It seems like this feeling is most prevalent in nerdy computerish types, or "early adopters" of technology. You know, people who might not have spectacular social skills to begin with (myself included). I have an ok social life, but you know what? I like SEEING my friends, and when I see them, I like to have something to talk about. My mom talks about "catching up" with her friends. What's to "catch up" with when people blog/IM/SMS/E-Mail every time they take a rumpledumpskin?
This college girl who lives across the street from me has a cellphone that seems to be permanently attached to the side of her head. I go to the grocery store and see half a dozen people walking the aisles yapping away about weekend get-togethers and kids' soccer games. I'm always wondering WTF these people did 10 or 11 years ago when cellphones were strictly for businessmen and gadget nerds? How did they get by when the Internet was just a toy that computer geeks played with in their parent's basement? Somehow they managed to survive.
Sure, I'm on MSN, I have a cellphone, I'm on facebook, etc, but most of the time I'm marked as away, the phone is off, and I'm not logged in. If I want to spend time with someone, I'll invite them out for a coffee or something. I can remember a time when the sort of behavior I'm talking about was pretty normal, but now it's almost considered anti-social to not be interested in hearing about every cough, sneeze, and fart in the lives of anyone you've ever met.
So you don't have time for a "science experiment", but you see no problem with letting Microsoft engineers/developers/designers have a big bloaty, sketchy, resource-consuming wank-fest on your desktop?
Seriously though, it's that "look what I can do!" factor that turns me off of using Windows for anything important. Anyone remember Dr.Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park?
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD."
I, for one, find that Windows is loaded to the teeth with things that bring this quote to mind. I'm not saying Linux or OSX is perfect, but I tend to get a lot more work done with a lot less fighting using either of those.
Personally, I'd love a subnotebook sized system, you know, something like 10-12" LCD, weighs about 2 lbs, has a battery life of 8+ hours. Believe it or not, my 15" G4 TiBook with it's 3-4 hour battery life seems large and bulky a lot of the time, and I feel needs to be recharged way too often. Do I really need 15+ inches of real estate on my laptop screen for anything? I'm looking at the MacBooks now, and still find myself asking "13 inches of screen? That's the smallest they have?". What does anyone need a 17" screen on a notebook for? Are they all doing high-res graphics manipulation? How many people are still running at 800x600 on a 17" screen because it makes everything "look bigger"? Doesn't a 15+ inch screen sort of defeat the purpose of a "portable" computer? I mean, technically a 47-pound G3 fruit-flavored iMac is "portable" because it's one piece and has a handle.
Anyways, here's my bold prediction: a few companies like this one will take a gamble on subnotebooks. They'll sell them for outrageous prices, then, when they go over like a lead zeppelin and they're all forced into bankruptcy or buyouts, they'll declare that there is "no demand" for subnotebook computers and we won't hear about them again for a long time.
The North American consumer generally believes that bigger is better. Although this attitude is changing slowly, people will still be floored when a subnotebook with limited features costs almost twice what a 17" behemoth that plays movies, runs all their programs, walks the dog, and makes breakfast would.
Ok, so we generate some staggering amount of computerized data every year. This is one of those stories where I can't remember hearing about it before, but it really doesn't feel like "news".
My question is how much of this data is actually being used? I'm horrible for constantly downloading e-books, movies, software, OSes, and other stuff that I'm *intending* to do something with, but often don't get around to. I end up with gigabytes of "stuff" just sucking up disc space or wasting CDs. I burned a DivX copy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker's popular pre-South Park indie film "Orgazmo" in about 2001. I've since seen the film 2 or 3 times on TV. I STILL haven't watched the DivX version I have, and now I can't find the CD I put it on. I know I'm not the only one who does this either, as many of my friends are using up loads of storage space on files they've just been too busy to have a look at.
Right now I'm on a project digitizing patient files for a neurologist. We're going up to 10 years deep with files for over 18,000 patients. Most of this is *just* for legal purposes and nobody is EVER going to open and read the majority of these files. The doctor does electronic clinics where he consults the patient and adds new pages to their file, which will probably sit there undisturbed until the Ethernet Disk fails someday.
I think a more interesting story (although probably MUCH more difficult to research) would be "How much computerized data is never used beyond it's original creation on a given storage medium?"
