I'm not arguing against the need for a policy here - what I am arguing is that the best environment is one in which people feel free to express when they're unhappy or offended. You're right about strong personalities - and it takes a strong personality to establish and maintain this sort of environment. I would take it any day over one so strictly guided by policy that any potential issue has to be reviewed by somebody in HR. We are not automatons who's every action can be guided by a policy. We are going to establish interpersonal relationships and friendships with the people we work around. Hell, we're going to like some coworkers better than others. You can't dictate that by policy. You can't expect people to have good social skills when they aren't allowed to practice and develop them.
I certainly agree that there are plenty of ways to interact that don't involve jabs and innuendo, but it's simply not possible to classify every interaction as acceptable and unacceptable. But, we aren't talking about the policy here - we're talking about creating a healthy working environment here. While the policy is the baseline (and legal foundation), where the rubber hits the road is how the team leaders encourage communication.
Agreed a thousand times... We're trading in humor and lighthearted jabs because they might offend somebody? If one person in a group is offended by a joke - what type of culture is going to engender more respect amongst the team: The offended person saying "hey, that's too far" or heading off to file an official complaint? In the first case *both* parties gain a better understanding of each other. The latter case just leads to further alienation.
It sounds like the submitter's team is already a place where lighthearted banter is commonplace and I don't think for a second that should change for a new member to the team. It doesn't matter if the new team member is a different gender, race, or creed. The existing team needs to be aware that some jabs might need to change a bit, and the new team member needs it made clear that they should speak up if any jokes make them uncomfortable. As much as we try to codify everything into some sort of policy - nothing works better than open communication.
Except that buckyballs weren't marketed to young children (the packaging says "14 years or older"). They were marketed to adults and teenagers. On top of that, TFA doesn't mention any reports of deaths.
There are so many more dangerous things around the average household that it is simply baffling that there would be a ban on these.
Therein lies the challenge of vanilla raids - in a society composed of 50% dipsticks, the odds of a random sampling of fifty people being complete non-dipsticks is what... (1/2)^50? I get 8.88e-16...
I think most of the difficulty in vanilla WoW raids came from the forty man requirement. Leading and maintaining a group of that size is a far greater challenge than mastering the mechanics of any given fight.
...Oddly enough, that's what I miss most about vanilla WoW.
Since when was it about needs? We're talking smart phones here: it's always wants.
That said, with small screen smartphones relegated to the midrange they start cutting things out. The HTC One V cuts out a digital compass (I hike and bike, so that is one thing that I want...). The Xperia Sola cuts out a front-mounted video camera. The Galaxy Ace has very limited bandwidth ranges. Few of them have a solid metal unibody construction (and those that do cut corners to cut costs to bring them down to the midrange).
Trust me, I've done quite a bit of reading lately into the matter. I could get everything I want in a big screened phone, but then I have to carry around a big screened phone.
The only limitation of a small phone is the requisite small screen. I don't see the small screen as being a limitation. For example, you have the iPhone 4s with a somewhat small screen and form factor - where is the corresponding Android device? All the top end Android devices have huge screens, all of the smaller screened devices have some handicap or another in order to get into the midrange price bracket.
You're kind of a glass half empty guy, aren't you? You're right, there absolutely is threat of legal action in that letter; however, there absolutely is a *strong* case for trademark infringement in the book label. It is absolutely reasonable to assume somebody perusing the bookstore would see it and think it is endorsed or otherwise branded by Jack Daniels. We aren't simply talking squiggly white lines on a black background here - the book cover is a pretty obvious copy of the label - not just an artist who was inspired by the same "old tymey style"
So, why are we all excited about this letter? It's not because we like Jack Daniel's. It's because they have an open and shut case to push an immediate cease and desist and practically shut down publication of the book - but they aren't. They are playing nice in exactly the way we wish more companies would - saying "yeah, this is a problem, but just change it for the next run and we're cool, ok?"
What exactly would you want Jack Daniel's to do about it? Ignore it? OK, what about the next guy selling t-shirts copying their logo with some different words in there? The guy selling his energy drink? The guy selling his Tallahassee Whiskey with the same logo? By the time you say "OK, that crossed the line" there is enough prior art out there to show that Jack Daniel's simply allows everybody to use their branding.
You want to make some art? Great, but design it yourself - don't trace the outlines of an existing product label to do it.
Except there is no reason you can't put a V-8 diesel into an F-150, and the F-150 is already too big!
Point is, some people like big screens and big phones and I can respect that. I like a small phone, and I found the market did not present me with a great deal of choice.
