Taking action to remind me that I am not. (Not sure why you assumed I was the original poster).
The reason is that they are spending 15 seconds of your time to be able to parallelize themselves while they wait on your blocking call. Anything more, and I agree they've abused the system, are wasting your time, and should be sent to the back of the queue. But not permitting them the 15 seconds to respond in order to punish them and having wasted their 30 minutes is more dick-like because you feel like your 15 seconds is more important than their 30 minutes. All they are asserting by putting an automated hold system on their line is that they are afk and are awaiting notification that the other end is no longer afk as well. Even someone at the phone might take 5 seconds to realize that the voice speaking to them is a human and not a we love you recording or something. What is your threashold? 7 seconds?
"Your call is important to us. (10 second pause) Please hold on the line an our next agent will be right with you. (15 second pause) Your call will be answered in the order that it was recieved. (4 second pause) Hello (6 second pause to realize the last message was legit) *click*.
But you expect the customers to hold blocked for 30+ minutes in leiu of yourself waiting 15 seconds? No one is asking you to wait 30 minutes until they have the time, but isn't it just plain nice to give someone a few seconds to pick up the phone the got tired of holding? Whether the system is automated or manual shouldn't matter.
You honestly can't wait 15 seconds to speak to someone that didn't want to listen to your muzak for 30 minutes, but yet you expect them to wait the 30 minutes? They're sitting blocked for those 30 minutes, while you are servicing other callers. It's a wasteful system. Solutions that take one member of pool A (customers) and one member of pool B (support) and put them in a non-blocking queue until one of each is ready and then connects them shortly are ideal solutions. Had the company you work for had the same goals in mind, they'd have implemented that system. They hadn't, so the caller is being smart and making a make-shift version of it. Apparently though, you prefer the status quo (blocking the customer in favor of keeping your latency metric low for yourself).
15 seconds and you could make the world a better place. I'm sorry you drank the coolaid, though I know why you did (performance reviews).
But you can't beat cloud-stored music for convenience.
Having access to my music dictated by network connectivity and the desires of a third party is not all that convenient, in my eyes. I'd be keeping backups of everything I send to them anyhow, probably on network attached storage. Now, if only I could access that without a network, perhaps by syncing a subset of my collection onto a portable device that needs not 100% on connectivity expect to sync a different subset. For me, that's convenient.
Not arguing that could-based music storage is not convenient, but I'd argue that it can be beat at convenience. Especially when you factor in the cost of it.
1) I would like to have first sale rights to my books. 2) I would like to be able to donate books to the library after I am done reading them. 3) I would like for books I donate to my library be in circulation at least as long as physical books. 4) I would like to be assured that my books won't vanish without my knowledge or permission. 5) I would like to be able to read my books without a third party knowing which pages I've read at what times and *where*. 6) I would like to be able to purchase my books without divulging my identity.
Yes, not all of these concerns are true of all readers or distribution schemes, but I've yet to find a reader that addresses all of them.
Where did you get your code signing certificate? The documentation I've read specifies this is done by Apple. Is the documentation wrong? Or, does Apple create certificates for developers that are not members of their program?
Go look at the products... objectively... without looking through {shit | flower} tinted glasses.
How does one look at any product objectively without having been specified what it is that needs measurement or determination?
I will give you an example from the real world. I wanted a mobile platform no which to carry around an application I wrote for use away from wireless networks. The iPhone was discounted due to my inability to install code that I had written onto my phone without paying a yearly license to Apple to do so. I had an objective need and the iPhone did not fill it. The (somewhat reasonable) counter-argument is that not everyone has the same needs. That's the crux of my argument: what are the purely objective criteria? Do they even exist?
So, Apple products are shit, because they don't even let you do a simple thing like run custom code. Of course, to some, that's a huge selling point. One cannot be purely objective.
When you are born, you enter society and the manner in which it was run. Nature is what provided two individuals the decision as to whether or not to do so. If as a potential parent, one would not wish to bring their child into their society, they should find a new one. Once that child enters adulthood, he or she is free to also make that choice.
I was not aware that Gmail allowed multiple passwords. I suppose I should have been more clear and said "Giving up your Gmail password to Google is practically a requirement for using their Gmail service."
I think what you mean is if users give up their passwords to a site that cannot have its identity verified, it's their own fault. Giving up your password to Google is practically a requirement for using their Gmail service. Until we have better browser user-interfaces for authenticating sites, it will be very hard to prevent phishing attacks that look authentic. Getting rid of the address bar is probably not one of those improvements.
While I generally think business analysts get a lot of things wrong, it's not rocket science to correlate lost sales with a move to a subscription model. It's not like they change a lot of the actual game and game--play. They've been relying on a formula for many years now. If people liked instalment N, they will like instalment N+!. Factor in some number out-growing it and some new blood and you can get some pretty solid expectations--of course baring technical issues.
So yes, no need to be vocal, they'll know it if people really don't want to pay for a subscription. Problem is they will.
Isn't the suburbs where people mow their lawns and wax their SUVs? I know zero people in my neighbourhood that have an SUV (though some do have lawns).
Perhaps, but this is not a binary state, Firefox generally *is* much easier to configure to protect the user than Chrome and is likely to stay that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking action to remind me that I am not. (Not sure why you assumed I was the original poster).
The reason is that they are spending 15 seconds of your time to be able to parallelize themselves while they wait on your blocking call. Anything more, and I agree they've abused the system, are wasting your time, and should be sent to the back of the queue. But not permitting them the 15 seconds to respond in order to punish them and having wasted their 30 minutes is more dick-like because you feel like your 15 seconds is more important than their 30 minutes. All they are asserting by putting an automated hold system on their line is that they are afk and are awaiting notification that the other end is no longer afk as well. Even someone at the phone might take 5 seconds to realize that the voice speaking to them is a human and not a we love you recording or something. What is your threashold? 7 seconds?
