I don't want to worry too much about loosing a pen...though having a few good spares is quite useful. For the last few years, I've settled on
this Zebra ball point pen.
The mechanism is reliable, it is firm and compact, it writes cleanly for a ball point, and the ink is visible through the cartridge just in case I'm interested. As a bonus, few people I know use this model pen so it's easy to spot mine.
Simple. The label can say USB 2.0 only if it also lists the sustained data rate for the device. The USB 2.0 gets mentioned, though the data rate does not...leading to me having to do quite a bit of extra leg work when looking at any device.
There's no real false advertising here; just an assumption on the part of consumer.
BS. This is the same attitude I was given when I built my first PC from parts. ("Gee, you didn't ask for a full-speed drive controller just a full speed drive!") It was dishonest then -- or at a minimum arrogant snobbery -- and this is no different.
IMO, the only clearcut measure is whether the standard is met, and it seems to be.
Yet, that's not really what was promoted, was it? USB 2 at USB 1 plus a little isn't what is being sold.
*Why* does the person buying the device have the responsibility to jump through a few dozen labyrinthine questions on all technical details when the chance that the sale/tech on the other end also thinks that what the device does what it says it does...when in fact it doesn't?
Would you feel OK holding on to a can of RC Cola? How about a Vernors? Celray?
Only heard of the first. But yes, I 'd be fine hold a can.
The other two are regional. Celray is a celery -- as in the cruncy stringy vegetable -- soda. Would you drink one? Would you try? Feel free to offer it to friends?
What's your point?
Good. Now, walk around and look to see how many of you there are.
Sony's a cool, cold, heartless, omni-mega corporation.
...like other omni-mega corporations or even corporations. Companies never do anything unless it benifits the company. If they did otherwise, they would bleed money and eventually go out of business. This includes charity work and support of open source where they are not the primary driver. (Example: Microsoft's support of Perl (that they ship), and use of Python and parts of BSD components in different products.)
Since when was a massive omni-mega corp ever cool?
Coke. Pepsi. A multitude of alcohol and tobacco companies. RIAA member companies. In the/. crowd, IBM to some respect.
I agree with your main point, though the cardinal rule for marketing is "Whatever we aren't make people think we are". This is largely effective -- so much so that I automatically think the opposite when seeing an advertisement just to get some idea of what the facts might be.
Coke and Pepsi are carbonated beverages with flavoring additives and sweetners. If you drink a Vernors/RC Cola/Dr Brown's Celray, most people will think "WTF is that?". If you drink Diet Pepsi the same people will think...well, nothing.
What shows more character? Well, neither or if you want a soda one of the non-Pepsi/Coke choices though they are harder or near impossible to come by outside of specific geographic areas.
Full disclosure: I buy a few gallons of diet Coke and Pepsi a week. Haven't had a Celray ever, though one friend swears by them.
He did. He was in university when it happened. And besides, in all it's horribleness, it was probably a good thing for humanity he did, since he didn't really start to take an interest in his studies until after he became ill.
*smacks head with palm of hand* So that's why the company I'm working with now keeps crippling every good project and picking the worst possible tools! Here I was thinking they were just morons!
Today, I'm going in and erasing random files on the servers...who knows what amazing things will happen! Maybe I'll get a better contract?
I'd like to know that Microsoft is planning for the future. Let's be serious though; lack of DirectX 9 compatable hardware isn't what has kept them from adding capabilities to the API for both the user and the developers over the years. The enhancements there will be eye candy. The only thing that looks interesting is the improvements to the file system. If only MS Office uses them, that would be a shame.
Gnome and KDE on X and MacOS are constantly adding new features. Some get used, some don't. Some are catch up, but vanishingly few.
Come now. Windows has shipped with a standard widget toolkit since its very first version, yet it has definately evolved since then.
Yes, though enhancements show up much more slowly in Windows. Except for the icon and interface whitewash with XP, it's not much different from what was shipping with Windows 3x.
To drive this point home: I've been showing off Linux at work using Knoppix and a USB pen and have had people astounded...to the point I'm starting to temper thier expectations. Simple things like tabs, and complex things such as ioslaves (with a real world example) leave them saying Microsoft doesn't stand a chance against Linux. Well, that's too much enthusiasm but I hope this gets the point across;
Windows itself has improved the base widget set, though most Windows apps still look like they were designed for Windows 95 and very few of these new widgets are used there.
