This bullshit "metrics" and "targets" mentality which has it's roots in game theory doesn't just apply to sales.
Healthcare (at least in Canada) is often measured based on metrics like wait times. This results in hospitals trying various schemes to make sure a doctor "sees someone" very soon after they arrive in the ER. Thus they can say the patient experienced a very short wait time. Instead, they should make decisions based on patient satisfaction and outcomes.
Education also suffers. Standardized tests, GPAs and other nonsense metrics replace the desire to provide a useful education to students. Instead, it's about getting them to fill in the right bubbles on the test.
Policing. While most police departments will swear up and down that they have no quotas, the fact is that they still exist. There are no other "metrics" that they can go by to measure policing effectiveness. Even when they try to use numbers like YoY violent crime numbers -- the police still manipulate that by reclassifying violent crimes as misdemeanors.
Sadly, as a programmer -- I have to say that we really need to find a way to stop measuring these things with numbers. The numbers may seem to get better, but that which they measure just continue to suffer.
He makes a good point. If all you can manage is a form-filling/text-scrolling app, then this isn't even a topic worth discussing. If you can write *any* application using a strictly web platform -- then there is common ground for a discussion.
That would make perfect sense to me. They don't care about the Mac, and haven't since the iPhone. Originally, products like the iPod were designed to sell more Macs -- but with the decoupling of iTunes from their "operating system" and the insane pace of iPhone sales, they realized that the real money wasn't in Macs. It never was, but it took them a long time to realize it.
I think the signs are already there. They get rid of Aperture thus shunning the "I got a DSLR a year ago, now I'm a photographer" crowd, and not long ago, the whole FCPX debacle showed the video editing world how much Apple gave a crap about them and their industry. Recently, DJs were taken aback by the lack of ports on the new MB -- because they knew that those stupid dongles would break very quickly and need to be replaced constantly as all Apple cables must be.
Nope, Apple would rather continue selling to mass market nubs who won't complain about features on their iPhone. Corporates are too much work, they have requirements and those requirements can't be dictated to them by some egotistic nutjob working at an art gallery that thinks it's a computer company.
This was my first thought, too. I can't stand reading ebooks on an iPad, it's too bright even on the lowest setting and eye fatigue sets in. It might help if people would learn that generally speaking, black text on a white background is wrong. This was understood in the 80s, but when GUIs came along, and didn't look as nice with white on black -- logic went out the window.
I liken it to skeuomorphism -- trying to make the screen look like paper. Why? Makes no sense to be blinded by a monitor turned spotlight. The only place this scheme makes sense is on e-ink readers which won't cause eye strain because they aren't backlit.
Edison was born in the US and Tesla was from Croatia. It isn't surprising to me that Edison would be put forth as an example of someone living the American delusion (nee dream), whereas Tesla would've been seen as an 'evil' foreigner. Back in those days, your grandparents were young -- did you think they became prejudiced in their old age? Unlikely.
The software you are using is garbage. Applications don't HAVE to store ANYTHING in the registry -- that's the vendor of your crappy games doing that. Also, each vendor supplies an uninstaller -- obviously yours aren't doing the job. I suggest you have a talk with the thick-headed developers who write your games.
Or, just join the rest of us in 2014, get an SSD and don't worry about it.
Windows RT tablets don't run 'native Windows programs' -- but the Surface Pro line most certainly does. You're not obviously not paying attention.
Licensing fees can most certainly be an issue, especially if that tablet is an iPad in a corporate environment. Since Windows apps won't run natively on it, you'll need to set up a Remote Desktop/Terminal Server so that people on iPad can use the apps. That means Windows Server license + normal CALs + TS CALs.. it suddenly got a lot more expensive than a rolling it out to a true Windows tablet via SMS/SCCM.
Exactly. The monolithic organizations who've put their weight behind NFC aren't going to give up because a) somebody hacked together a blinky lights app in their basement or b) Apple can't be bothered to keep up with technology.
The placement of that bit of entertainment industry propaganda in *A* dictionary does not mean that it is considered valid by anyone.
What about other dictionaries? Dictionary.com looks even more shill-like;
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
If I were to subscribe to a definition of this word that includes copyright, I'd probably go with the Cambridge dictionary -- mostly because it adds an important caveat which makes it valid;
[...] the act of illegally copying a computer program, music, a film, etc. and selling it:
software/video piracy
I doubt any of the pirates to whom the original definition applied would've considered an act piratical if it didn't involve profit.
To stay on-topic, my father was a sound engineer for most of working years, and he insists that these Sony headphones and their studio monitor series are the best ever made. (disclaimer: linked using my associates tag). They are $75, if you want to stick hard on the $50 limit, these or these are very highly rated as well.
Your father was absolutely correct. The Sony MDR-V6 is the best pair of headphones ever made. They have a frequency range that would make even a top-of-the-line current-day Grado cry.
Exactly. While I understand the analogies to things like the brakes on your car, it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. The car manufacturer gives you a warranty, and even brakes aren't covered under that unless it's a manufacturing defect. After the warranty is over, unless there was a recall notice, it's up to you.
