movies will fit on this drive?", not listen impatiently as someone explains what gigabyte means. Or, "If plug this wireless thing into my PC in the den, can I carry my laptop into the backyard and get on the Internet?", rather than listening to someone drone one about protocols. (The almost certain result of that one-sided converstation will be the real person's conclusion that the tech is unwilling to speak in understandable terms. Not unable, but unwilling.)
A much more serious example of a failure to communicate on the part of a specialized minority can be the medical profession. Doctors and caregivers put their patients' lives and health at risk if they don't communicate in a way that the patient understands.
Well. I certainly believe I own and have all rgihts to anything I make, and it has nothing to do with morality, sovereignty, or a divinity.
It's simple: If I make something, I own it. (Since it didn't exist before I made it, it is impossible for anyone but myself to own it.) If I own it, I decide who gets to use it, and how they use it. That includes making and using copies. If I don't want to let anyone, ever, make any copies, that's within my rights. If I want to sell some of those rights to a publisher or a record company so (only) they can make and market copies, that's within my rights.
Since I made it in the first place, no one else can do anything with it unless I authorize it.
I don't think the RIAA is going to waste time and money going after individual downloaders. They want to put the folks who run "wholesale" servers out of business. They expect the ripple effect to work in their favor.
As for the clips, I really doubt the courts will ever rule that fair use encompasses making a copy of an entire work available without permission, even if a number of people break the work into small pieces for re-assembly on the other end. The clear purpose would be to evade the intent of the law by exploiting a "loophole", one that would be closed quickly.
The courts have traditionally considered the impact on the potential market or value of the original when determining if a copy is fair use. In this case, the use of thumbnails isn't likely to reduce the value or market potential of Mr. Kelly's photos. (Enhance the market potential, if anything.)
So, if all other points are moot, if someone convinces a court that thumbnails hurt his sales (or that music snippets hurt their CD sales), the court could consistently rule that it isn't fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
This ought to be the customer's decision. If they know the trade offs, there are times when a quick and dirty solution is appropriate.
But, it is a rare customer who has the experience and knowledge to know what the trade offs are. If you're lucky enough to work for a company that explains those trade offs to the customer, you can push for the decision to be made there.
If you work for an outfit that takes requirements and then never talks to the customer, you have a problem.
Customers often don't think about maintenance or upgrades, or tech support. So, they don't often remember to add it to their list of requirements. In my experience, it is a rare development shop that will tell the customer that they're probably going to need that, and more. Most vendors I've dealt with abhor chasing down requirements (and the customers loathes the process even more). So, they build to incomplete and incorrect requirements. Invariably, the first time customers gets their hands on real, working, code, they start to realize what they really need. The result: bashing on the vendor because "yes, you met the requirements but you didn't give me what I want..."
I have seen a few vendors submit two-tier proposals. One is the quick and dirty bid, the other the doctinaire bid. If a vendor honestly explains the differences, the buyer can make an intelligent call.
>> hy will weapons research and detection get more funding, attention and support than space exploration?
Because you can't do research if you're dead.
NASA isn't synonomous with space exploration. If we're going to get off the planet in a serious fashion, we need better propulsion, bigger vehicles, better life support, and better managers than NASA has ever provided. NASA has not enhanced our capability to travel in space since the launch of the first Shuttle. If fear of asteroid hits sparks a lot of money to DoD to fund engineering and space operations, I'm all for it.
Glad you mentioned customs delays and "disapperances" of packages inside the post office. both have happenied to me. And, don't forget that custom officers often assume that anyone who can afford to ship something from the U.S. can afford to slip them some cash. It's amusing how money can help find you "lost" package.
You say you'd give up all your protections, but what if you change your mind? And what about everyone else? Will they promise not to call cutomer service, file a warranty claim, send the thing back?
I've lived in countries where you just can't buy what you need, but that's the way it goes. If a company thinks selling into a country is a losing proposition, that's it.
The FCC rulings can't affect s station's objective to hold an audience. This applies to ClearChannel and the like as much as it does to a 250-watt college station with an audience of a few hundred.
You're placing too much emphasis on that "indepedence" thing.
Radio stations carry programming that they think will appeal to their audience. Some stations go after a broad mainstream market, so they program mainstream music. That music happens to be contolled by the RIAA, but even if it wasn't, they'd still play it.
