Microsoft knew it won't make wonders with the first iteration of their product. Much like with their other attempts at entering a new market, they sell at loss, taking experiments just to see the outcome and trying to damage the competition as much as possible.
I don't think it's even THAT complex. Look at the Zune (if you can stand it.) It SUCKS. The media hates it, the consumers don't care because it's not an iPod, they'll be giving them away in crackerjack boxes before too long.
I find it impossible to believe that with the resources at Microsoft's disposal, THAT is the best they could come up with. It comes in BROWN, for Christ's sake.
I don't think Microsoft cares about capturing this market. If they did, I am convinced that the Zune wouldn't be what they went to market with. The Zune is a smokescreen, it's the paint on the Kamikaze plane that Microsoft has aimed at the market. Their aim is to enter into these kinds of agreements with the major media companies (the recording industry first, then the movie and television space) so the precedent is set and Apple finds themselves without a business model for the iPod. They'll have taken out Apple's major profit center, and all the mindshare Apple gets for its total product line.
Maybe the final straw was Apple switching to Intel chips and FINALLY closing the performance gap. So not only does OS X run like a scalded cat on the newer hardware, so does Windows. That had to piss off the OEM PC manufacturers a bunch, and you can bet Redmond heard about that.
This is looking more and more like a strategy to torpedo Apple all the time, IMHO.
I was going to moderate in this thread, but I have to point out a problem with your approach
Yes, it will prevent what you perceive as invasions of your privacy.
However, this basically keeps you from using a bank or a credit card. The banks are required to request this kind of information as a security measure. (The fact that anyone can find out what your mother's maiden name is, or your DOB, or etc. seems to be irrelevant. Those are public records anyway.)
Plus, I don't know about you, but I occasionally like to have a beer when I go out to dinner. I requested a unique number from the RMV (aka DMV for those outside Massachusetts) when I got my license at 16. (That's the law now, they CAN'T put your SSN on your driver's license anymore.) Massachusetts also doesn't have weight or description information beyond height on their licenses.
That being said, the clubs here seem to be pushing it. I don't see this so much as an invasion of privacy (my height, eye/hair color, and approximate weight can be determined by anyone looking at me, and my address is public record) as yet ANOTHER assertion by Marketing Inc. that they have the inalienable right to market to me when they want, how they want. Fuck that. I find the targeted advertising much more offensive than any perceived invasion of privacy here.
As an example of targeted marketing being taken too far, yesterday I had a company that claimed to be associated with my HMO call me and offer a program based on my prescription information. It seems even with HIPAA, if there's a clause in your health insurance contract that says "we can share this kind of info with authorized third parties," not only can they share this information, but it's OK to telemarket to you because you have an "existing business relationship"! I really wish I had a choice for health insurance, because I'd drop these guys like a bad habit.
Blaming the users who don't understand the technical issues is wrong.
Who should I blame for users not understanding technical issues, then?
Do you think the average user understands that with a default install of an OS, they can be hacked within minutes of going online, and should instead apply an update offline first?
No, I don't think they do. But they should be MADE to understand that.
Don't you have any family members who aren't tech savvy?
Several. They're smart enough to know what they don't know, and listen to me when I tell them what to do.
If their machine is hacked, are you going to call them lazy idiots?
If I find out it was hacked because they were doing something they shouldn't (or not doing something they should), then yes, I'm going to call them lazy idiots.
Do you think you're safe?
No.
Do you realize that you implicitly trust millions of lines of code written by thousands of different users, and it only takes one line/user to make a mistake or be malicious?
We don't live in a perfect world. If someone wants to hack you, they're going to find a way. However, that doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and say "Oh well, there's nothing I can do!" There are several simple things you can do to make the odds of your contracting malware much much lower. (The only way to have zero risk is to turn the thing off.)
I suppose you take the time to have everything sandboxed in multiple virtual machines, never mix your online banking with other activivities, have separate firewall zones for different applications to limit spyware, etc?