Most folks looking for a smaller screen are not going to complain much about a mm or two extra thickness. You feel the extra cm of a big screened phone in your pocket, but not so much the thickness. Marketing guys obsess over thickness which is what costs us some of that battery life. The users, within reason, don't so much care about it.
Overstating on both ends here... Comfort certainly is relative, but I can understand where your parent poster is coming from - Shoving a 4" phone in my pocket isn't too bad *until* I start doing things like hiking, biking, or anything that is going to require a great deal of hip bending. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a big smartphone - just means that they don't meet *my* requirements.
I tend to disagree. Right now if you want a phone with a screen smaller than 4" (3.5 is what I'd prefer) - you may have options, but they don't include the fastest processors. That was exactly my complaint when I went shopping for my newest phone: there were few options for a "flagship" level smartphone that had a smaller form factor outside of the iPhone. Basically meaning your wallet vote went toward something that wasn't exactly what you were after. I ended up with a Sony Xperia Sola even though I'm not a huge fan of Sony and would have preferred smaller than the 3.7" screen it's equipped with.
So.. Is the market filling the gaps? Tough to say - there seem to be plenty of people who want a top end phone in a less spacious package that aren't getting it. It's possible there aren't enough of us, but then how would the manufacturers know if we don't talk about it?
Similar boat here - I was very close to purchasing a Ray - but ended up going with the new Xperia Sola. Tradeoff for me was 1/2 cm in width against a more modern dual-core processor and slightly broader bandwidth support (850 and 900 MHz vs just 850). Sure, I would have preferred a 3.5" screen, but no complaints yet.
Now to wait for T-Mobile to finish moving their 3G to 1900MHz in my town...
I'm with you mostly - but for one glaring exception: the god damned blister pack. Few people care about the packaging until it gets in the way of enjoying their purchase. If I need to get my tin snips out to get at my purchase, somebody (probably more than one somebody...) is doing something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not arguing against the need for a policy here - what I am arguing is that the best environment is one in which people feel free to express when they're unhappy or offended. You're right about strong personalities - and it takes a strong personality to establish and maintain this sort of environment. I would take it any day over one so strictly guided by policy that any potential issue has to be reviewed by somebody in HR. We are not automatons who's every action can be guided by a policy. We are going to establish interpersonal relationships and friendships with the people we work around. Hell, we're going to like some coworkers better than others. You can't dictate that by policy. You can't expect people to have good social skills when they aren't allowed to practice and develop them.
I certainly agree that there are plenty of ways to interact that don't involve jabs and innuendo, but it's simply not possible to classify every interaction as acceptable and unacceptable. But, we aren't talking about the policy here - we're talking about creating a healthy working environment here. While the policy is the baseline (and legal foundation), where the rubber hits the road is how the team leaders encourage communication.
Agreed a thousand times... We're trading in humor and lighthearted jabs because they might offend somebody? If one person in a group is offended by a joke - what type of culture is going to engender more respect amongst the team: The offended person saying "hey, that's too far" or heading off to file an official complaint? In the first case *both* parties gain a better understanding of each other. The latter case just leads to further alienation.
It sounds like the submitter's team is already a place where lighthearted banter is commonplace and I don't think for a second that should change for a new member to the team. It doesn't matter if the new team member is a different gender, race, or creed. The existing team needs to be aware that some jabs might need to change a bit, and the new team member needs it made clear that they should speak up if any jokes make them uncomfortable. As much as we try to codify everything into some sort of policy - nothing works better than open communication.
And ruin the joke?
At least they're using G+ for *something*, right?
...yes of course
*hangs head in shame*
Are you for real?
You know, 100% of injuries happen to people. If we ban people, we can finally save them from all those injuries!
That all depends on the type of crime. Did it involve buckyballs? LOCK HIM UP!!!!
Except that buckyballs weren't marketed to young children (the packaging says "14 years or older"). They were marketed to adults and teenagers. On top of that, TFA doesn't mention any reports of deaths.
There are so many more dangerous things around the average household that it is simply baffling that there would be a ban on these.
Therein lies the challenge of vanilla raids - in a society composed of 50% dipsticks, the odds of a random sampling of fifty people being complete non-dipsticks is what... (1/2)^50? I get 8.88e-16...
I think most of the difficulty in vanilla WoW raids came from the forty man requirement. Leading and maintaining a group of that size is a far greater challenge than mastering the mechanics of any given fight.