So-called independent stations and webcasters also carry programming to attract their chosen audience. If this turns out to be cheaper non-RIAA music, perhaps the cheapness has more to do with it being played by these stations than the "independent" status.
The objective of every broadcaster, commercial and non-commercial, is to attract and keep an audience. If the station puts being independent ahead of playing something the audience likes, it will flounder.
There's a world of difference between the examples you cite and the expertise required to engineer a car. Do you really think that knowing how to change the oil and keep the tires inflated qualifies you to design a new engine, or a transmission, or a suspension system? One level of knowledge is the equivalent of knowing how to "drive" a computer. The other level of knowledge is comparable to the level of expertise many /. posters want us to believe they have. And a lot of those folks seem to think that everyone else is "stupid" because they lack that specialized expertise. Smells like arrogance to me.
Well, you are obviously delusional, and so are the poor sods who modded up this sad post.
Why read more when arrogance is always unjustified?
I don't believe that "the masses" exist, and I certainly don't believe that people are "mindless". What you term "the masses" (in just a shopworn elitist way of setting yourself apart) is really just a bunch of people just like you.
Do people need to know the jargon used in Ford and GM's engineering and design shops before they can drive? No.
Do people need to know the jargon used on the job by techs and geeks in order to use a computer? No.
If techs and geeks deliberately keep their jargon unnecesarily obscure, does the rest of the world have reason to be annoyed and to think they're simply building job security? Yes.
Does the ability to toss around jargon imply real knowledge. No.
>> ...if someone doesn't know what basic medical terms like "pancreas," "antibody," "virus," and "cell" mean, there's not a whole lot a doctor can do to communicate with them
Of course there is. The doctor can take the time to explain what "pancreas," "antibody," "virus," and "cell" mean. If he doesn't he risks putting his patient's health at risk, which is his problem.
It isn't dumbing down. It is simply explaining what the jargon means. How'd you learn it in the fist place?
If somone can't explain what a gigabyte is, maybe they don't really know.
I gotta tell you, I've hired, fired and worked with a lot of techs, and every time one of them told a roomful of the MBA's who were paying his or her salary that "It's complicated. You wouldn't understand; just trust me on this one", they came off my list of people interested in getting things done.
I stopped reading your rant when I got to " mindless masses", since that epitomizes the kind of unjustified arrogance that motivated my original post.
>> We need accurate terminology in order to have meaningful discussions about technological products. Dismissing new names for new technology as "jargon" is naive.
Techs do need an accurate vocabulary. But, people who buy that technology don't need to have someone prattle on about Bluetooh or 802.11 to find out if the bloody laptop will work in the backyard. Their goal is to read email. not learn about wireless protocols.
I didn't there's anything amiss with knowing what a gigabyte is. I just said you ought not to need to know to buy or use a computer. Will knowing make you a smarter consumer? Sure.
And I really do think it is arrogant for someone with speciaoized knowledge to expect others to share that knowledge, especially if he lacks the patience to explain himself.
Beats me what you might try, except to go for shorter paragraphs.
I'm not arguing that you need to be overly simplistic, or dumb it down, just explain things using a vocabulary that others can understand. Jargon is just shorthand; it encompasses a range of knowledge into one word or phrase. Dropping the jargon doesn't mean dumbing down, it just means taking the long way around, using a vocabulary that is familiar to your audience.
After all, that's how we all need to learn something the first time you're exposed to it.
>> Why does my knowledge of computers, knowledge which I have gained through my own effort, for my own benefit, make me responsible for keeping other people informed?
Who said it does? This isn't a moral thing, you know. If you don't wanna help your dad understand what you're talking about, go ahead. My guess is it's your loss, not his. If you want people to understand you, you have to make an effort to be understood.
Nah, I'm not "justifying the stupidity" of the average person.
First, having acquired some expertise in one speciality or another is not a sign of intelligence. So, I reject your assertion that people who don't understand techspeak are stupud. Neither of us probably know much about how plant and harvest a successful crop of wheat. Does that make us stupid.
No, the problem is that too many techs don't have the patience, willingness or skills to explain what they're talking about to ordinary folks. So, if a tech has the arrogance to condemn other people as being stupid because they choose not to be an expert in his speciality, well...tht's the tech's problem.