Securing your personal computers isn't an "all or nothing" approach. The techniques you describe have severely limiting returns in terms of actual benefit for home users. I do have my machines behind multiple firewalls, in my case a Linux-based gateway (donated machine) and the Windows firewall. Substitute an off-the-shelf gateway appliance readily available at any number of retail outlets for the Linux machine and you've got the same level of protection.
There is no sequence of steps that you can take that reduces the risk to zero. This is a fact of life. Software is created by humans, and humans make mistakes.
That being said, there are a few things that even the most computer illiterate person can be trained to do:
1) Turn on the windows firewall and leave it on. (And READ the goddamn popup when it asks you if you want to allow access. If you don't know what it is, say NO.) 2) Check the antivirus software on your system periodically to make sure it's working. (I.E. check the date of the last virus definitions.) 3) Run Ad-Aware/Spybot/$antispywareprogram and your antivirus program manually once a week. 4) NEVER EVER EVER click anything other than the "X" on a popup. 5) Use Firefox. 6) Look at your damn clock tray once in a while for the red shield with an X on it. If you see it call someone who knows more than you.
None of these things are too fucking much to ask.
No, security has to come from the vendor. Leaving millions of machines vulnerable is insane, and this situation will not last. Change will come.
You're right, it is insane. Blaming the vendor for millions of irresponsible users, who have been given the tools but refuse to use them, is even more insane.
I'm really sick of the attitude that there are users who cannot be expected to know what the fuck they should do and NOT do on a computer. Think of the vendors' solutions as the water, and the users as the horse. We need to MAKE THE FUCKING HORSE DRINK. Stop coddling users, stop making excuses, if they're idiots, TELL THEM. MAKE them feel bad. WHATEVER IT TAKES. ENOUGH already! It's time to make people take responsibili
I think it would be more effective and more professional to just drop service for that user and call them on the phone.
Who's going to pay those people to call the customers? That's thousands of calls for any of the larger ISPs every week. Those people need to get paid. Those costs will get passed on to the customer. It's not practical or realistic, and lots of customers (like myself) who take responsibility for securing their own computers will resent having to pay more because other people refuse to.
An automated process is the only way to go.
This just highlights that security needs to be built-in correctly by default.
Not going to happen. #1 Windows is such a giant fucking mess that it's probably not physically possible to make it secure by default, #2 any attempts by Microsoft to improve security will be met with howls of protest from people who don't understand why things don't "just work", #3 to expect all the vendors to take full responsibility for security because the end users are too fucking lazy to do the SIMPLEST things is just unfair.
One email is really easy to ignore. Thousands aren't, so much.
Lots of people only pay attention to something when they're forced to. Which would be fine, except when the problem they're ignoring affects thousands of other people. The fact that they're causing problems for other people makes no impact; when it's a problem for THEM, then they care.
Which one is doing good things with his time and money?
Define "good things". For lots of people, "good things" are "pushing around people who don't have as much money". Most people look at people like Woz and shake their heads sadly; to their eyes he's pissed away so much money on things that won't make him more money.
We've become a society where what you have is a lot more important than what you do. If you have lots of stuff and/or money, you can basically get away with anything (see: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.)
Jobs is selling lousy music players and laptops with exploding batteries.
At insane profit margins. Nothing else matters to most people. Perception is reality, marketing drives perception, so marketing molds reality in such a way that they make the most money. If a company found a business model for getting people to smear feces on themselves, and had enough marketing money, you can bet there'd be more people with brown on them than there are now.
So the company knows that there WAS a breach, and potentially sensitive data may have been leaked. The company probably doesn't have a technical obligation to disclose anything, since they don't know for sure that information that requires (or should require) disclosure (like customers' billing data, social security information, credit card info etc) was compromised.
That being said, the right thing to do is to be forthcoming and disclose the nature of the breach, emphasizing that no specific information about what was leaked is available.
Of course, this being a corporate setting, if they can get away without telling anyone, they will. Especially if it's publicly held; while the stockholders might wish to know that there was a problem, they may also be upset that a disclosure was made that was not absolutely required, as that will negatively affect their stock value.