"Your call is important to us. (10 second pause) Please hold on the line an our next agent will be right with you. (15 second pause) Your call will be answered in the order that it was recieved. (4 second pause) Hello (6 second pause to realize the last message was legit) *click*.
But you expect the customers to hold blocked for 30+ minutes in leiu of yourself waiting 15 seconds? No one is asking you to wait 30 minutes until they have the time, but isn't it just plain nice to give someone a few seconds to pick up the phone the got tired of holding? Whether the system is automated or manual shouldn't matter.
You honestly can't wait 15 seconds to speak to someone that didn't want to listen to your muzak for 30 minutes, but yet you expect them to wait the 30 minutes? They're sitting blocked for those 30 minutes, while you are servicing other callers. It's a wasteful system. Solutions that take one member of pool A (customers) and one member of pool B (support) and put them in a non-blocking queue until one of each is ready and then connects them shortly are ideal solutions. Had the company you work for had the same goals in mind, they'd have implemented that system. They hadn't, so the caller is being smart and making a make-shift version of it. Apparently though, you prefer the status quo (blocking the customer in favor of keeping your latency metric low for yourself).
15 seconds and you could make the world a better place. I'm sorry you drank the coolaid, though I know why you did (performance reviews).
But you can't beat cloud-stored music for convenience.
Having access to my music dictated by network connectivity and the desires of a third party is not all that convenient, in my eyes. I'd be keeping backups of everything I send to them anyhow, probably on network attached storage. Now, if only I could access that without a network, perhaps by syncing a subset of my collection onto a portable device that needs not 100% on connectivity expect to sync a different subset. For me, that's convenient.
Not arguing that could-based music storage is not convenient, but I'd argue that it can be beat at convenience. Especially when you factor in the cost of it.
I haven't seen a single non-Microsoft site that used Silverlight.
Have you seen netflix.com's streaming site?
I'm not sure what definition of major platforms you use, but .NET's target platforms list is anemic.
How about these objections:
1) I would like to have first sale rights to my books.
2) I would like to be able to donate books to the library after I am done reading them.
3) I would like for books I donate to my library be in circulation at least as long as physical books.
4) I would like to be assured that my books won't vanish without my knowledge or permission.
5) I would like to be able to read my books without a third party knowing which pages I've read at what times and *where*.
6) I would like to be able to purchase my books without divulging my identity.
Yes, not all of these concerns are true of all readers or distribution schemes, but I've yet to find a reader that addresses all of them.
Perhaps not accidentally, but you can have someone else remove the book from your library without your permission and without recourse.
Why do they need copyright if they are going to have you agree to more strict terms in a private agreement?
Where did you get your code signing certificate? The documentation I've read specifies this is done by Apple. Is the documentation wrong? Or, does Apple create certificates for developers that are not members of their program?
Being shit is a subjective concept, it is relative to it's purpose, which is determined by needs. There is no universal objective "being shit".
Hence the scare-quotes.
Go look at the products... objectively... without looking through {shit | flower} tinted glasses.
How does one look at any product objectively without having been specified what it is that needs measurement or determination?
I will give you an example from the real world. I wanted a mobile platform no which to carry around an application I wrote for use away from wireless networks. The iPhone was discounted due to my inability to install code that I had written onto my phone without paying a yearly license to Apple to do so. I had an objective need and the iPhone did not fill it. The (somewhat reasonable) counter-argument is that not everyone has the same needs. That's the crux of my argument: what are the purely objective criteria? Do they even exist?
So, Apple products are shit, because they don't even let you do a simple thing like run custom code. Of course, to some, that's a huge selling point. One cannot be purely objective.
"Making" money, as the government does it, is not done through taxes. Taxes are a source of revenue.
When you are born, you enter society and the manner in which it was run. Nature is what provided two individuals the decision as to whether or not to do so. If as a potential parent, one would not wish to bring their child into their society, they should find a new one. Once that child enters adulthood, he or she is free to also make that choice.
This goes for every society, formalized or not.
I was not aware that Gmail allowed multiple passwords. I suppose I should have been more clear and said "Giving up your Gmail password to Google is practically a requirement for using their Gmail service."
I think what you mean is if users give up their passwords to a site that cannot have its identity verified, it's their own fault. Giving up your password to Google is practically a requirement for using their Gmail service. Until we have better browser user-interfaces for authenticating sites, it will be very hard to prevent phishing attacks that look authentic. Getting rid of the address bar is probably not one of those improvements.
While I generally think business analysts get a lot of things wrong, it's not rocket science to correlate lost sales with a move to a subscription model. It's not like they change a lot of the actual game and game--play. They've been relying on a formula for many years now. If people liked instalment N, they will like instalment N+!. Factor in some number out-growing it and some new blood and you can get some pretty solid expectations--of course baring technical issues.
So yes, no need to be vocal, they'll know it if people really don't want to pay for a subscription. Problem is they will.
Isn't the suburbs where people mow their lawns and wax their SUVs? I know zero people in my neighbourhood that have an SUV (though some do have lawns).
Need. Mod points. +1 Funny.
Shatner, is that you?
Upward mobility is not something we're best at. Good, but not best.
Perhaps, but this is not a binary state, Firefox generally *is* much easier to configure to protect the user than Chrome and is likely to stay that way.
If all opinions stink, then would you like to live in a world where there was no opinion? Opinions are what make us.
If a monitor costs X per year and a developer costs Y per years, then X/Y is immaterial but (50*X)/(50*)Y is not? It's the same ratio!
No Gentoo!?