If you weren't keeping to 40 hours, I'd say "Leave...and sell a version of the same thing to other similar companies." Hell, I'll say it anyway. It's a good thing that you can do your job within the 40 hours, so adding a similar project on the side might be possible.
That said, here's the other half; I have some pet projects that I'm working on that get enthusiastic responses from just about everyone...till it's time to implement them across the whole company. Then, nobody want's to change a thing or *iss off other divisions.
Many times people have said; "Wow! Ever think of selling that?" I hadn't at the time. I am now.
Understand neither you nor I should think technical skill equals business knowledge. It can, though it is usually not the case.
They're a commercial company, it's in their interests to kill off old products as people aren't going to buy your new ones.
That's a core motivation that drives many commercial products. This differs from many though not all open source projects. The open source projects with a heavy commercial influence will also have that as a major motivation (if not the primary one).
Every company has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise their support departments will have to keep on growing, eating away at profits.
While this is true, and sometimes it is a benifit to me as a user, it isn't usually the case.
Other differences between commercial and largely (if not mostly) non-commercial open source projects include;
Interoperability: With a product that is designed from a single commercial provider, compatability is usually one-way; allow migration to the product but disuade migration from it.
Transparency vs. Marketing (Retsin): By design, open source projects allow anyone to see anything...so no mystery. With a commercial product, the motivation is to show how special the product is...so special terms are invented to promote a sense of mystery (ex: The long-touted Retsin in Certs candy is actually vegtable oil. Without manditory labling laws, this would remain a mystery). Point: Open source is roughly equivelent to a label on a box of food; without it, you can't tell what you're eating.
Keep in mind that I'm *not* saying commercial = evil, only that this base motivation is built-in to commercial software products. I'm sure others could either add to this list or provide an example where open source has a generally negitive motivational structure. Off hand, I can't think of any.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these are the telemarketers who've called you? Even once?
So, just because someone is a telemarketer it's up to me to see if they are indeed the specific telemarketer calling me? How?
The blanked out phone number on my caller ID?
The meandering response when asked flatly who they are?
The unresponsiveness when asked to not call?
The repeated phone calls for the same types of 'services'?
Now, even if one telemarketer did put me on their do not call list, should I spend time and effort to track that one and all the others, only to have them say "Sorry" if they are caught later?
Before you respond...yes, I've been using the legal phrase. Due to telemarketers, I haven't used my answering machine in months because of the number of messages they are starting to leave. My answering machine says call my cell or email me. When I get home, I delete the messages without listening.
Telemarketers and muggers -- if I'm harmed by one, why be nice to the others? Just because they didn't personally target me this time?
Whoa, pally--for some of "us" (as in, people who read slashdot), it's NOT about a principle. At all. It's totally, entirely, wholly about money. And is that bad?... That's about the money, BTW, because time is money. GNU/Linux is a cheaper, better alternative to MS, and that's why we use it.
Agreed. The no-licence cost factor is a big deal. It is the nose of the camel.
That I've been able to set up 2 demo web applications quickly including custimzation Bugzilla and Twiki) has made an impact. The expectation was that in licencing alone each would cost thousands to tens of thousands.
Along the way, pointing out that Ant/Tomcat/Apache and a host of other core tools already at this company are open source as well only increases the profile of open source itself. The philosophy and the core practical benifits of standards and open source are critially important -- though the money is the sugar in the message.
If you smiled, you probably get it and can skip the next paragraph.
Data has to first be organized in a meaningful way; how it is displayed -- 3D, 2D, a list,... -- is output not content. Get angry; In 0.21 seconds Google! can find just about anything on the planet, yet the local network or the computer in front of you may take hours of effort and asking people to pull out the one important detail you need at the moment. Personally, I've spent months attempting to get basic documentation on systems I'm working on...not because it doesn't exist, but because nobody knows where it is!
Here are five ways to organize and retrieve data using computers;
Manual; you put the data in one place and the computer holds it for you till you need it next.
Search; you organize the data and run a query on a specific subset of all the data.
Virtual; you run a query and save the specific query off as if it were the real thing (like Evolution's VFolder).
Ad-hoc query; Do not spend much time to organize the data but spend more time on the query (like a search engine or Google!'s appliance).
Automatic: Do not spend any time organizing or searching; specific data is already organized.