Multiple studies have shown that students who complete their local D.A.R.E. program are no less likely to have problems with drug abuse than those who do not. Some of those studies have found that once students have found out about the lies and half-truths in the D.A.R.E. curriculum (which stresses rote parroting of anti-drug propaganda over critical thinking skills) they're less likely to listen to authority figures when they discuss drug abuse in the future.
D.A.R.E. is also treated as a sacred cow by local government; any elected official who is critical of the program is instantly metaphorically tarred and feathered and run out of office, despite any logical or fact-based arguments on its cost-effectiveness or usefulness. Police departments receive non-trivial funding from the program, which they use for a variety of purposes, not all of which are related to drug abuse prevention.
D.A.R.E. is broken. It's a substitute for parents having an honest, open dialog regarding the dangers of drug abuse with their children. Rather than "Son/Daughter, drug abuse causes a lot of problems in people's lives. It can be a monstrously destructive force, leading to things like addiction, unplanned pregnancy, accidental death, and imprisonment. You will have friends who will experiment with drugs; of that we're certian. This doesn't make them bad people, but the fact is that they're taking risks which we don't think you should take. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel pressure to try drugs, know that you can call us anytime and we will help you, no questions asked", they get "Drugs are bad, mmkay?", which is as insulting to their intelligence as it sounds.
I can think of a lot worse things my kid could do than puff a joint. I'd rather they be safe and responsible, and come home at the end of the day, regardless of anything else.
Because you no longer have to be smart to function in our society. Quite the opposite actually; our society is so dumbed down and geared towards the lowest common denominator that the smart people are the ones marginalized.
If you've ever wondered why the smart kids get picked on, there's your answer. "Smart" isn't rewarded, popularity is.
This is precisely what I'm talking about. "American" does NOT specifically refer to someone that resides in the United States of America, but enough people have that misconception that now it's considered "correct term." I know several Canadians that wouldn't use the term "American" to describe someone from the USA, and in fact would be offended if you did so.
More examples:
Calling Nintendo cartridges "tapes". Just lazy. "Taping" something on the Tivo. Unless you're talking about taping a note to the front of it, there aren't any tapes involved. Calling the computer the "hard drive", and the monitor the computer (or the "tv thingy", etc.)
I think you'll find that what we USians call "French Fries" are in fact Belgian in origin. Just another example of how we insist on sticking to false concepts simply because on average, we're dumber than a pile of doorknobs.
For others, see "it's/its" and "your/you're"; also, Wal*Mart (the fact that it even exists), Windows, AOL, how fat our kids are, how fat WE are, the idea that everything has to be someone's fault and there's no such thing as an "accident", the popularity of reality shows, the fact that we elected a retard to the Oval Office not once, but twice, our assumption that all Muslims are bomb-throwers, D.A.R.E. (and while we're on the subject, finding it acceptable that you need to pee in a cup to work at a video game retailer), and finally, the fact that W still has a 30% approval rating.
I could provide others, but my coffee hasn't completely kicked in yet.
You get the impression that they are scam artists foisting garbage and then trying to wash their hands of it.
Impression? It's a business model, not an impression.
You make the product only as good as you have to in order to avoid mass revolt from your customer base, with the support to match. The fact that most consumers will get pissed off but not actually do anything about it allows this business model to remain viable.
People are more tolerant of crap computers than they would be of, say, a dishwasher. People are used to their computers crashing, getting infected by malware, and losing their data. If their dishwasher stopped running in the middle of a cycle, failed to sanitize their dishes so someone got sick, or destroyed all their dishes, you can bet your ass the dishwasher manufacturer would have torches and pitchforks outside their doors. But the average HP computer buyer (on the consumer machines anyway) would rather get a cheaper computer than one that runs correctly.
It sounds to me like good advice, if your goal is to become a CEO of a large company. What you're perceiving as "bitterness" is simple pragmatism; this is the way the world works. Nobody said it was fair, equitable, or even rational. I don't think any sane person could argue with the fact that the people who succeed aren't always the smartest, best or most worthy. Luck is as big a factor as desire, motivation, talent or enthusiasm.
What you have to decide is if that goal is worthy of the other sacrifices you'll have to make along the way.