In the case of software, the simple fact of the matter is that NO software is bug-free. Even if it somehow magically were bug-free when delivered, changes to OS, configuration, etc can cause new bugs to be created simply by introducing situations that could not have been anticipated during the initial development.
In the end, it would be financial suicide to fix bugs forever for free. A short period (a couple of months) after delivery should be good enough, or in a case where user acceptance testing is required, I'd go with no time at all. If they have these sort of onerous requirements, then it's up to them to figure it out during that process.
They are in the business to make money. The most money can be made by marketing a drug that does not cure anything, but must be continued to be taken for as long as a person lives. That's their holy grail.
Cures are useful for killing their competitor's products, but isn't a golden goose that continues laying eggs.
IMO, pharma patent laws should be modified to steer research into what's best for the people, not best for the shareholders. Drop the extended patent terms for anything that isn't curative.
Amen. This is one of the biggest problems with patents. In the pharmaceutical industry, the current system encourages this anti-social behavior. A short enough patent term (like the 5 years suggested by the OP) could conceivably do the trick. If they patent a cure, they'd want to cure as many people as quickly as they can as to maximize ROI.
In the case of products with long development cycles (Pharma, Rockets for man rated launch, etc.) make the patent duration two pronged (this could apply to all patents): 5 years from commercial availability or 20 years total, whichever is shorter. Same for (C), 5/20. I realize there is a simple game of the system: don't start selling until 15 years from patent or copyright grant date, but at least it's an improvement on what we have now, and profit incentives will keep this from happening in many cases.
The only real issue with this is the classic:
Manufacturer discovers 2 ways to make a widget, method A, which is efficient, and method B, which has an incremental cost of 10% more. The manufacturer patents both methods, thus keeping B away from potential competitors. My plan would not solve this, but at least method A is available in 5 years. It is conceivable that they might start with method B and in 5 years switch to method A, but I think that the shareholders would be all over them for doing that, and if the cost difference is low enough between the two methods that the shareholders wouldn't care, then I think the cost of switching methods would be too high to make such a plan worth it.
-nB
The idea works for me. Perhaps the solution to the issue you pose is that if the same organization (or a lateral/vertical division thereof) patents two methods, and only brings one to market, the other patent is invalidated.
Slashdot Mirror
This bullshit "metrics" and "targets" mentality which has it's roots in game theory doesn't just apply to sales. Healthcare (at least in Canada) is often measured based on metrics like wait times. This results in hospitals trying various schemes to make sure a doctor "sees someone" very soon after they arrive in the ER. Thus they can say the patient experienced a very short wait time. Instead, they should make decisions based on patient satisfaction and outcomes. Education also suffers. Standardized tests, GPAs and other nonsense metrics replace the desire to provide a useful education to students. Instead, it's about getting them to fill in the right bubbles on the test. Policing. While most police departments will swear up and down that they have no quotas, the fact is that they still exist. There are no other "metrics" that they can go by to measure policing effectiveness. Even when they try to use numbers like YoY violent crime numbers -- the police still manipulate that by reclassifying violent crimes as misdemeanors. Sadly, as a programmer -- I have to say that we really need to find a way to stop measuring these things with numbers. The numbers may seem to get better, but that which they measure just continue to suffer.
He makes a good point. If all you can manage is a form-filling/text-scrolling app, then this isn't even a topic worth discussing. If you can write *any* application using a strictly web platform -- then there is common ground for a discussion.
That would make perfect sense to me. They don't care about the Mac, and haven't since the iPhone. Originally, products like the iPod were designed to sell more Macs -- but with the decoupling of iTunes from their "operating system" and the insane pace of iPhone sales, they realized that the real money wasn't in Macs. It never was, but it took them a long time to realize it.
I think the signs are already there. They get rid of Aperture thus shunning the "I got a DSLR a year ago, now I'm a photographer" crowd, and not long ago, the whole FCPX debacle showed the video editing world how much Apple gave a crap about them and their industry. Recently, DJs were taken aback by the lack of ports on the new MB -- because they knew that those stupid dongles would break very quickly and need to be replaced constantly as all Apple cables must be.
Nope, Apple would rather continue selling to mass market nubs who won't complain about features on their iPhone. Corporates are too much work, they have requirements and those requirements can't be dictated to them by some egotistic nutjob working at an art gallery that thinks it's a computer company.
Amen to that. That BSD thing is the worst OS ever, with the worst file system ever created (as per Linus and other hyper-intelligent luminaries).
This was my first thought, too. I can't stand reading ebooks on an iPad, it's too bright even on the lowest setting and eye fatigue sets in. It might help if people would learn that generally speaking, black text on a white background is wrong. This was understood in the 80s, but when GUIs came along, and didn't look as nice with white on black -- logic went out the window.
I liken it to skeuomorphism -- trying to make the screen look like paper. Why? Makes no sense to be blinded by a monitor turned spotlight. The only place this scheme makes sense is on e-ink readers which won't cause eye strain because they aren't backlit.
