So now I'll post the same question here, where is good usability and GUI stuff happening?
In the apps, not in the OS.
Think Opera, Mozilla. OK, maybe it is just in the browser market, but they have come up with some pretty good UIs in browsers recently. It is because everyone uses the browser, more bang-for-the-buck in developing the UI for it.
I think to MOST people the OS shouldn't need much of an interface, it should just do it's thing. Me? I love the CLI (I stands for Interface). So to me, it doesn't need much improving. But I understand that it isn't for everyone. A lot of other GNU/Linux users feel the same way, which is probably why nobody has changed it, or improved on it much. When there is a need for it, the OSS community will change it. But it isn't something you can just do overnight unless there is a real need for it.
My ideal world is one where there is a wide mix of software and sofware licenses in use. Some are free, like MIT. Some promote social goals, like GPL. Some are commercial. And some are facist. That way people can decide which licenses and which software they want to use and support. Let a thousand licenses bloom!
Umm, what world are you in? That is how things are today. You bash the GPL, then say it exists in your ideal world, which is the current state of things.
MySQL AB (the company who really does control MySQL) is going to make an awful lot of money from all that work. They wouldn't be backed by Venture Capital money if they weren't.
I have about 3000 worthless stock options from my last job that seems to refute this claim....
He's just having a great time, and the whining, criticism and complaining from his "fans" are all part of the joke.
I, for one, am not one of his fans. I don't like Star Trek, or anything else Shatner has done. I always thought he acted like a pompous dick. So I read the interview because I thought mabye I had a misperception about him.
I didn't. It is really easy to just say "It's a joke - you don't get it" when you have no personality. So if his attitude is all "Shatner's joke" then I guess he has no sense of humor either. I don't even think he is a has-been, I think he is a never-was. He was LUCKY to be Captain Kirk, it took off, and he has had a secure gig ever since. He was always washed up, but instead of doing a popular show, he is doing priceline commercials. I don't give a rat's ass about him, he is a completely uninteresting person as far as I can tell. Maybe that is what he wants people to think so they will leave him alone. I don't know why people don't.
Would it have mattered? He would have just given a short, uninformative answer anyway.
Honestly, this was the most boring interview on/. ever. I am no fan of Star Trek, but jeez Bill, why agree to an interview if you are just going to give these types of answers?
With all due respect, the question of origins is ultimately a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Since we cannot observe and repeat the universal creation process, we cannot subject it to the scientific method.
Absolutely. Which is why I get pissed when someone's comment to a scientific article about searching for the origins of creation is "Read Genesis 1:1". The Bible has nothing to do with science, so people shouldn't pretend that it does.
I agree with what you say, and many scientists will as well, but the Christians will argue that point. That is why they want to teach religion in science class. I don't think any scientist would have a problem with people learning about religion, but DON'T try and pass it off in science classes as scientific.
Religious fanatics creep me out, no matter what their basis of faith is. Funny how Christians want their ideas of the origin of life to be taught in schools, but they would balk at the idea of other religions teaching their ideas of creation.
Until then, science is less complete than the religion you equate to fantasy.
True. But scientists strive to learn, and acknowledge their deficiencies. Religion does not. The key to religion is belief. That is what is convenient about religion - there is no way to prove or disprove God. So no, I haven't disproven there is a God - but it hasn't been proven to me that there is one. I believe that science and religion should be kept apart, but for some reason religious zealots fear science. After all, it has shown that there is a world beyond ours, and constantly strives to learn. That scares people who have only a belief to rely on.
Well it's not like there's any more hard evidence that sets these theories apart from Genesis.
The difference is, "science" (I'll use it as a generic term for use of the scientific method), sets out to TEST theories in order to prove them to a certain degree of probability. Believing a book, with no chance of proving it one way or the other, doesn't follow the scientific method.
If you want hard evidence, do you try to get some, or simply believe what you have been told to believe?
Besides, the two address the same event from two different perspectives. Genesis isn't explaining 'creation' in scientific terms nor is scientific theory explaining God. They're mutually exlusive no matter how hard one tries to use one to prove/disprove the other.