Of course, the fact that you're posting as an AC is kind of telling. I don't think the GPer is the bitter one here. Did your IT department make you change your password once too often?
#1 The unions would never go for it. I've worked at governmental agencies that couldn't make basic computer literacy a condition of employment, because of the union.
#2 It attempts to solve a problem by demanding that people be responsible for their own idiocy. What happens when the Big Boss writes down his password? Trust me, the only guy getting fired for that is the IT guy who tries to enforce the policy.
Why is it, whenever someone mentions Peak Oil in a (mostly) rational discussion of alternative fuels, there's always someone who needs to belittle the concept and imply that Peak Oil is groundless hysteria?
Why is it so difficult to believe that eventually we will run out of fossil fuels that are usable by current (and near-term) means? We use it at a far greater rate than it's being generated. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and the fact of the matter is we're using it at a far greater (and ever-accellerating) rate. Simple mathematics tells us that it's not sustainable and we WILL run out (or at the very least reach a point at which we can't meet the demand due to dwindling supplies.) Even if the entire planet were made of oil we'd still use it all eventually!
Your attitude is non-constructive at best, and irresponsible at worst. Are you so afraid of change that you have to disparage those who are seeking to prevent economic and environmental catastrophe? Would the world end if you needed to drive a more fuel efficient car? Or one that ran on vegetable oil? Or put solar panels on your roof?
Wesley Snipes said it best: "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill."
Today, a lot of companies do not use MS software (office & developer stuff, both) primarily because they do not want to be locked-in.
Name three.
The prevailing attitude is that you must use Windows, regardless of how painful it is. Everyone else uses Windows, and the business of business is business. CTOs and CIOs don't want to hear about OpenOffice or Samba, etc, because it just muddies the waters they're paid to keep clear.
That, and frequently the executive suite is a logic-free zone.
So long as people are stupid and ignore the facts, Microsoft will be in business. So they'll be around, fucking us in the ass sideways, for years to come.
(I only use Linux at work, but that's because my boss is too cheap to buy Windows, because the IT manager before me lost the OEM media for my work laptop. I still might not have used Windows, but I didn't have a choice in the matter. He also won't pay for a real business-class internet connection or real phone service, and forces us to use a cablemodem and Vonage. I've stopped listening to him when he tells me his sales people have had calls drop out on them. I just remind him that I offered him an alternative that he didn't take, because it would increase our fixed costs $300 a month. That shuts him up until the next time. Logic-free zone, anyone?)
So are lots of companies. Ford lost $1 billion in Q1 this year.
Losing money is no indicator of a company's viability. Usually the only thing that matters is the stock price, and whether or not the execs can collect their golden parachute. Everything else is irrelevant.
The attack consolidatet the Linux front and exposed the idiots.
You don't actually think that matters, do you?
Almost all attempts of SCO to make money out of licensing failed and that attempt of their undertaking is going to blow them out of existence.
Last I checked, they're still around. (And still publicly traded, AFAIK.)
Don't you think this will be a deterrent for anyone else to try something similar?
Do I think that this will keep another greedy, short-sighted, lazy company from abusing the legal system into creating a revenue stream for them without doing any actual work? No, I don't think anything can keep that from happening.
Let M$ continue on their track - they continue to annoy with their protectionism, so nobody likes them eventually.
Do you really think that Microsoft's business model requires that people "like" them? Their perception in the marketplace (as a greedy, protectionist, proprietary, monopolist bent on total computing domination through leveraging their status) is completely irrelevant.
No offense, but IMHO your perception of the business world is a bit naive.
The network setup that I inherited when I took my current job included 5 (now 7) Vonage lines connected to a Comcast "business class" DOCSIS gateway. When we were experiencing some dropouts and poor voice quality, I researched solutions that others (and Vonage) had found to improve the situation. You're correct in that the only QoS-like packet management happens within Vonage's routers, and after that there's no management. However, this is enough to resolve some problems that Vonage customers experience.
