You can never be a SciFi writer with that type of attitude. Hell, for that matter you could never be a journalist in the U.S. The only options available for anything labelled new are:
Will try to kill you.
Source of new profit.
Becomes sink for time by forcing to post meaningless opinion instead wasting the beatiful day outside.
1 - price trumps style The only reason to lower your price-point is to increase market penetration or that higher volume more than makes up for the price-difference. I doubt that either of those is going to happen, as the volume has been pretty consistent for the last 5 years or so (~3%) with gains occurring slowly.
Dell gets away with lower price-point because they aren't developing major software, and they have their suppliers by the balls.
2-Make 'em cool and cheap That's way the iPod has only penetrated 40% of the market? This reminds me of all of the ugly-ass laptops that followed the Apple laptops, where all of the cool design stopped at the meaningless plastic add-ons on the case.
With apple you do pay more, but you pay for value.
3-Ditch the all-in-one mantra I agree that the iMac may not be the hottest seller in the world, but I think that its just crazy to suggest that this has somehing to do with the all-in-one mantra. I mean, Apple BROUGHT BACK the eMac, which I am assuming is still selling strong.
The reason IMHO for poor iMac sales are that they don't really fit into any niche. Its like a high-powered laptop without the capabilities of a laptop, or all thepower of the desktop machines. However, their footprint is nice. 200K units/quarter, though, isn't bad for a machine that hasn't seem major upgrades.
I think that sales in all-in-ones will continue to wane, however, as it becomes more attractive for scales to by inexpensive iBook's.
4-Sell that soap WTF? Awesome, just throw away money. Its more than a bit insulting to anyone who needs to use a M$ box, as well, or who wants/needs a separate Linux box?
5-Sell that soap II If you don't know the advantage of buying the Xserve's you probably shouldn't be buying one. I'm not exactly sure what type of "tests" you would be running, as installing a pseudo-server is a major endeavor/commitment.
6-Sell security I think that 95% of the posts already allude to this.
I can't believe I read this. I can't believe I wasted my time writing this.
Only read Wired on-line. I think that its one of the most interesting pieces of consistent on-line journalism. Their print magazine, however, makes Cosmo and Esquire look informative.
I'm not exactly sure where all of the anti-union bias comes from. Screenwriters and actors have a union, and they are also well-paid (most of the time) and creative people.
I also think that the argument that we can negotiate our own contracts is equally naive. Sure, there are some that can, but I wouldn't say that social skills and negotiation are well-known geek skills outside of MMRPGs.
The only disadvantage of unions, as was eluded to earlier was the whole factor of diverse employment. However, that doesn't bar places like MS, Apple, Sun, Adobe, IBM, etc., etc., from joining unions. This doesn't mean people sit on their buts while unions continually strike, but it does mean you have someone negotiating your benefits and work week for you, collectively, as well as a network of peers.
There initial list of features are nice, but dynamic loading, and shaky introspection are the two big things that really frustrate me about the C++ base. I would assume this was for reasons of efficiency, but I see no mention of this on their link.
Their design process is entirely different from ours. They spend a huge amount of time perfecting a design up-front, testing it in computer simulations to make sure it won't fall apart under load, building a prototype and destructively testing it, etc. Then they spend another significant amount of time figuring out exactly how best to build the product efficiently. THEN AND ONLY THEN do they actually start building the product.
This is why software engineers tend to write good code and coders write flaky crap. When you write code you shouldn't implement a damn thing until your base objects/functions/algorithms have been thoroughly tested. Additionally, you shouldn't even start that until you've spent as much time designing as coding. If I don't spend that time designing it I end up spending about twice as much overall time fixing it.
The other point that you missed is that engineers (as well as artists, designers, etc.) do a significant amount of design iteration and prototyping prior to implementing the entire system. Of course you will change small things along the way, but you have a roadmap of where you are going.
But, you are right, coders just jump right in without thinking too much (I know, I've done it), either due to inexperience or bad aptitude (it certainly doesn't save any time).
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasio route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
You talk about violation of international law, of which the US sits on the security council of (and by whom it was voted their war was not allowed), and then you imply that this international law isn't binding.
Please tell me, exactly how does one violate international law, if the laws of the international community one belongs to aren't binding?
I must agree with this post. If there is no one in a position of technical expertise (or understanding) it is VERY dangerous to use contract work, thus being sold a bunch of crap which will have continual problems or being ridiculously over-billed. You NEED someone in your organization who at least understands well enough what is not known in order to competently hire a contractor.
I have seen this in private sector as well, but I think there is a damn good reason why military contracts are lucrative, and I think this explains the point, well.