Pardon? Have you followed the news where backwards-thinking schools have fought to teach Creation in science class? I agree with you, it belongs in religion class. What is disgraceful is when people try to give their theories credibility by leeching on the hard work of scientists - hence the invention of "creation science". There is nothing scientific about it. If you want to believe in something like that, you have the right, but don't try to pass it off as science.
If I had any mod points, I would have modded you up as +1 Funny. This is an article about science, not fantasy. And no, throwing the word "creation" in front of the word "science" doesn't make it any more credible.
Since over half the slashdot crowd uses IE, should there not be stories out when MS releases new versions of it?
Sure - but when was the last release? Way back in September. Have there been any bugs reported since then?
Do you follow the progress of IE? What are they working on now? Are you able to download beta code? Report bugs that get fixed in a timely manner?
That is the difference between a community and proprietary software. Maybe you can do these things with IE, I don't really know. I only use it when I am forced to, and more and more that is less often.
You however, seem to have thought yourself too superior to do so and instead simply attacked my original question. So who's the stupid one?
First off, I am not too superior to look up the information, which you could have done. I'd be willing to bet that you didn't try to look up the information until after you posted your question. It was originally posted at 2:35, and your post went up 6 minutes later. Not hardly enough time to put forth any effort in answering the question yourself.
Second, I never said you were stupid - I said your question was. It was a stupid question because you could have just as easily found the information yourself. Why can't you just admit that you didn't even bother to look up the info first? Why are you so superior that you are above asking a stupid question? I ask stupid questions sometimes, but in conversation where it is more free-flowing. Here, you have to consciously type it out, and click Submit. Therefore, you should put a little more (or at least some) thought into it. I don't think that is asking too much, and I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing it out.
It turns out that one of the sidebar links [bbc.co.uk] on BBC had more information, but other/. posters -- instead of assuming I was stupid, chose to politely answer the questions and even provide more background.
Why didn't you follow that link? Do you really think that the other/. posters know about this topic off the top of their heads, or maybe that they looked up the information themselves?
This just illustrates the point that people are lazy and want to be force fed their information. Even with something like Google around, where you don't have to really do much researching at all, people will still be lazy and refuse to do anything for themselves.
Pardon my ignorance, but don't they mean "doomsday", and what was the "domesday book of 1086"?
Well, your ignorance could be pardoned, except that there is a FRIGGIN' LINK TO THE ARTICLE that explains both of your questions. So some people say that there are no stupid questions, but I disagree. R T F A!
Re:Presence exists... big brother is stalking you?
on
5 Predictions for 2012
·
· Score: 2
if your boss uses it to find out you are not sick and actually going to see Star Wars 3, then you'll hate it.
1. If you go see Star Wars 3, you are stupid anyway. I just broke down and rented that last piece of tripe, which I didn't go see in the theater out of protest because of Episode I. It wasn't even worth renting.
2. If your phone is on in the theater, you need your ass kicked anyway.
3. If you are dumb enough to sneak out of work to go see a movie, you deserve to be fired.
Maybe you were joking, but I guess a lot of the/. crowd thinks this way. Sad, really.
Is mothballing like teabagging? For some reason, this reminds me of the joke...
Two guys are sitting in a bar, and one says "you know, I kind of like the smell of mothballs." The other guy replies "How to you get their little legs apart?"
This is NOT FUNNY ANYMORE. It was funny two months ago on the shack.
I find it funny, in a sad way, when dorks get so immersed in "their" internet world that they don't realize:
a. not everyone may have heard a joke yet, and 2 months isn't very long.
b. not everyone knows about these ultra-cool websites that they visit
c. referring to a website by a slang term gives you no idea what they are talking about. (what is "the shack"?) But I guess that means that they are cool and I am not.
d. they think they are the coolest, because they perceive themselves to be on the cutting edge.
It is bad when nerds give nerds a bad name.