I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you ever checked out the Apple section of eBay? Mac systems routinely sell for more than retail, more than you'd pay if you were to purchase them directly from Apple's website. Not only do they sell for more than retail, but people also pay $25 to $100 shipping on them too. Apple has free shipping on all of their systems! Even non-functional G4 systems from 4 or 5 years ago still sell for the price of a new entry-level PC laptop at Best Buy/Future Shop. Bad logic boards, water damaged, no hard drive or CD/DVD, cracked LCDs, it doesn't seem to matter.
Now, I could see that people get in bidding wars and end up overpaying here and there, but if you search the completed listings in the Apple category, roughly 80-90% of these systems are selling. Hell, right now I'm using a G4 550Mhz TiBook that's been spray painted, half-stripped, and plastered with stickers. The Airport antenna is fux0red, the LCD has a couple nice gouges, and the CD/DVD doesn't read half the time. I could probably sell it for $400-500 on eBay and have people falling all over themselves to get it. Resale is whatever people are willing to pay, which apparently is more than some things are worth.
Ok, so if I want a computer, I can get one directly from Apple or Dell, and they're better than the ones at Best Buy with superior service. If I want a digital camera I can go to Black's or Henry's or somewhere that specializes in photography, and I'd probably get a better camera with better service than I would at Best Buy. If I want a TV or home entertainment system, I can go to a store that specializes in that sort of thing. I live like 30 minutes from a place called East Hamilton Radio, who specializes in home entertainment equipment and installations. They've been in business for over 75 years, so they're doing something right. If I want gaming stuff I can go to EB or Walmart (ugh). If I want appliances, I go to Sears or a Maytag store.
Hell, I can probably get recordable media at the grocery store in this day and age.
Why on earth would anyone go to Best Buy for any of this stuff anyways? Oh, cause it's cheap? You're right, it is. I can't even begin to count all the Best Buy/Future Shop bought computers and peripherals I've had to try to fix for people. Usually the best fix is "buy a new one". Is that really cheaper than buying a quality product from a reputable retailer in the first place?
I want to agree with this, I really do, but things have changed since you and I used computers in school. You're talking about an Apple II, so you've got a few years on me, but I remember having maybe two 286 systems available to a class of 30 students when I was in grade school, and you know what? Some of us grew up to be pretty handy with computers despite that.
The major difference is that back in the days of Apple IIs and 286-en, we were using computers in school to learn about computers. I remember learning DOS commands and doing lines of "asdf jkl; dad sad fad lad" and so on in some curses-style typing tutor. It was all about building skills required to use a computer.
Now, those skills are somewhat of a byproduct. The computer is the tool it's supposed to be, not the subject. Most kids have a computer at home already and are pretty familiar with it's basic usage. The technology now simply enables different methods of learning. You just can't timeshare an outdated piece of junk between 30 kids now.
In "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", some douchebag jock dude says "The future...it's...computers..SAN DIMAS HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!". Now, I'm not sure if San Dimas Football's record warrants such a statement, but the future is now, and it *is* computers. However, just knowing the bare minimum (like a grandma who knows how to check her email and nothing else) won't cut it in the workforce. Students need WAY more exposure to using computers for everyday tasks than we ever got timesharing the ugly beige monsters of our day.
"...splicing together different takes of an unsuccessful love scene to produce one in which both parties look like they are enjoying themselves"
Hmm, I know all about unsuccessful love scenes. I wonder how much it'd cost to have Jennifer Connoly photoshopped into my bed during post-production. Actually, forget that noise, by the time I'm in "post-production" I just want a cigarette and a nap.
I had an experience like this the other day with IE7. A friend had me do a little work on his computer, including installing Firefox. So I fire up iexplore.exe, and it loads IE7, which I'd never used before. It was awful. I can't think of a better way to describe it. I've never had a piece of software try to prevent me from using it for what it was designed so much before.
First, it loads some MSN start page by default with animated ads and all sorts of junk that immediately sucks up any RAM that escaped the clutches of IE itself. It automatically starts loading some other page in another tab. What page? I don't know, I closed it without looking. I didn't ask it to open anything in another tab.
Popup: "Blah blah blah it looks like you're behind a firewall". Thanks. That's helpful. Can I navigate to a website now?
Popup: "You don't have a virus scanner installed!". I know. They're a waste of resources. Can I PLEASE go download Firefox now?
Popup: "You might be vulnerable to phishing scams". Yeah, I might be, but I doubt it. I'm fairly confident in my ability to spot an E-Mail scam. Could you just fuck off and let me do what I want already?