Right now, file systems are handled by manual and basic search tools. (Minor frustration: Why doesn't Windows by default have something like the unix-style 'find -amin or -cmin'? Is it the tools or the file system?)
The next step should be system-wide VFolders and unlimited Ad-hoc queries. To be truely valuable, the results should show up as real and potentially persistant objects not as fake tool-specific or GUI-only results.
Unfortunately, in the name of 'ease of use' the Automatic structure that is tool-specific will probably become dominate in both Windows and MacOS...leading to more data being ignored and eventually lost.
Gnome and KDE developers are moving in the right direction with virtual file systems (VFS, ioslave) though the device concept is specific to the UI or the supporting libraries and has no reality at the file or device level.
It only appears so because Microsoft's is found on practically every desktop and on the majority of server computer too.
Microsurfs repeat this myth a lot. Is it true? Does WinXX have more viruses and stability problems because it is on "practically every desktop and server"?
While I don't agree with the 'Microserfs' designation (too divisive and possibly misspelled), the AC has a point...yet, folks aren't learning it.
Slashdot Mirror
A service like Google! 10-15 years ago would cost thousands of dollars a year if not a month. Now, that's progress.
"Sobe yourself" is the slogan.
The mechanism is reliable, it is firm and compact, it writes cleanly for a ball point, and the ink is visible through the cartridge just in case I'm interested. As a bonus, few people I know use this model pen so it's easy to spot mine.
Simple. The label can say USB 2.0 only if it also lists the sustained data rate for the device. The USB 2.0 gets mentioned, though the data rate does not...leading to me having to do quite a bit of extra leg work when looking at any device.
BS. This is the same attitude I was given when I built my first PC from parts. ("Gee, you didn't ask for a full-speed drive controller just a full speed drive!") It was dishonest then -- or at a minimum arrogant snobbery -- and this is no different.
IMO, the only clearcut measure is whether the standard is met, and it seems to be.
Yet, that's not really what was promoted, was it? USB 2 at USB 1 plus a little isn't what is being sold.
*Why* does the person buying the device have the responsibility to jump through a few dozen labyrinthine questions on all technical details when the chance that the sale/tech on the other end also thinks that what the device does what it says it does...when in fact it doesn't?
Sobe has a nice marketing campaign. Tasty too.
The other two are regional. Celray is a celery -- as in the cruncy stringy vegetable -- soda. Would you drink one? Would you try? Feel free to offer it to friends?
Good. Now, walk around and look to see how many of you there are.
Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?
Do you drink cola or soda/pop, and if you do what national or multi-national marketing effort does it have?
Would you feel OK holding on to a can of RC Cola? How about a Vernors? Celray?
Where did that 'street cred' come from anyway?
...like other omni-mega corporations or even corporations. Companies never do anything unless it benifits the company. If they did otherwise, they would bleed money and eventually go out of business. This includes charity work and support of open source where they are not the primary driver. (Example: Microsoft's support of Perl (that they ship), and use of Python and parts of BSD components in different products.)
Coke. Pepsi. A multitude of alcohol and tobacco companies. RIAA member companies. In the /. crowd, IBM to some respect.
I agree with your main point, though the cardinal rule for marketing is "Whatever we aren't make people think we are". This is largely effective -- so much so that I automatically think the opposite when seeing an advertisement just to get some idea of what the facts might be.
Coke and Pepsi are carbonated beverages with flavoring additives and sweetners. If you drink a Vernors/RC Cola/Dr Brown's Celray, most people will think "WTF is that?". If you drink Diet Pepsi the same people will think...well, nothing.
What shows more character? Well, neither or if you want a soda one of the non-Pepsi/Coke choices though they are harder or near impossible to come by outside of specific geographic areas.
Full disclosure: I buy a few gallons of diet Coke and Pepsi a week. Haven't had a Celray ever, though one friend swears by them.
*smacks head with palm of hand* So that's why the company I'm working with now keeps crippling every good project and picking the worst possible tools! Here I was thinking they were just morons!
Today, I'm going in and erasing random files on the servers...who knows what amazing things will happen! Maybe I'll get a better contract?
The ratio is 1 out of 5. The catch is that it's not always the same people.
(Today I lost 1/2 my credits in Vendetta attempting to get to hidden sector 18.)
Gnome and KDE on X and MacOS are constantly adding new features. Some get used, some don't. Some are catch up, but vanishingly few.
Thanks for the extra details. I agree.