Now, when Comcast breaks for days with no ETA, that's when BVis goes postal. (Guess what I'm going to have to deal with this morning? Cable went out on Saturday according to the boss. Did they tell me Saturday when I might have been able to come in to the office and do some troubleshooting? Hell no. $boss IMd me at 12:15 Sunday morning when he got home from the office, bitching at me about the phones being down. WTF am I supposed to do then? I have no access to the building on the weekends without them there.) A real T1 would cost us another $300 a month over what we're paying now. Clearly if we paid more for a real connection, the ground would split open, dogs and cats would start living together, mass hysteria, etc. etc. Nevermind that phones and internet are mission critical to just about any organization, clearly saving $300 a month is worth days of downtime and lost business.
And yes, I am considering resigning over the fact that they wont do what it takes to allow me to do my job.
Strictly speaking you're right, once it gets outside your network all bets are off. What I was referring to was the local prioritization that the VoIP equipment does within your network to the degree possible.
However, to say "Vonage has no QoS" isn't strictly correct, either, when considering what happens within your network. If you have network devices connected to the LAN ports on your Vonage-provided router, traffic from those devices will be managed in such a way that any VoIP traffic the router has to send will be prioritized.
Slashdot Mirror
Read TFA. The Postal service won't ship it by air.
IT Staff? Overtime? What do those two things have to do with each other?
Wait, are you saying there's actually places that pay different amounts based on how many hours you work?
I find it impossible to believe that with the resources at Microsoft's disposal, THAT is the best they could come up with. It comes in BROWN, for Christ's sake.
I don't think Microsoft cares about capturing this market. If they did, I am convinced that the Zune wouldn't be what they went to market with. The Zune is a smokescreen, it's the paint on the Kamikaze plane that Microsoft has aimed at the market. Their aim is to enter into these kinds of agreements with the major media companies (the recording industry first, then the movie and television space) so the precedent is set and Apple finds themselves without a business model for the iPod. They'll have taken out Apple's major profit center, and all the mindshare Apple gets for its total product line.
Maybe the final straw was Apple switching to Intel chips and FINALLY closing the performance gap. So not only does OS X run like a scalded cat on the newer hardware, so does Windows. That had to piss off the OEM PC manufacturers a bunch, and you can bet Redmond heard about that.
This is looking more and more like a strategy to torpedo Apple all the time, IMHO.
I was going to moderate in this thread, but I have to point out a problem with your approach
Yes, it will prevent what you perceive as invasions of your privacy.
However, this basically keeps you from using a bank or a credit card. The banks are required to request this kind of information as a security measure. (The fact that anyone can find out what your mother's maiden name is, or your DOB, or etc. seems to be irrelevant. Those are public records anyway.)
Plus, I don't know about you, but I occasionally like to have a beer when I go out to dinner. I requested a unique number from the RMV (aka DMV for those outside Massachusetts) when I got my license at 16. (That's the law now, they CAN'T put your SSN on your driver's license anymore.) Massachusetts also doesn't have weight or description information beyond height on their licenses.
That being said, the clubs here seem to be pushing it. I don't see this so much as an invasion of privacy (my height, eye/hair color, and approximate weight can be determined by anyone looking at me, and my address is public record) as yet ANOTHER assertion by Marketing Inc. that they have the inalienable right to market to me when they want, how they want. Fuck that. I find the targeted advertising much more offensive than any perceived invasion of privacy here.
As an example of targeted marketing being taken too far, yesterday I had a company that claimed to be associated with my HMO call me and offer a program based on my prescription information. It seems even with HIPAA, if there's a clause in your health insurance contract that says "we can share this kind of info with authorized third parties," not only can they share this information, but it's OK to telemarket to you because you have an "existing business relationship"! I really wish I had a choice for health insurance, because I'd drop these guys like a bad habit.
Who should I blame for users not understanding technical issues, then?
No, I don't think they do. But they should be MADE to understand that.
Several. They're smart enough to know what they don't know, and listen to me when I tell them what to do.
If I find out it was hacked because they were doing something they shouldn't (or not doing something they should), then yes, I'm going to call them lazy idiots.
No.