Popup: "Would you like to turn on Automatic Updates?". Hell no.
Finally, the popups and warning messages stopped, so I used the handy search bar, forgetting that IE probably doesn't default to Google for this sort of thing. A search for "Firefox" takes me to an MSN search page that says, get this:
No results found for "Firefox". Did you mean to search for "Mozilla Firefox"?
I'm not making this up.
This kind of thing is annoying as hell to me, an experienced computer geek who quickly skims through popups and warning messages and generally disregards whatever they say anyways. I can't imagine being an average computer user confronted with all of these warnings. I'd be overwhelmed and confused reading that I'm "at a high risk" for viruses and online scams. I'd be scared into possibly installing/purchasing software that I really don't need (I know, that's probably the point), and by the time I got through all the stuff that's completely unrelated to WHAT I WANT TO DO with my computer, I'd have forgotten what I wanted to do with my computer!
For the record, I use my Powerbook whenever I don't absolutely *NEED* to use my PC, and I recommend Macs to everyone. Experiences like the above reaffirm my belief that I'm doing the right thing.
I don't object to what employers MEAN when they say "soft skills", it's just an idiotic phrase. Are my skills "soft"? No, they're quite solid in fact. Do I communicate effectively and work well in a team setting? For sure. Ask me a direct question about my abilities instead of dancing around the issue with phrases like "soft skills".
"Did you participate in internships during your time at college?"
I might have, had they been available. Instead, I ran a small business fixing computers for people for about a year, and volunteered for several organizations related and unrelated to computers simply to develop my "soft skills" and show potential employers that I've actually done something practical on my resume (which, btw, has been reviewed and edited by more than one experienced resume writer).
Most of you have made decent suggestions, although my "soft skills" tell me some of you define yourself by your job prehaps a little too much. I apologize for being slightly jaded. My last computer-related job was not a positive experience. I was hired under the pretense of being a full-time webmaster, also tasked with running an eBay operation for a hobby store, only to be fired the day after I'd completed the store's website. I'm guessing this was partially because I was insisting on being paid the meager $10/hr @ 40 hrs/week I'd been promised when I was hired, rather than the substantially lower amount the owner tried to pay me once I actually started working. Being lied to and exploited (more so than usual) for IT skills just kinda turns you off of the whole industry.
I've read the books, I've been to the career workshops and government-run employment kiosks and done the mock interviews, I've spent hours fine-tuning my resume and cover letter, I've taught myself to be more outgoing and friendly, I apply to numerous jobs every week (when I'm not working or sleeping) and I customize my resume and cover letter for each one, and when I don't get called for an interview, I call them to ensure they have my application. I tell them how I'd love the opportunity to talk to them in an interview. I show genuine interest in their company/cause. I apply to jobs where the listed qualifications describe me to the letter, and not only do I not get a job, I don't get an *INTERVIEW*. Not so much as a single phone call.
I mean, I can understand they might not want to hire me, but they don't even want to TALK to me? Thanks for all the suggestions everyone, but I've tried most of them over the past 2 years and I'm still banging my head against the wall.
"lackluster prospects facing the great majority of...college graduates"
Speaking as a college CS/Network graduate whom, 2 years after graduating, is still working as a janitor, allow me to welcome you to this planet.
In my case, it's not because I have inferior skills or training. It's because most employers I've had contact with see a diploma/degree as "quaint" and "irrelevant". Since I don't have 5+ years of experience, excellent "soft skills" (PHB corporate-speak if I've ever heard it), and I don't want to sell anything, I'm apparently unemployable, no matter what school I went to or how well I did.
Here's a brief story that gives contrast to the wonderfully frustrating experience I've been putting up with for over 2 years: I have a friend (who dropped out of highschool no less) who works in IT. One of his co-workers, a supposed IT expert who makes ~$100k a year, recently said to him "I assume we'll be using FAT32 for our 1TB backup drive's filesystem?". It seems to me, someone making $100k/year in IT should be aware of things like the limitations of FAT32 and Windows' implementation thereof. My friend tells me this sort of ineptitude is common among the IT "experts" he works with, and he spends more time correcting their mistakes than doing his own work. Meanwhile, I can't even get an *interview* for entry level jobs that a highschool student could perform.
Not that I'm bitter or anything. Anyways, back to washing floors so I can make my student loan payments. Thanks for listening:P
Oh no, I'm not just figuring this out now. I know all about this stuff. I was just saying that if anyone who still believes Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, this is just more proof against it. As if John Kerry folding like an auto-fellatio performer before the clearly flawed 2004 vote could be investigated wasn't enough of a hint.