Yes, though enhancements show up much more slowly in Windows. Except for the icon and interface whitewash with XP, it's not much different from what was shipping with Windows 3x.
To drive this point home: I've been showing off Linux at work using Knoppix and a USB pen and have had people astounded...to the point I'm starting to temper thier expectations. Simple things like tabs, and complex things such as ioslaves (with a real world example) leave them saying Microsoft doesn't stand a chance against Linux. Well, that's too much enthusiasm but I hope this gets the point across;
Windows itself has improved the base widget set, though most Windows apps still look like they were designed for Windows 95 and very few of these new widgets are used there.
That said, here's the other half; I have some pet projects that I'm working on that get enthusiastic responses from just about everyone...till it's time to implement them across the whole company. Then, nobody want's to change a thing or *iss off other divisions.
Many times people have said; "Wow! Ever think of selling that?" I hadn't at the time. I am now.
Understand neither you nor I should think technical skill equals business knowledge. It can, though it is usually not the case.
Run, coward! ARAHAHHH!
That's a core motivation that drives many commercial products. This differs from many though not all open source projects. The open source projects with a heavy commercial influence will also have that as a major motivation (if not the primary one).
Every company has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise their support departments will have to keep on growing, eating away at profits.
While this is true, and sometimes it is a benifit to me as a user, it isn't usually the case.
Other differences between commercial and largely (if not mostly) non-commercial open source projects include;
Keep in mind that I'm *not* saying commercial = evil, only that this base motivation is built-in to commercial software products. I'm sure others could either add to this list or provide an example where open source has a generally negitive motivational structure. Off hand, I can't think of any.
It looks like they are (judging from the follow on comments).
People who fear for thier jobs are not reasonable.
So, just because someone is a telemarketer it's up to me to see if they are indeed the specific telemarketer calling me? How?
The blanked out phone number on my caller ID?
The meandering response when asked flatly who they are?
The unresponsiveness when asked to not call?
The repeated phone calls for the same types of 'services'?
Now, even if one telemarketer did put me on their do not call list, should I spend time and effort to track that one and all the others, only to have them say "Sorry" if they are caught later?
Before you respond...yes, I've been using the legal phrase. Due to telemarketers, I haven't used my answering machine in months because of the number of messages they are starting to leave. My answering machine says call my cell or email me. When I get home, I delete the messages without listening.
Telemarketers and muggers -- if I'm harmed by one, why be nice to the others? Just because they didn't personally target me this time?
Agreed. The no-licence cost factor is a big deal. It is the nose of the camel.
That I've been able to set up 2 demo web applications quickly including custimzation Bugzilla and Twiki) has made an impact. The expectation was that in licencing alone each would cost thousands to tens of thousands.
Along the way, pointing out that Ant/Tomcat/Apache and a host of other core tools already at this company are open source as well only increases the profile of open source itself. The philosophy and the core practical benifits of standards and open source are critially important -- though the money is the sugar in the message.
Data has to first be organized in a meaningful way; how it is displayed -- 3D, 2D, a list, ... -- is output not content. Get angry; In 0.21 seconds Google! can find just about anything on the planet, yet the local network or the computer in front of you may take hours of effort and asking people to pull out the one important detail you need at the moment. Personally, I've spent months attempting to get basic documentation on systems I'm working on...not because it doesn't exist, but because nobody knows where it is!
Here are five ways to organize and retrieve data using computers;
Right now, file systems are handled by manual and basic search tools. (Minor frustration: Why doesn't Windows by default have something like the unix-style 'find -amin or -cmin'? Is it the tools or the file system?)
The next step should be system-wide VFolders and unlimited Ad-hoc queries. To be truely valuable, the results should show up as real and potentially persistant objects not as fake tool-specific or GUI-only results.
Unfortunately, in the name of 'ease of use' the Automatic structure that is tool-specific will probably become dominate in both Windows and MacOS...leading to more data being ignored and eventually lost.
Gnome and KDE developers are moving in the right direction with virtual file systems (VFS, ioslave) though the device concept is specific to the UI or the supporting libraries and has no reality at the file or device level.
Microsurfs repeat this myth a lot. Is it true? Does WinXX have more viruses and stability problems because it is on "practically every desktop and server"?
While I don't agree with the 'Microserfs' designation (too divisive and possibly misspelled), the AC has a point...yet, folks aren't learning it.