We don't live in a perfect world. If someone wants to hack you, they're going to find a way. However, that doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and say "Oh well, there's nothing I can do!" There are several simple things you can do to make the odds of your contracting malware much much lower. (The only way to have zero risk is to turn the thing off.)
Securing your personal computers isn't an "all or nothing" approach. The techniques you describe have severely limiting returns in terms of actual benefit for home users. I do have my machines behind multiple firewalls, in my case a Linux-based gateway (donated machine) and the Windows firewall. Substitute an off-the-shelf gateway appliance readily available at any number of retail outlets for the Linux machine and you've got the same level of protection.
There is no sequence of steps that you can take that reduces the risk to zero. This is a fact of life. Software is created by humans, and humans make mistakes.
That being said, there are a few things that even the most computer illiterate person can be trained to do:
1) Turn on the windows firewall and leave it on. (And READ the goddamn popup when it asks you if you want to allow access. If you don't know what it is, say NO.)
2) Check the antivirus software on your system periodically to make sure it's working. (I.E. check the date of the last virus definitions.)
3) Run Ad-Aware/Spybot/$antispywareprogram and your antivirus program manually once a week.
4) NEVER EVER EVER click anything other than the "X" on a popup.
5) Use Firefox.
6) Look at your damn clock tray once in a while for the red shield with an X on it. If you see it call someone who knows more than you.
None of these things are too fucking much to ask.
You're right, it is insane. Blaming the vendor for millions of irresponsible users, who have been given the tools but refuse to use them, is even more insane.
I'm really sick of the attitude that there are users who cannot be expected to know what the fuck they should do and NOT do on a computer. Think of the vendors' solutions as the water, and the users as the horse. We need to MAKE THE FUCKING HORSE DRINK. Stop coddling users, stop making excuses, if they're idiots, TELL THEM. MAKE them feel bad. WHATEVER IT TAKES. ENOUGH already! It's time to make people take responsibili
An automated process is the only way to go.
Not going to happen. #1 Windows is such a giant fucking mess that it's probably not physically possible to make it secure by default, #2 any attempts by Microsoft to improve security will be met with howls of protest from people who don't understand why things don't "just work", #3 to expect all the vendors to take full responsibility for security because the end users are too fucking lazy to do the SIMPLEST things is just unfair.
One email is really easy to ignore. Thousands aren't, so much.
Lots of people only pay attention to something when they're forced to. Which would be fine, except when the problem they're ignoring affects thousands of other people. The fact that they're causing problems for other people makes no impact; when it's a problem for THEM, then they care.
We've become a society where what you have is a lot more important than what you do. If you have lots of stuff and/or money, you can basically get away with anything (see: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, etc.)
At insane profit margins. Nothing else matters to most people. Perception is reality, marketing drives perception, so marketing molds reality in such a way that they make the most money. If a company found a business model for getting people to smear feces on themselves, and had enough marketing money, you can bet there'd be more people with brown on them than there are now.
So the company knows that there WAS a breach, and potentially sensitive data may have been leaked. The company probably doesn't have a technical obligation to disclose anything, since they don't know for sure that information that requires (or should require) disclosure (like customers' billing data, social security information, credit card info etc) was compromised.
That being said, the right thing to do is to be forthcoming and disclose the nature of the breach, emphasizing that no specific information about what was leaked is available.
Of course, this being a corporate setting, if they can get away without telling anyone, they will. Especially if it's publicly held; while the stockholders might wish to know that there was a problem, they may also be upset that a disclosure was made that was not absolutely required, as that will negatively affect their stock value.
Multiple studies have shown that students who complete their local D.A.R.E. program are no less likely to have problems with drug abuse than those who do not. Some of those studies have found that once students have found out about the lies and half-truths in the D.A.R.E. curriculum (which stresses rote parroting of anti-drug propaganda over critical thinking skills) they're less likely to listen to authority figures when they discuss drug abuse in the future.
D.A.R.E. is also treated as a sacred cow by local government; any elected official who is critical of the program is instantly metaphorically tarred and feathered and run out of office, despite any logical or fact-based arguments on its cost-effectiveness or usefulness. Police departments receive non-trivial funding from the program, which they use for a variety of purposes, not all of which are related to drug abuse prevention.