Even if this isn't everything we might want in a downloadable music service, I think that supporting this service will help convince UMG and other companies of the effectiveness of this business model. This is a step in the right direction...
Or, you could email them and complain about how they implemented the business model, requiring IE in order to use their service. I would not pay for a service that requires IE. I hope their customer service lines are flooded. It sounds like it is a total hassle to set up and download music, even if you do have IE. It is amazing that we are this far along in e-business, and companies still don't get it.
But thanks for the review, it was definitely worthwhile. I won't be using liquid.com any time soon.
I am constantly getting mail to increase my penis size and grow hair. They should know better! I have long hair and a big, well, uh, you know... Whatever you do, don't look behind you.
Dude, you should make a note of your own sig when posting something like this!
I have a degree in Computer Science, but most places I work give me the title of Software Engineer. I took some of the same classes that my friends took (mechanical, electrical). But something I mull around every so often is - does software really require engineering? It is a little more wooly than something like building a bridge, or a roadway, or electrical circuitry. With the advent of a new language, or method of developing, the whole ballgame can change.
Now I am not saying that you still don't need to have a good understanding of the language, or use good design, implementation, testing, etc. But I have worked at SEI CMM level 3, level 2, and am currently going through the process of evaluation where I work now, for level 2. But being at that level doesn't guarantee that your software will be good. It seems almost like we are attempting to fit the creation of software into the old engineering mold, because it kind of fits.
So to answer the question - I don't think that there have been any great improvements to obtain the goals you stated. Software relys on hardware, which seems to contstantly be changing. A bridge is a bridge, but the very idea of what software can do has been changing constantly over the last 25 years.
If you want reliability, look at what NASA has produced. Those are some engineers. Ahh, but you said 'quickly', didn't you?:-) If you want something rock solid, you can't have it tomorrow, if you want it to do anything remotely complex. I think one of the big things we as an industry has to realize is that our product (software) can be simple and fast to market, or more complex and take more time. And all of the variations in between. I haven't been convinced that what we do is engineering, but I haven't been convinced that it isn't. After all, it is a pretty young profession, compared to others. Imagine trying to explain to someone from 100 years ago what a software engineer does.
All that being said, I think that the obvious Slashdot answer is that the GPL and free software have been a huge force, but only in recent years. I think the two biggest forces in software development were the PC and the internet.
You made it worse by renting from Blockbuster, the largest and worst video rental company in the world. I find it hard to believe that even in a small town, there aren't several alternatives to shopping at Blockbuster. Their selection sucks ass (try getting anything remotely independent or disturbing there), their prices suck, and the company exists solely to crush every little mom and pop operation out there. So, in that one trip, you managed to add to the pocket lining of Lucas and Blockbuster. Bravo.
1. Around where I live, Blockbuster is pretty much the only thing around. My other option is 30 minutes away, and has a poor selection.
2. I don't think they have a poor selection, they have pretty much anything I would want. And I do watch foreign films, they have an entire foreign film section. Disturbing? What the hell are you watching?
3. Lucas got nothing from me renting the film, unless he gets a portion of every rental. (does he?) I would guess that the money is going to Blockbuster alone.
Does ANY of your money go to ANY corporation? It does. Mine goes to Blockbuster on occasion, whooptie-doo. Unless you are living in a shack in Montana, your money is going to some corporation. Stop with the "anti-corporate-America" just because it is in vogue to have that opinion.
And no matter where I would have rented AoTC from, it still would have sucked.
If you *really* believe that these companies are doing wrong you shouldn't be spending your money on them in the first place. Believe it or not, you'll be able to live without seeing hobbits on the big screen or having 1.5Mbps into your bedroom.
I agree somewhat. I have DSL, but it was because I got really sick of my dialup connection dropping, and my wife needed the internet to do work on her thesis. Of course, it wasn't tough to convince me to get it.:-) But I absolutely love having DSL, it would be really tough to give it up. I actually use the internet as a tool, as well as for fun. I don't go see movies all that often, unless there is something I really want to see. I can make that compromise.