Studies have shown that marijuana does in fact cause "bad people", "terrorists" and "children" to have an increased risk of gratuitous quotation marks.
But seriously, if anyone ever needed proof that the left/right thing in the US is a false paradigm and all the partisan stuff in the mainstream news is ridiculous, this is it. "Liberal" Democrats wanting to censor everything and deny free speech and artistic expression? "Conservative" Republicans wanting gun control laws and increased government size and spending? I believe Seymour Skinner said it best: "Has the world gone topsy-turvy?".
Yeah I've heard the version without the solo and it's pretty bad. Music is an artform like painting or novel writing. Usually if the musicians are talented and artistic, every part of the song is there for a reason. It builds tension, it moves the song into a different direction, whatever. Granted, some of this stuff gets a little self-indulgent (see the last 8 or 9 minutes of King Crimson's "Moonchild").
Credit is due to modern day artists like Tool, who will allow profanity edits, but not "radio friendly" edits. If their new single is 7 and a half minutes long, you're going to hear all 7 and a half minutes on the radio. This happens to make Tool completely unmarketable were it not for their cult following. The record execs know the hardcore fans will buy the album, and their numbers are large enough to make it worth the label's while.
If I were to speculate though, I'd bet that a higher percentage of people who bought "Vicarious" from an online music store also bought the rest of the album in comparison with those who bought a Britney Spears or Kanye West single.
Were I to be more on-point, I'd cite my 1991 CD single of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Sprit" as evidence that at one point, record labels did realize that they could make money selling people *just* the popular single. Although, it seemed to become damn near impossible to find singles in record stores by the latter half of the 90s.
There's something to be said of albums that are meant to be taken as one whole work of art. There aren't any really horrible songs or filler, and each song just kinda flows or leads into the next. Some of my favorite examples:
- Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon - Nirvana's Nevermind - Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here - Soundgarden's Superunknown - Michael Jackson's Thriller (despite that horrible duet with Paul McCartney)
Whenever I hear a song from one of these albums on the radio, I'm always waiting for the following track to start playing at the end. It's so unsettling to hear them out of context. It's like seeing a drawing of Spider-Man floating on a page with no background, rather than in a comic book with a plot and setting. I'm sure every classic rock fan has encountered that one jackass DJ who plays Led Zeppelin's "Heartbreaker" and not "Livin' Lovin' Maid" afterwards.
I don't think the situation will get better for we who enjoy music's artistic merits. Radio and MTV (or MuchMusic) already can't tolerate any songs longer than about 4 minutes. I feel this "iPod effect" will only cause record labels to enourage their artists to record music that is marketable rather than good (more so than they do already).
Corporations like Apple and Nike promoting their brands through a synergystic crossover product? Get out of here! Next thing you'll tell me that they're going to get professional athletes and rock stars to promote this thing.
It's not about impressions and whether or not you click on their ad and buy something immediately. It's about branding your web-surfing experience. You may think that the ad for Brand X is obnoxious and not click on it out of principle, but whoever is advertising Brand X just exposed your brain to their brave corporate logo for the N'th time in your life. It adds up on a subconscious level. Check out "No Logo" by Naomi Klein (ISBN: 0312421435) and "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan (ISBN: 0743247469).
Then perhaps the answer is more communication between software developers and distro vendors who seem to imply by inclusion that "all this stuff works", when in fact, some of it doesn't. If the package is something like ultraboner-0.0.1-beta, maybe the distro people should contact the developer and ask if it does what it's supposed to do (yet). If this type of software gets included in a distro, maybe the developer(s) should contact the distro vendor and ask them to stop giving their project a bad name by including unfinished software in a retail product.
I've had *nix programs from a default install coredump every time you try to open it. This is not acceptable to an end user who may have paid good money for distro x. Some OSS developers have this "well, you get what you pay for" attitude, because to them, everyone is getting their software for free. Now, I know that a lot of the responsibility for this falls on the distro vendors and not the developers themselves, but some people ARE paying for it and not getting something useable in return.
Slashdot Mirror
Put Biohazard on that bill and the US would be at security level "red" faster than you could stomp on a distortion pedal.
"Slashdot. News for Nerds (two weeks after AP runs it and it appears on Yahoo's front page). Stuff that mattered."