Slashdot Mirror
1 - price trumps style
The only reason to lower your price-point is to increase market penetration or that higher volume more than makes up for the price-difference. I doubt that either of those is going to happen, as the volume has been pretty consistent for the last 5 years or so (~3%) with gains occurring slowly.
Dell gets away with lower price-point because they aren't developing major software, and they have their suppliers by the balls.
2-Make 'em cool and cheap
That's way the iPod has only penetrated 40% of the market? This reminds me of all of the ugly-ass laptops that followed the Apple laptops, where all of the cool design stopped at the meaningless plastic add-ons on the case.
With apple you do pay more, but you pay for value.
3-Ditch the all-in-one mantra
I agree that the iMac may not be the hottest seller in the world, but I think that its just crazy to suggest that this has somehing to do with the all-in-one mantra. I mean, Apple BROUGHT BACK the eMac, which I am assuming is still selling strong.
The reason IMHO for poor iMac sales are that they don't really fit into any niche. Its like a high-powered laptop without the capabilities of a laptop, or all thepower of the desktop machines. However, their footprint is nice. 200K units/quarter, though, isn't bad for a machine that hasn't seem major upgrades.
I think that sales in all-in-ones will continue to wane, however, as it becomes more attractive for scales to by inexpensive iBook's.
4-Sell that soap
WTF? Awesome, just throw away money. Its more than a bit insulting to anyone who needs to use a M$ box, as well, or who wants/needs a separate Linux box?
5-Sell that soap II
If you don't know the advantage of buying the Xserve's you probably shouldn't be buying one. I'm not exactly sure what type of "tests" you would be running, as installing a pseudo-server is a major endeavor/commitment.
6-Sell security
I think that 95% of the posts already allude to this.
I can't believe I read this. I can't believe I wasted my time writing this.
"Those customers, they're smart, and they're costing us money."
Wasn't the market segment Dogbert was going for the stupid and rich? I pity the fool who has to sell things to the smart and frugal.
In other news 50% of the cars sold in the U.S. are SUV's.
Only read Wired on-line. I think that its one of the most interesting pieces of consistent on-line journalism. Their print magazine, however, makes Cosmo and Esquire look informative.
I had mod-points, but I couldn't find "blasphemer".
I'm not exactly sure where all of the anti-union bias comes from. Screenwriters and actors have a union, and they are also well-paid (most of the time) and creative people.
I also think that the argument that we can negotiate our own contracts is equally naive. Sure, there are some that can, but I wouldn't say that social skills and negotiation are well-known geek skills outside of MMRPGs.
The only disadvantage of unions, as was eluded to earlier was the whole factor of diverse employment. However, that doesn't bar places like MS, Apple, Sun, Adobe, IBM, etc., etc., from joining unions. This doesn't mean people sit on their buts while unions continually strike, but it does mean you have someone negotiating your benefits and work week for you, collectively, as well as a network of peers.
There initial list of features are nice, but dynamic loading, and shaky introspection are the two big things that really frustrate me about the C++ base. I would assume this was for reasons of efficiency, but I see no mention of this on their link.
Their design process is entirely different from ours. They spend a huge amount of time perfecting a design up-front, testing it in computer simulations to make sure it won't fall apart under load, building a prototype and destructively testing it, etc. Then they spend another significant amount of time figuring out exactly how best to build the product efficiently. THEN AND ONLY THEN do they actually start building the product.
This is why software engineers tend to write good code and coders write flaky crap. When you write code you shouldn't implement a damn thing until your base objects/functions/algorithms have been thoroughly tested. Additionally, you shouldn't even start that until you've spent as much time designing as coding. If I don't spend that time designing it I end up spending about twice as much overall time fixing it.
The other point that you missed is that engineers (as well as artists, designers, etc.) do a significant amount of design iteration and prototyping prior to implementing the entire system. Of course you will change small things along the way, but you have a roadmap of where you are going.
But, you are right, coders just jump right in without thinking too much (I know, I've done it), either due to inexperience or bad aptitude (it certainly doesn't save any time).
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasio route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
That's farout.
You talk about violation of international law, of which the US sits on the security council of (and by whom it was voted their war was not allowed), and then you imply that this international law isn't binding.
Please tell me, exactly how does one violate international law, if the laws of the international community one belongs to aren't binding?
I must agree with this post. If there is no one in a position of technical expertise (or understanding) it is VERY dangerous to use contract work, thus being sold a bunch of crap which will have continual problems or being ridiculously over-billed. You NEED someone in your organization who at least understands well enough what is not known in order to competently hire a contractor.
I have seen this in private sector as well, but I think there is a damn good reason why military contracts are lucrative, and I think this explains the point, well.