However, this weekend I caved. I rented Attack of the Clones. Even though I am a big Star Wars fan, I refused to go see it in the theatre because of Episode I, and because of the bad reviews it got. It made me not want to see it. But there it was at Blockbuster, all shiny and pretty. What a lifeless piece of crap. Even going in, having read some reviews, I had hope that I could suffer through the bad parts for all the good parts I heard about. I had to fast forward through the gratuitous garbage love scenes, but even then I was disappointed at the wooden acting of the entire cast, the overdone computer generated effects, and the lack of a story. Even the Yoda fight scene was stupid, and I had heard that the movie was worth seeing just for that.
So I compromised my morals, I got burned, and I feel like a sucker. I am glad I didn't go see it in a theater though.
On another note, I haven't bought a new CD in a few years. I like going to used CD stores, or rediscovering music from the 300+ CDs in our current collection.
Recently at a company meeting, a couple of the people who were giving presentations were an interesting contrast. One was an ex-sales guy, who was managing an engineering group, and the other was an ex-engineering guy, who was put into a project management role.
The ex-sales guy gave a good, yet buzzword filled presentation. I really don't remember what he said, but he said it well. He looked at the crowd, was comfortable, and had good presentation skills.
The ex-engineer got up to give his presentation, and instead of just knowing the material, he had kept all his notes on his Palm. (and pointed this out to emphasize the fact that he came from engineering). It went like a bad high-school speech. He kept looking at his Palm, trying to read it, the light kept going off, and right in the middle of the presentation, he had to stop talking and restart the Palm and then find his notes again. It was really sad. I don't remember what he talked about either, just that it was an awful presentation.
I am a gadget person, but I have avoided getting a PDA. I did buy one for my wife, and she uses it somewhat, but she still relies on her regular planner for jotting things down, etc. I think the Handspring is really only used for an address book.
Gadgets are cool, but they aren't essential. And if they are essential to you, then you should probably just put it down, and step away from it. Try going a day without it. I am all for technology, but you have to be able to do things yourself. I went and saw a movie this weekend, and the lobby was full. It was weird - about half of the people were all f'king around with their phones. That glazed look as they were staring at their little screens, or yammering on endlessly about NOTHING. I feel a rant coming on, so I'll try to supress it, but what the hell do 17 year olds need to talk about constantly! Every time I overhear a "conversation", it is about absolutely nothing. People have forgotten how to use their brains. My wife and I have one cellphone, and it is off unless we are making a call. She has had people actually say increduously "I can't believe you don't leave your phone on!". Yes, there is a time and a place to use one, and at these times they are invaluable - unfortunately I never see that. I see people yammering about who is dating who, and how many times they took a crap that day. NOBODY CARES!
Bottom line is I think that people are becoming more and more like sheep, and they will follow along with the crowd. Why else would a 14 year old need a cell phone? To fit in, cause all the other kids have one. I think PDAs were a nice attempt at tech, but ultimately all they do is shackle you down, and once you have plunked down the cash for it, you feel like you have to use it.
why hasn't there been software that would watch incoming messages, and say if > 10,000 messages come thru with the same subject line, flip those over to a "suspect" pile for administrator review
If EVERYONE wanted spam to stop, it would. The problem is, there are people who are willing to give this guy service, because they make money too. I have never been a fan of vigilante justice, but with spammers it just seems so..... right.
Slashdot Mirror
In the apps, not in the OS.
Think Opera, Mozilla. OK, maybe it is just in the browser market, but they have come up with some pretty good UIs in browsers recently. It is because everyone uses the browser, more bang-for-the-buck in developing the UI for it.
I think to MOST people the OS shouldn't need much of an interface, it should just do it's thing. Me? I love the CLI (I stands for Interface). So to me, it doesn't need much improving. But I understand that it isn't for everyone. A lot of other GNU/Linux users feel the same way, which is probably why nobody has changed it, or improved on it much. When there is a need for it, the OSS community will change it. But it isn't something you can just do overnight unless there is a real need for it.