It seems like this feeling is most prevalent in nerdy computerish types, or "early adopters" of technology. You know, people who might not have spectacular social skills to begin with (myself included). I have an ok social life, but you know what? I like SEEING my friends, and when I see them, I like to have something to talk about. My mom talks about "catching up" with her friends. What's to "catch up" with when people blog/IM/SMS/E-Mail every time they take a rumpledumpskin?
This college girl who lives across the street from me has a cellphone that seems to be permanently attached to the side of her head. I go to the grocery store and see half a dozen people walking the aisles yapping away about weekend get-togethers and kids' soccer games. I'm always wondering WTF these people did 10 or 11 years ago when cellphones were strictly for businessmen and gadget nerds? How did they get by when the Internet was just a toy that computer geeks played with in their parent's basement? Somehow they managed to survive.
Sure, I'm on MSN, I have a cellphone, I'm on facebook, etc, but most of the time I'm marked as away, the phone is off, and I'm not logged in. If I want to spend time with someone, I'll invite them out for a coffee or something. I can remember a time when the sort of behavior I'm talking about was pretty normal, but now it's almost considered anti-social to not be interested in hearing about every cough, sneeze, and fart in the lives of anyone you've ever met.
So you don't have time for a "science experiment", but you see no problem with letting Microsoft engineers/developers/designers have a big bloaty, sketchy, resource-consuming wank-fest on your desktop?
Seriously though, it's that "look what I can do!" factor that turns me off of using Windows for anything important. Anyone remember Dr.Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park?
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD."
I, for one, find that Windows is loaded to the teeth with things that bring this quote to mind. I'm not saying Linux or OSX is perfect, but I tend to get a lot more work done with a lot less fighting using either of those.
Personally, I'd love a subnotebook sized system, you know, something like 10-12" LCD, weighs about 2 lbs, has a battery life of 8+ hours. Believe it or not, my 15" G4 TiBook with it's 3-4 hour battery life seems large and bulky a lot of the time, and I feel needs to be recharged way too often. Do I really need 15+ inches of real estate on my laptop screen for anything? I'm looking at the MacBooks now, and still find myself asking "13 inches of screen? That's the smallest they have?". What does anyone need a 17" screen on a notebook for? Are they all doing high-res graphics manipulation? How many people are still running at 800x600 on a 17" screen because it makes everything "look bigger"? Doesn't a 15+ inch screen sort of defeat the purpose of a "portable" computer? I mean, technically a 47-pound G3 fruit-flavored iMac is "portable" because it's one piece and has a handle.
Anyways, here's my bold prediction: a few companies like this one will take a gamble on subnotebooks. They'll sell them for outrageous prices, then, when they go over like a lead zeppelin and they're all forced into bankruptcy or buyouts, they'll declare that there is "no demand" for subnotebook computers and we won't hear about them again for a long time.
The North American consumer generally believes that bigger is better. Although this attitude is changing slowly, people will still be floored when a subnotebook with limited features costs almost twice what a 17" behemoth that plays movies, runs all their programs, walks the dog, and makes breakfast would.
AMERICA! Fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin day yeah! AMERICA! Fuck yeah!
I'd post the rest of the lyrics, but they're copyrighted.
Ok, so we generate some staggering amount of computerized data every year. This is one of those stories where I can't remember hearing about it before, but it really doesn't feel like "news".
My question is how much of this data is actually being used? I'm horrible for constantly downloading e-books, movies, software, OSes, and other stuff that I'm *intending* to do something with, but often don't get around to. I end up with gigabytes of "stuff" just sucking up disc space or wasting CDs. I burned a DivX copy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker's popular pre-South Park indie film "Orgazmo" in about 2001. I've since seen the film 2 or 3 times on TV. I STILL haven't watched the DivX version I have, and now I can't find the CD I put it on. I know I'm not the only one who does this either, as many of my friends are using up loads of storage space on files they've just been too busy to have a look at.
Right now I'm on a project digitizing patient files for a neurologist. We're going up to 10 years deep with files for over 18,000 patients. Most of this is *just* for legal purposes and nobody is EVER going to open and read the majority of these files. The doctor does electronic clinics where he consults the patient and adds new pages to their file, which will probably sit there undisturbed until the Ethernet Disk fails someday.
I think a more interesting story (although probably MUCH more difficult to research) would be "How much computerized data is never used beyond it's original creation on a given storage medium?"