Can't disagree that tech vocabulary is prone to change, perhaps to much, but I can't agree that I've heard much in the way of legitimate auto engineering lingo when I;ve subjected myself to an auto sales room. I suspect the typical auto salesperson knows little more about cars than the typical CompUSA salesperson knows about computers. Sales people know a great deal about people, sine that's what they work with. If you wanna find tech experts, look in a coding shop or in Ford's engineering shops.
Ranting aside, it is up to techs and geeks to explain what they're talking about to the rest of the world, not to snow folks with an avalanche of jargon and then get huffy when no one understands.
>> ...the biggest obstacle seems to be accurately communicating
That, amigo, is your problem, not theirs. Like it or not. If someone doesn't know what you mean when you say "scroll bar", it is up to you to explain it to them.
Then, they'll know.
>> Sure they should know what it is if they are BUYING a computer..just as a consumer should know what horsepower is when buying an automobile. The problem isn't that the vocabulary is too difficult, it's that people are too lazy to learn it.
Why would anyone need to know what a gigabyte is in order to buy a computer? People want to know if the thing will hold all their stuff. Techs ought to be able to answer that question without giving a condescending lecture about "gigabytes".
And, speaking about condescending, this epitomizes it:
The problem isn't that the vocabulary is too difficult, it's that people are too lazy to learn it.
Just more self-congratulatory ego jerking from people who pretend there "better" just because they know a little bit about a speciality,
>> A better idea would be to educate those who need to understand the vocabulary wouldn't it?
With respect, this is more than just a very bad idea. This is why real people think techs and geeks are arrogant dweebs who live on another planet.
The vocabulary is important to people inside the industry because it (usually) allows them to communicate quickly and precisely about matters that are important to them. These matters are not important to the rest of the world.
The vocabulary is not important to the people who consume what techs and geeks build. They have their own vocabulary. Since almost everyone in the world is neither a tech nor a geek, it might be wise for techs and geeks to start speaking something other than gibberish to the people who ensure their incomes.
For example, I'm sure that an entirely different vocabulary has grown up around automotive engineering during the last century. Do people who buy and drive cars need to learn that vocabulary in order to use an automobile? No. They know what is important to them, and if an auto maker fails to deliver that, regardless of what words are used to name or describe it, they'll sell few cars.
Ditto for tech stuff. People need to know "How many movies will fit on this drive?", not listen impatiently as someone explains what gigabyte means. Or, "If plug this wireless thing into my PC in the den, can I carry my laptop into the backyard and get on the Internet?", rather than listening to someone drone one about protocols. (The almost certain result of that one-sided converstation will be the real person's conclusion that the tech is unwilling to speak in understandable terms. Not unable, but unwilling.)
A much more serious example of a failure to communicate on the part of a specialized minority can be the medical profession. Doctors and caregivers put their patients' lives and health at risk if they don't communicate in a way that the patient understands.
Well. I certainly believe I own and have all rgihts to anything I make, and it has nothing to do with morality, sovereignty, or a divinity.
It's simple: If I make something, I own it. (Since it didn't exist before I made it, it is impossible for anyone but myself to own it.) If I own it, I decide who gets to use it, and how they use it. That includes making and using copies. If I don't want to let anyone, ever, make any copies, that's within my rights. If I want to sell some of those rights to a publisher or a record company so (only) they can make and market copies, that's within my rights.
Since I made it in the first place, no one else can do anything with it unless I authorize it.
I don't think the RIAA is going to waste time and money going after individual downloaders. They want to put the folks who run "wholesale" servers out of business. They expect the ripple effect to work in their favor.
As for the clips, I really doubt the courts will ever rule that fair use encompasses making a copy of an entire work available without permission, even if a number of people break the work into small pieces for re-assembly on the other end. The clear purpose would be to evade the intent of the law by exploiting a "loophole", one that would be closed quickly.
The courts have traditionally considered the impact on the potential market or value of the original when determining if a copy is fair use. In this case, the use of thumbnails isn't likely to reduce the value or market potential of Mr. Kelly's photos. (Enhance the market potential, if anything.)
So, if all other points are moot, if someone convinces a court that thumbnails hurt his sales (or that music snippets hurt their CD sales), the court could consistently rule that it isn't fair use.