Umm, what world are you in? That is how things are today. You bash the GPL, then say it exists in your ideal world, which is the current state of things.
Methinks I smell a troll.
I have about 3000 worthless stock options from my last job that seems to refute this claim....
I, for one, am not one of his fans. I don't like Star Trek, or anything else Shatner has done. I always thought he acted like a pompous dick. So I read the interview because I thought mabye I had a misperception about him.
I didn't. It is really easy to just say "It's a joke - you don't get it" when you have no personality. So if his attitude is all "Shatner's joke" then I guess he has no sense of humor either. I don't even think he is a has-been, I think he is a never-was. He was LUCKY to be Captain Kirk, it took off, and he has had a secure gig ever since. He was always washed up, but instead of doing a popular show, he is doing priceline commercials. I don't give a rat's ass about him, he is a completely uninteresting person as far as I can tell. Maybe that is what he wants people to think so they will leave him alone. I don't know why people don't.
Would it have mattered? He would have just given a short, uninformative answer anyway.
Honestly, this was the most boring interview on /. ever. I am no fan of Star Trek, but jeez Bill, why agree to an interview if you are just going to give these types of answers?
Absolutely. Which is why I get pissed when someone's comment to a scientific article about searching for the origins of creation is "Read Genesis 1:1". The Bible has nothing to do with science, so people shouldn't pretend that it does.
I agree with what you say, and many scientists will as well, but the Christians will argue that point. That is why they want to teach religion in science class. I don't think any scientist would have a problem with people learning about religion, but DON'T try and pass it off in science classes as scientific.
Religious fanatics creep me out, no matter what their basis of faith is. Funny how Christians want their ideas of the origin of life to be taught in schools, but they would balk at the idea of other religions teaching their ideas of creation.
True. But scientists strive to learn, and acknowledge their deficiencies. Religion does not. The key to religion is belief. That is what is convenient about religion - there is no way to prove or disprove God. So no, I haven't disproven there is a God - but it hasn't been proven to me that there is one. I believe that science and religion should be kept apart, but for some reason religious zealots fear science. After all, it has shown that there is a world beyond ours, and constantly strives to learn. That scares people who have only a belief to rely on.
The difference is, "science" (I'll use it as a generic term for use of the scientific method), sets out to TEST theories in order to prove them to a certain degree of probability. Believing a book, with no chance of proving it one way or the other, doesn't follow the scientific method. If you want hard evidence, do you try to get some, or simply believe what you have been told to believe?
Besides, the two address the same event from two different perspectives. Genesis isn't explaining 'creation' in scientific terms nor is scientific theory explaining God. They're mutually exlusive no matter how hard one tries to use one to prove/disprove the other.
Pardon? Have you followed the news where backwards-thinking schools have fought to teach Creation in science class? I agree with you, it belongs in religion class. What is disgraceful is when people try to give their theories credibility by leeching on the hard work of scientists - hence the invention of "creation science". There is nothing scientific about it. If you want to believe in something like that, you have the right, but don't try to pass it off as science.
If I had any mod points, I would have modded you up as +1 Funny. This is an article about science, not fantasy. And no, throwing the word "creation" in front of the word "science" doesn't make it any more credible.
I don't think NASA ever spent millions to hire rock bands to play for a launch party.
Sure - but when was the last release? Way back in September. Have there been any bugs reported since then?
Do you follow the progress of IE? What are they working on now? Are you able to download beta code? Report bugs that get fixed in a timely manner?
That is the difference between a community and proprietary software. Maybe you can do these things with IE, I don't really know. I only use it when I am forced to, and more and more that is less often.
First off, I am not too superior to look up the information, which you could have done. I'd be willing to bet that you didn't try to look up the information until after you posted your question. It was originally posted at 2:35, and your post went up 6 minutes later. Not hardly enough time to put forth any effort in answering the question yourself.