If they really wanted to harm Apple and it's users, they'd port Clippy to Office:Mac and enable it by default.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you ever checked out the Apple section of eBay? Mac systems routinely sell for more than retail, more than you'd pay if you were to purchase them directly from Apple's website. Not only do they sell for more than retail, but people also pay $25 to $100 shipping on them too. Apple has free shipping on all of their systems! Even non-functional G4 systems from 4 or 5 years ago still sell for the price of a new entry-level PC laptop at Best Buy/Future Shop. Bad logic boards, water damaged, no hard drive or CD/DVD, cracked LCDs, it doesn't seem to matter.
Now, I could see that people get in bidding wars and end up overpaying here and there, but if you search the completed listings in the Apple category, roughly 80-90% of these systems are selling. Hell, right now I'm using a G4 550Mhz TiBook that's been spray painted, half-stripped, and plastered with stickers. The Airport antenna is fux0red, the LCD has a couple nice gouges, and the CD/DVD doesn't read half the time. I could probably sell it for $400-500 on eBay and have people falling all over themselves to get it. Resale is whatever people are willing to pay, which apparently is more than some things are worth.
Ok, so if I want a computer, I can get one directly from Apple or Dell, and they're better than the ones at Best Buy with superior service. If I want a digital camera I can go to Black's or Henry's or somewhere that specializes in photography, and I'd probably get a better camera with better service than I would at Best Buy. If I want a TV or home entertainment system, I can go to a store that specializes in that sort of thing. I live like 30 minutes from a place called East Hamilton Radio, who specializes in home entertainment equipment and installations. They've been in business for over 75 years, so they're doing something right. If I want gaming stuff I can go to EB or Walmart (ugh). If I want appliances, I go to Sears or a Maytag store.
Hell, I can probably get recordable media at the grocery store in this day and age.
Why on earth would anyone go to Best Buy for any of this stuff anyways? Oh, cause it's cheap? You're right, it is. I can't even begin to count all the Best Buy/Future Shop bought computers and peripherals I've had to try to fix for people. Usually the best fix is "buy a new one". Is that really cheaper than buying a quality product from a reputable retailer in the first place?
Look, if you're not going to take Mac ownership seriously, I'll be happy to give it a good home...
I want to agree with this, I really do, but things have changed since you and I used computers in school. You're talking about an Apple II, so you've got a few years on me, but I remember having maybe two 286 systems available to a class of 30 students when I was in grade school, and you know what? Some of us grew up to be pretty handy with computers despite that.
The major difference is that back in the days of Apple IIs and 286-en, we were using computers in school to learn about computers. I remember learning DOS commands and doing lines of "asdf jkl; dad sad fad lad" and so on in some curses-style typing tutor. It was all about building skills required to use a computer.
Now, those skills are somewhat of a byproduct. The computer is the tool it's supposed to be, not the subject. Most kids have a computer at home already and are pretty familiar with it's basic usage. The technology now simply enables different methods of learning. You just can't timeshare an outdated piece of junk between 30 kids now.
In "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", some douchebag jock dude says "The future...it's...computers..SAN DIMAS HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!". Now, I'm not sure if San Dimas Football's record warrants such a statement, but the future is now, and it *is* computers. However, just knowing the bare minimum (like a grandma who knows how to check her email and nothing else) won't cut it in the workforce. Students need WAY more exposure to using computers for everyday tasks than we ever got timesharing the ugly beige monsters of our day.
What are you is talking about? Of course nto!
Hmm, I know all about unsuccessful love scenes. I wonder how much it'd cost to have Jennifer Connoly photoshopped into my bed during post-production. Actually, forget that noise, by the time I'm in "post-production" I just want a cigarette and a nap.
I had an experience like this the other day with IE7. A friend had me do a little work on his computer, including installing Firefox. So I fire up iexplore.exe, and it loads IE7, which I'd never used before. It was awful. I can't think of a better way to describe it. I've never had a piece of software try to prevent me from using it for what it was designed so much before.
First, it loads some MSN start page by default with animated ads and all sorts of junk that immediately sucks up any RAM that escaped the clutches of IE itself. It automatically starts loading some other page in another tab. What page? I don't know, I closed it without looking. I didn't ask it to open anything in another tab.
Popup: "Blah blah blah it looks like you're behind a firewall". Thanks. That's helpful. Can I navigate to a website now?
Popup: "You don't have a virus scanner installed!". I know. They're a waste of resources. Can I PLEASE go download Firefox now?