Wasn't this one of the hyped features of DVDs back in the day? Didn't make a splash then...
Edison was born in the US and Tesla was from Croatia. It isn't surprising to me that Edison would be put forth as an example of someone living the American delusion (nee dream), whereas Tesla would've been seen as an 'evil' foreigner. Back in those days, your grandparents were young -- did you think they became prejudiced in their old age? Unlikely.
The software you are using is garbage. Applications don't HAVE to store ANYTHING in the registry -- that's the vendor of your crappy games doing that. Also, each vendor supplies an uninstaller -- obviously yours aren't doing the job. I suggest you have a talk with the thick-headed developers who write your games. Or, just join the rest of us in 2014, get an SSD and don't worry about it.
“Windows 95 called and they want their mail app back.” Hilarious. 1995 called, they want their search engine back! Where's Jerry when you need him?
Windows RT tablets don't run 'native Windows programs' -- but the Surface Pro line most certainly does. You're not obviously not paying attention. Licensing fees can most certainly be an issue, especially if that tablet is an iPad in a corporate environment. Since Windows apps won't run natively on it, you'll need to set up a Remote Desktop/Terminal Server so that people on iPad can use the apps. That means Windows Server license + normal CALs + TS CALs.. it suddenly got a lot more expensive than a rolling it out to a true Windows tablet via SMS/SCCM.
Exactly. The monolithic organizations who've put their weight behind NFC aren't going to give up because a) somebody hacked together a blinky lights app in their basement or b) Apple can't be bothered to keep up with technology.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
If I were to subscribe to a definition of this word that includes copyright, I'd probably go with the Cambridge dictionary -- mostly because it adds an important caveat which makes it valid;
[...] the act of illegally copying a computer program, music, a film, etc. and selling it: software/video piracy
I doubt any of the pirates to whom the original definition applied would've considered an act piratical if it didn't involve profit.
You sir... make me wish I had moderator points.
No. The second the users realize they aren't using Microsoft Office they'll either have an aneurysm or cause IT staff to do so.
Actually, that was Delphi. Turbo Pascal was one of the first IDEs for DOS.
A smart programmer. It's a shame that language-wise things have gone so far downhill since then.
To stay on-topic, my father was a sound engineer for most of working years, and he insists that these Sony headphones and their studio monitor series are the best ever made. (disclaimer: linked using my associates tag). They are $75, if you want to stick hard on the $50 limit, these or these are very highly rated as well.
Your father was absolutely correct. The Sony MDR-V6 is the best pair of headphones ever made. They have a frequency range that would make even a top-of-the-line current-day Grado cry.
Exactly. While I understand the analogies to things like the brakes on your car, it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. The car manufacturer gives you a warranty, and even brakes aren't covered under that unless it's a manufacturing defect. After the warranty is over, unless there was a recall notice, it's up to you. In the case of software, the simple fact of the matter is that NO software is bug-free. Even if it somehow magically were bug-free when delivered, changes to OS, configuration, etc can cause new bugs to be created simply by introducing situations that could not have been anticipated during the initial development. In the end, it would be financial suicide to fix bugs forever for free. A short period (a couple of months) after delivery should be good enough, or in a case where user acceptance testing is required, I'd go with no time at all. If they have these sort of onerous requirements, then it's up to them to figure it out during that process.
They are in the business to make money. The most money can be made by marketing a drug that does not cure anything, but must be continued to be taken for as long as a person lives. That's their holy grail.
Cures are useful for killing their competitor's products, but isn't a golden goose that continues laying eggs.
IMO, pharma patent laws should be modified to steer research into what's best for the people, not best for the shareholders. Drop the extended patent terms for anything that isn't curative.
Amen. This is one of the biggest problems with patents. In the pharmaceutical industry, the current system encourages this anti-social behavior. A short enough patent term (like the 5 years suggested by the OP) could conceivably do the trick. If they patent a cure, they'd want to cure as many people as quickly as they can as to maximize ROI.
In the case of products with long development cycles (Pharma, Rockets for man rated launch, etc.) make the patent duration two pronged (this could apply to all patents): 5 years from commercial availability or 20 years total, whichever is shorter. Same for (C), 5/20. I realize there is a simple game of the system: don't start selling until 15 years from patent or copyright grant date, but at least it's an improvement on what we have now, and profit incentives will keep this from happening in many cases. The only real issue with this is the classic: Manufacturer discovers 2 ways to make a widget, method A, which is efficient, and method B, which has an incremental cost of 10% more. The manufacturer patents both methods, thus keeping B away from potential competitors. My plan would not solve this, but at least method A is available in 5 years. It is conceivable that they might start with method B and in 5 years switch to method A, but I think that the shareholders would be all over them for doing that, and if the cost difference is low enough between the two methods that the shareholders wouldn't care, then I think the cost of switching methods would be too high to make such a plan worth it. -nB
The idea works for me. Perhaps the solution to the issue you pose is that if the same organization (or a lateral/vertical division thereof) patents two methods, and only brings one to market, the other patent is invalidated.