...Oddly enough, that's what I miss most about vanilla WoW.
Since when was it about needs? We're talking smart phones here: it's always wants.
That said, with small screen smartphones relegated to the midrange they start cutting things out. The HTC One V cuts out a digital compass (I hike and bike, so that is one thing that I want...). The Xperia Sola cuts out a front-mounted video camera. The Galaxy Ace has very limited bandwidth ranges. Few of them have a solid metal unibody construction (and those that do cut corners to cut costs to bring them down to the midrange).
Trust me, I've done quite a bit of reading lately into the matter. I could get everything I want in a big screened phone, but then I have to carry around a big screened phone.
This is an awful analogy :P
The only limitation of a small phone is the requisite small screen. I don't see the small screen as being a limitation. For example, you have the iPhone 4s with a somewhat small screen and form factor - where is the corresponding Android device? All the top end Android devices have huge screens, all of the smaller screened devices have some handicap or another in order to get into the midrange price bracket.
You're kind of a glass half empty guy, aren't you? You're right, there absolutely is threat of legal action in that letter; however, there absolutely is a *strong* case for trademark infringement in the book label. It is absolutely reasonable to assume somebody perusing the bookstore would see it and think it is endorsed or otherwise branded by Jack Daniels. We aren't simply talking squiggly white lines on a black background here - the book cover is a pretty obvious copy of the label - not just an artist who was inspired by the same "old tymey style"
So, why are we all excited about this letter? It's not because we like Jack Daniel's. It's because they have an open and shut case to push an immediate cease and desist and practically shut down publication of the book - but they aren't. They are playing nice in exactly the way we wish more companies would - saying "yeah, this is a problem, but just change it for the next run and we're cool, ok?"
What exactly would you want Jack Daniel's to do about it? Ignore it? OK, what about the next guy selling t-shirts copying their logo with some different words in there? The guy selling his energy drink? The guy selling his Tallahassee Whiskey with the same logo? By the time you say "OK, that crossed the line" there is enough prior art out there to show that Jack Daniel's simply allows everybody to use their branding.
You want to make some art? Great, but design it yourself - don't trace the outlines of an existing product label to do it.
Except there is no reason you can't put a V-8 diesel into an F-150, and the F-150 is already too big!
Point is, some people like big screens and big phones and I can respect that. I like a small phone, and I found the market did not present me with a great deal of choice.
For the love of god put them on a wrist strap or something!!
Most folks looking for a smaller screen are not going to complain much about a mm or two extra thickness. You feel the extra cm of a big screened phone in your pocket, but not so much the thickness. Marketing guys obsess over thickness which is what costs us some of that battery life. The users, within reason, don't so much care about it.
Overstating on both ends here... Comfort certainly is relative, but I can understand where your parent poster is coming from - Shoving a 4" phone in my pocket isn't too bad *until* I start doing things like hiking, biking, or anything that is going to require a great deal of hip bending. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a big smartphone - just means that they don't meet *my* requirements.
...don't have kids.
I tend to disagree. Right now if you want a phone with a screen smaller than 4" (3.5 is what I'd prefer) - you may have options, but they don't include the fastest processors. That was exactly my complaint when I went shopping for my newest phone: there were few options for a "flagship" level smartphone that had a smaller form factor outside of the iPhone. Basically meaning your wallet vote went toward something that wasn't exactly what you were after. I ended up with a Sony Xperia Sola even though I'm not a huge fan of Sony and would have preferred smaller than the 3.7" screen it's equipped with.
So.. Is the market filling the gaps? Tough to say - there seem to be plenty of people who want a top end phone in a less spacious package that aren't getting it. It's possible there aren't enough of us, but then how would the manufacturers know if we don't talk about it?
Similar boat here - I was very close to purchasing a Ray - but ended up going with the new Xperia Sola. Tradeoff for me was 1/2 cm in width against a more modern dual-core processor and slightly broader bandwidth support (850 and 900 MHz vs just 850). Sure, I would have preferred a 3.5" screen, but no complaints yet.
Now to wait for T-Mobile to finish moving their 3G to 1900MHz in my town...
Breath deep while you do it.
Yeah, thanks for getting my hopes up. No really, I *wanted* another scarf this year instead of an iPad. Jerks.
I'm with you mostly - but for one glaring exception: the god damned blister pack. Few people care about the packaging until it gets in the way of enjoying their purchase. If I need to get my tin snips out to get at my purchase, somebody (probably more than one somebody...) is doing something wrong.
It's cool, he's only a dick on the internet.