Second, I never said you were stupid - I said your question was. It was a stupid question because you could have just as easily found the information yourself. Why can't you just admit that you didn't even bother to look up the info first? Why are you so superior that you are above asking a stupid question? I ask stupid questions sometimes, but in conversation where it is more free-flowing. Here, you have to consciously type it out, and click Submit. Therefore, you should put a little more (or at least some) thought into it. I don't think that is asking too much, and I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing it out.
It turns out that one of the sidebar links [bbc.co.uk] on BBC had more information, but other /. posters -- instead of assuming I was stupid, chose to politely answer the questions and even provide more background.
Why didn't you follow that link? Do you really think that the other /. posters know about this topic off the top of their heads, or maybe that they looked up the information themselves?
This just illustrates the point that people are lazy and want to be force fed their information. Even with something like Google around, where you don't have to really do much researching at all, people will still be lazy and refuse to do anything for themselves.
Well, your ignorance could be pardoned, except that there is a FRIGGIN' LINK TO THE ARTICLE that explains both of your questions. So some people say that there are no stupid questions, but I disagree. R T F A!
1. If you go see Star Wars 3, you are stupid anyway. I just broke down and rented that last piece of tripe, which I didn't go see in the theater out of protest because of Episode I. It wasn't even worth renting.
2. If your phone is on in the theater, you need your ass kicked anyway.
3. If you are dumb enough to sneak out of work to go see a movie, you deserve to be fired.
Maybe you were joking, but I guess a lot of the /. crowd thinks this way. Sad, really.
I actually had written that, and thought "no, some raving loonie will not get it and start some stupid flame war." So I changed it.
Two guys are sitting in a bar, and one says "you know, I kind of like the smell of mothballs."
The other guy replies "How to you get their little legs apart?"
I hate when nouns are turned into verbs.
You can change the volume on those things? Hey, that's great - now will someone inform the rest of the US population, please!
I find it funny, in a sad way, when dorks get so immersed in "their" internet world that they don't realize:
a. not everyone may have heard a joke yet, and 2 months isn't very long.
b. not everyone knows about these ultra-cool websites that they visit
c. referring to a website by a slang term gives you no idea what they are talking about. (what is "the shack"?) But I guess that means that they are cool and I am not.
d. they think they are the coolest, because they perceive themselves to be on the cutting edge.
It is bad when nerds give nerds a bad name.
Or, you could email them and complain about how they implemented the business model, requiring IE in order to use their service. I would not pay for a service that requires IE. I hope their customer service lines are flooded. It sounds like it is a total hassle to set up and download music, even if you do have IE. It is amazing that we are this far along in e-business, and companies still don't get it.
But thanks for the review, it was definitely worthwhile. I won't be using liquid.com any time soon.
Whatever you do, don't look behind you.
Dude, you should make a note of your own sig when posting something like this!
Now I am not saying that you still don't need to have a good understanding of the language, or use good design, implementation, testing, etc. But I have worked at SEI CMM level 3, level 2, and am currently going through the process of evaluation where I work now, for level 2. But being at that level doesn't guarantee that your software will be good. It seems almost like we are attempting to fit the creation of software into the old engineering mold, because it kind of fits.
So to answer the question - I don't think that there have been any great improvements to obtain the goals you stated. Software relys on hardware, which seems to contstantly be changing. A bridge is a bridge, but the very idea of what software can do has been changing constantly over the last 25 years.
If you want reliability, look at what NASA has produced. Those are some engineers. Ahh, but you said 'quickly', didn't you? :-) If you want something rock solid, you can't have it tomorrow, if you want it to do anything remotely complex. I think one of the big things we as an industry has to realize is that our product (software) can be simple and fast to market, or more complex and take more time. And all of the variations in between. I haven't been convinced that what we do is engineering, but I haven't been convinced that it isn't. After all, it is a pretty young profession, compared to others. Imagine trying to explain to someone from 100 years ago what a software engineer does.
All that being said, I think that the obvious Slashdot answer is that the GPL and free software have been a huge force, but only in recent years. I think the two biggest forces in software development were the PC and the internet.
1. Around where I live, Blockbuster is pretty much the only thing around. My other option is 30 minutes away, and has a poor selection.