D.A.R.E. is broken. It's a substitute for parents having an honest, open dialog regarding the dangers of drug abuse with their children. Rather than "Son/Daughter, drug abuse causes a lot of problems in people's lives. It can be a monstrously destructive force, leading to things like addiction, unplanned pregnancy, accidental death, and imprisonment. You will have friends who will experiment with drugs; of that we're certian. This doesn't make them bad people, but the fact is that they're taking risks which we don't think you should take. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel pressure to try drugs, know that you can call us anytime and we will help you, no questions asked", they get "Drugs are bad, mmkay?", which is as insulting to their intelligence as it sounds.
I can think of a lot worse things my kid could do than puff a joint. I'd rather they be safe and responsible, and come home at the end of the day, regardless of anything else.
That was such a stretch it made my cat jealous.
Because you no longer have to be smart to function in our society. Quite the opposite actually; our society is so dumbed down and geared towards the lowest common denominator that the smart people are the ones marginalized.
If you've ever wondered why the smart kids get picked on, there's your answer. "Smart" isn't rewarded, popularity is.
More examples:
Calling Nintendo cartridges "tapes". Just lazy.
"Taping" something on the Tivo. Unless you're talking about taping a note to the front of it, there aren't any tapes involved.
Calling the computer the "hard drive", and the monitor the computer (or the "tv thingy", etc.)
I think you'll find that what we USians call "French Fries" are in fact Belgian in origin. Just another example of how we insist on sticking to false concepts simply because on average, we're dumber than a pile of doorknobs.
For others, see "it's/its" and "your/you're"; also, Wal*Mart (the fact that it even exists), Windows, AOL, how fat our kids are, how fat WE are, the idea that everything has to be someone's fault and there's no such thing as an "accident", the popularity of reality shows, the fact that we elected a retard to the Oval Office not once, but twice, our assumption that all Muslims are bomb-throwers, D.A.R.E. (and while we're on the subject, finding it acceptable that you need to pee in a cup to work at a video game retailer), and finally, the fact that W still has a 30% approval rating.
I could provide others, but my coffee hasn't completely kicked in yet.
You make the product only as good as you have to in order to avoid mass revolt from your customer base, with the support to match. The fact that most consumers will get pissed off but not actually do anything about it allows this business model to remain viable.
People are more tolerant of crap computers than they would be of, say, a dishwasher. People are used to their computers crashing, getting infected by malware, and losing their data. If their dishwasher stopped running in the middle of a cycle, failed to sanitize their dishes so someone got sick, or destroyed all their dishes, you can bet your ass the dishwasher manufacturer would have torches and pitchforks outside their doors. But the average HP computer buyer (on the consumer machines anyway) would rather get a cheaper computer than one that runs correctly.
How do you figure?
It sounds to me like good advice, if your goal is to become a CEO of a large company. What you're perceiving as "bitterness" is simple pragmatism; this is the way the world works. Nobody said it was fair, equitable, or even rational. I don't think any sane person could argue with the fact that the people who succeed aren't always the smartest, best or most worthy. Luck is as big a factor as desire, motivation, talent or enthusiasm.
What you have to decide is if that goal is worthy of the other sacrifices you'll have to make along the way.
Of course, the fact that you're posting as an AC is kind of telling. I don't think the GPer is the bitter one here. Did your IT department make you change your password once too often?
Two reasons why that approach wouldn't work:
#1 The unions would never go for it. I've worked at governmental agencies that couldn't make basic computer literacy a condition of employment, because of the union.
#2 It attempts to solve a problem by demanding that people be responsible for their own idiocy. What happens when the Big Boss writes down his password? Trust me, the only guy getting fired for that is the IT guy who tries to enforce the policy.
Perhaps you can explain something to me.
Why is it, whenever someone mentions Peak Oil in a (mostly) rational discussion of alternative fuels, there's always someone who needs to belittle the concept and imply that Peak Oil is groundless hysteria?