Popup: "You might be vulnerable to phishing scams". Yeah, I might be, but I doubt it. I'm fairly confident in my ability to spot an E-Mail scam. Could you just fuck off and let me do what I want already?
Popup: "Would you like to turn on Automatic Updates?". Hell no.
Finally, the popups and warning messages stopped, so I used the handy search bar, forgetting that IE probably doesn't default to Google for this sort of thing. A search for "Firefox" takes me to an MSN search page that says, get this:
No results found for "Firefox". Did you mean to search for "Mozilla Firefox"?
I'm not making this up.
This kind of thing is annoying as hell to me, an experienced computer geek who quickly skims through popups and warning messages and generally disregards whatever they say anyways. I can't imagine being an average computer user confronted with all of these warnings. I'd be overwhelmed and confused reading that I'm "at a high risk" for viruses and online scams. I'd be scared into possibly installing/purchasing software that I really don't need (I know, that's probably the point), and by the time I got through all the stuff that's completely unrelated to WHAT I WANT TO DO with my computer, I'd have forgotten what I wanted to do with my computer!
For the record, I use my Powerbook whenever I don't absolutely *NEED* to use my PC, and I recommend Macs to everyone. Experiences like the above reaffirm my belief that I'm doing the right thing.
I don't object to what employers MEAN when they say "soft skills", it's just an idiotic phrase. Are my skills "soft"? No, they're quite solid in fact. Do I communicate effectively and work well in a team setting? For sure. Ask me a direct question about my abilities instead of dancing around the issue with phrases like "soft skills".
"Did you participate in internships during your time at college?"
I might have, had they been available. Instead, I ran a small business fixing computers for people for about a year, and volunteered for several organizations related and unrelated to computers simply to develop my "soft skills" and show potential employers that I've actually done something practical on my resume (which, btw, has been reviewed and edited by more than one experienced resume writer).
Most of you have made decent suggestions, although my "soft skills" tell me some of you define yourself by your job prehaps a little too much. I apologize for being slightly jaded. My last computer-related job was not a positive experience. I was hired under the pretense of being a full-time webmaster, also tasked with running an eBay operation for a hobby store, only to be fired the day after I'd completed the store's website. I'm guessing this was partially because I was insisting on being paid the meager $10/hr @ 40 hrs/week I'd been promised when I was hired, rather than the substantially lower amount the owner tried to pay me once I actually started working. Being lied to and exploited (more so than usual) for IT skills just kinda turns you off of the whole industry.
I've read the books, I've been to the career workshops and government-run employment kiosks and done the mock interviews, I've spent hours fine-tuning my resume and cover letter, I've taught myself to be more outgoing and friendly, I apply to numerous jobs every week (when I'm not working or sleeping) and I customize my resume and cover letter for each one, and when I don't get called for an interview, I call them to ensure they have my application. I tell them how I'd love the opportunity to talk to them in an interview. I show genuine interest in their company/cause. I apply to jobs where the listed qualifications describe me to the letter, and not only do I not get a job, I don't get an *INTERVIEW*. Not so much as a single phone call.
I mean, I can understand they might not want to hire me, but they don't even want to TALK to me? Thanks for all the suggestions everyone, but I've tried most of them over the past 2 years and I'm still banging my head against the wall.
"lackluster prospects facing the great majority of...college graduates"
:P
Speaking as a college CS/Network graduate whom, 2 years after graduating, is still working as a janitor, allow me to welcome you to this planet.
In my case, it's not because I have inferior skills or training. It's because most employers I've had contact with see a diploma/degree as "quaint" and "irrelevant". Since I don't have 5+ years of experience, excellent "soft skills" (PHB corporate-speak if I've ever heard it), and I don't want to sell anything, I'm apparently unemployable, no matter what school I went to or how well I did.
Here's a brief story that gives contrast to the wonderfully frustrating experience I've been putting up with for over 2 years: I have a friend (who dropped out of highschool no less) who works in IT. One of his co-workers, a supposed IT expert who makes ~$100k a year, recently said to him "I assume we'll be using FAT32 for our 1TB backup drive's filesystem?". It seems to me, someone making $100k/year in IT should be aware of things like the limitations of FAT32 and Windows' implementation thereof. My friend tells me this sort of ineptitude is common among the IT "experts" he works with, and he spends more time correcting their mistakes than doing his own work. Meanwhile, I can't even get an *interview* for entry level jobs that a highschool student could perform.