2. I don't think they have a poor selection, they have pretty much anything I would want. And I do watch foreign films, they have an entire foreign film section. Disturbing? What the hell are you watching?
3. Lucas got nothing from me renting the film, unless he gets a portion of every rental. (does he?) I would guess that the money is going to Blockbuster alone.
Does ANY of your money go to ANY corporation? It does. Mine goes to Blockbuster on occasion, whooptie-doo. Unless you are living in a shack in Montana, your money is going to some corporation. Stop with the "anti-corporate-America" just because it is in vogue to have that opinion.
And no matter where I would have rented AoTC from, it still would have sucked.
I agree somewhat. I have DSL, but it was because I got really sick of my dialup connection dropping, and my wife needed the internet to do work on her thesis. Of course, it wasn't tough to convince me to get it. :-) But I absolutely love having DSL, it would be really tough to give it up. I actually use the internet as a tool, as well as for fun. I don't go see movies all that often, unless there is something I really want to see. I can make that compromise.
However, this weekend I caved. I rented Attack of the Clones. Even though I am a big Star Wars fan, I refused to go see it in the theatre because of Episode I, and because of the bad reviews it got. It made me not want to see it. But there it was at Blockbuster, all shiny and pretty. What a lifeless piece of crap. Even going in, having read some reviews, I had hope that I could suffer through the bad parts for all the good parts I heard about. I had to fast forward through the gratuitous garbage love scenes, but even then I was disappointed at the wooden acting of the entire cast, the overdone computer generated effects, and the lack of a story. Even the Yoda fight scene was stupid, and I had heard that the movie was worth seeing just for that.
So I compromised my morals, I got burned, and I feel like a sucker. I am glad I didn't go see it in a theater though.
On another note, I haven't bought a new CD in a few years. I like going to used CD stores, or rediscovering music from the 300+ CDs in our current collection.
The ex-sales guy gave a good, yet buzzword filled presentation. I really don't remember what he said, but he said it well. He looked at the crowd, was comfortable, and had good presentation skills.
The ex-engineer got up to give his presentation, and instead of just knowing the material, he had kept all his notes on his Palm. (and pointed this out to emphasize the fact that he came from engineering). It went like a bad high-school speech. He kept looking at his Palm, trying to read it, the light kept going off, and right in the middle of the presentation, he had to stop talking and restart the Palm and then find his notes again. It was really sad. I don't remember what he talked about either, just that it was an awful presentation.
I am a gadget person, but I have avoided getting a PDA. I did buy one for my wife, and she uses it somewhat, but she still relies on her regular planner for jotting things down, etc. I think the Handspring is really only used for an address book.
Gadgets are cool, but they aren't essential. And if they are essential to you, then you should probably just put it down, and step away from it. Try going a day without it. I am all for technology, but you have to be able to do things yourself. I went and saw a movie this weekend, and the lobby was full. It was weird - about half of the people were all f'king around with their phones. That glazed look as they were staring at their little screens, or yammering on endlessly about NOTHING. I feel a rant coming on, so I'll try to supress it, but what the hell do 17 year olds need to talk about constantly! Every time I overhear a "conversation", it is about absolutely nothing. People have forgotten how to use their brains. My wife and I have one cellphone, and it is off unless we are making a call. She has had people actually say increduously "I can't believe you don't leave your phone on!". Yes, there is a time and a place to use one, and at these times they are invaluable - unfortunately I never see that. I see people yammering about who is dating who, and how many times they took a crap that day. NOBODY CARES!
Bottom line is I think that people are becoming more and more like sheep, and they will follow along with the crowd. Why else would a 14 year old need a cell phone? To fit in, cause all the other kids have one. I think PDAs were a nice attempt at tech, but ultimately all they do is shackle you down, and once you have plunked down the cash for it, you feel like you have to use it.
If EVERYONE wanted spam to stop, it would. The problem is, there are people who are willing to give this guy service, because they make money too. I have never been a fan of vigilante justice, but with spammers it just seems so..... right.