Why is it so difficult to believe that eventually we will run out of fossil fuels that are usable by current (and near-term) means? We use it at a far greater rate than it's being generated. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and the fact of the matter is we're using it at a far greater (and ever-accellerating) rate. Simple mathematics tells us that it's not sustainable and we WILL run out (or at the very least reach a point at which we can't meet the demand due to dwindling supplies.) Even if the entire planet were made of oil we'd still use it all eventually!
Your attitude is non-constructive at best, and irresponsible at worst. Are you so afraid of change that you have to disparage those who are seeking to prevent economic and environmental catastrophe? Would the world end if you needed to drive a more fuel efficient car? Or one that ran on vegetable oil? Or put solar panels on your roof?
Wesley Snipes said it best: "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice-skate uphill."
The prevailing attitude is that you must use Windows, regardless of how painful it is. Everyone else uses Windows, and the business of business is business. CTOs and CIOs don't want to hear about OpenOffice or Samba, etc, because it just muddies the waters they're paid to keep clear.
That, and frequently the executive suite is a logic-free zone.
So long as people are stupid and ignore the facts, Microsoft will be in business. So they'll be around, fucking us in the ass sideways, for years to come.
(I only use Linux at work, but that's because my boss is too cheap to buy Windows, because the IT manager before me lost the OEM media for my work laptop. I still might not have used Windows, but I didn't have a choice in the matter. He also won't pay for a real business-class internet connection or real phone service, and forces us to use a cablemodem and Vonage. I've stopped listening to him when he tells me his sales people have had calls drop out on them. I just remind him that I offered him an alternative that he didn't take, because it would increase our fixed costs $300 a month. That shuts him up until the next time. Logic-free zone, anyone?)
Losing money is no indicator of a company's viability. Usually the only thing that matters is the stock price, and whether or not the execs can collect their golden parachute. Everything else is irrelevant.
Does anyone on the Slashdot editorial staff even read the main page anymore?
Last I checked, they're still around. (And still publicly traded, AFAIK.)
Do I think that this will keep another greedy, short-sighted, lazy company from abusing the legal system into creating a revenue stream for them without doing any actual work? No, I don't think anything can keep that from happening.
Do you really think that Microsoft's business model requires that people "like" them? Their perception in the marketplace (as a greedy, protectionist, proprietary, monopolist bent on total computing domination through leveraging their status) is completely irrelevant.
No offense, but IMHO your perception of the business world is a bit naive.
The network setup that I inherited when I took my current job included 5 (now 7) Vonage lines connected to a Comcast "business class" DOCSIS gateway. When we were experiencing some dropouts and poor voice quality, I researched solutions that others (and Vonage) had found to improve the situation. You're correct in that the only QoS-like packet management happens within Vonage's routers, and after that there's no management. However, this is enough to resolve some problems that Vonage customers experience.
Now, when Comcast breaks for days with no ETA, that's when BVis goes postal. (Guess what I'm going to have to deal with this morning? Cable went out on Saturday according to the boss. Did they tell me Saturday when I might have been able to come in to the office and do some troubleshooting? Hell no. $boss IMd me at 12:15 Sunday morning when he got home from the office, bitching at me about the phones being down. WTF am I supposed to do then? I have no access to the building on the weekends without them there.) A real T1 would cost us another $300 a month over what we're paying now. Clearly if we paid more for a real connection, the ground would split open, dogs and cats would start living together, mass hysteria, etc. etc. Nevermind that phones and internet are mission critical to just about any organization, clearly saving $300 a month is worth days of downtime and lost business.
And yes, I am considering resigning over the fact that they wont do what it takes to allow me to do my job.
Strictly speaking you're right, once it gets outside your network all bets are off. What I was referring to was the local prioritization that the VoIP equipment does within your network to the degree possible.
However, to say "Vonage has no QoS" isn't strictly correct, either, when considering what happens within your network. If you have network devices connected to the LAN ports on your Vonage-provided router, traffic from those devices will be managed in such a way that any VoIP traffic the router has to send will be prioritized.
Vonage definitely has QoS. You can adjust the sound quality on your account through their website.
Their routers also prioritize voice traffic if they are able to.