Not that I'm bitter or anything. Anyways, back to washing floors so I can make my student loan payments. Thanks for listening
Oh no, I'm not just figuring this out now. I know all about this stuff. I was just saying that if anyone who still believes Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, this is just more proof against it. As if John Kerry folding like an auto-fellatio performer before the clearly flawed 2004 vote could be investigated wasn't enough of a hint.
Studies have shown that marijuana does in fact cause "bad people", "terrorists" and "children" to have an increased risk of gratuitous quotation marks.
But seriously, if anyone ever needed proof that the left/right thing in the US is a false paradigm and all the partisan stuff in the mainstream news is ridiculous, this is it. "Liberal" Democrats wanting to censor everything and deny free speech and artistic expression? "Conservative" Republicans wanting gun control laws and increased government size and spending? I believe Seymour Skinner said it best: "Has the world gone topsy-turvy?".
Or you can vote for the party that takes the bill of rights and rolls a big fatty with it.
Yeah I've heard the version without the solo and it's pretty bad. Music is an artform like painting or novel writing. Usually if the musicians are talented and artistic, every part of the song is there for a reason. It builds tension, it moves the song into a different direction, whatever. Granted, some of this stuff gets a little self-indulgent (see the last 8 or 9 minutes of King Crimson's "Moonchild").
Credit is due to modern day artists like Tool, who will allow profanity edits, but not "radio friendly" edits. If their new single is 7 and a half minutes long, you're going to hear all 7 and a half minutes on the radio. This happens to make Tool completely unmarketable were it not for their cult following. The record execs know the hardcore fans will buy the album, and their numbers are large enough to make it worth the label's while.
If I were to speculate though, I'd bet that a higher percentage of people who bought "Vicarious" from an online music store also bought the rest of the album in comparison with those who bought a Britney Spears or Kanye West single.
Were I to be more on-point, I'd cite my 1991 CD single of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Sprit" as evidence that at one point, record labels did realize that they could make money selling people *just* the popular single. Although, it seemed to become damn near impossible to find singles in record stores by the latter half of the 90s.
There's something to be said of albums that are meant to be taken as one whole work of art. There aren't any really horrible songs or filler, and each song just kinda flows or leads into the next. Some of my favorite examples:
- Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon
- Nirvana's Nevermind
- Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here
- Soundgarden's Superunknown
- Michael Jackson's Thriller (despite that horrible duet with Paul McCartney)
Whenever I hear a song from one of these albums on the radio, I'm always waiting for the following track to start playing at the end. It's so unsettling to hear them out of context. It's like seeing a drawing of Spider-Man floating on a page with no background, rather than in a comic book with a plot and setting. I'm sure every classic rock fan has encountered that one jackass DJ who plays Led Zeppelin's "Heartbreaker" and not "Livin' Lovin' Maid" afterwards.
I don't think the situation will get better for we who enjoy music's artistic merits. Radio and MTV (or MuchMusic) already can't tolerate any songs longer than about 4 minutes. I feel this "iPod effect" will only cause record labels to enourage their artists to record music that is marketable rather than good (more so than they do already).
Corporations like Apple and Nike promoting their brands through a synergystic crossover product? Get out of here! Next thing you'll tell me that they're going to get professional athletes and rock stars to promote this thing.
It's not about impressions and whether or not you click on their ad and buy something immediately. It's about branding your web-surfing experience. You may think that the ad for Brand X is obnoxious and not click on it out of principle, but whoever is advertising Brand X just exposed your brain to their brave corporate logo for the N'th time in your life. It adds up on a subconscious level. Check out "No Logo" by Naomi Klein (ISBN: 0312421435) and "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan (ISBN: 0743247469).
Then perhaps the answer is more communication between software developers and distro vendors who seem to imply by inclusion that "all this stuff works", when in fact, some of it doesn't. If the package is something like ultraboner-0.0.1-beta, maybe the distro people should contact the developer and ask if it does what it's supposed to do (yet). If this type of software gets included in a distro, maybe the developer(s) should contact the distro vendor and ask them to stop giving their project a bad name by including unfinished software in a retail product.
I've had *nix programs from a default install coredump every time you try to open it. This is not acceptable to an end user who may have paid good money for distro x. Some OSS developers have this "well, you get what you pay for" attitude, because to them, everyone is getting their software for free. Now, I know that a lot of the responsibility for this falls on the distro vendors and not the developers themselves, but some people ARE paying for it and not getting something useable in return.