Document your concerns, state that you've been monitoring for the (very real) problem using your own equipment and that is no longer an option, and stop monitoring.
It'll get cracked, messed with, and THEN there will be a business need for your much-needed upgrades.
In other words, quit saving them from themselves. The sooner the network gets taken down, the sooner you get the proper budget to do it right.
Because it's a diminishing return if you're salaried.
Stay longer, effectively lower your paycheck.
If you feel there's a good reason to stay, political reasons (impressing the boss), for example... that's up to you, but you don't get paid any more than the guy who left at his regular time.
Perhaps his documentaries serve to foster enough discussion and outrage, that those who think they know how to fix things start to have motivation to do so, and really start to take action.
GM certainly started working on many of their serious problems only after Roger & Me, even if it was less than truthful.
Maybe that's the most useful "purpose" to Moore's movies. And if you believe that he feels the causes are more important than making money from the movies (I don't, but some might)... perhaps he's figured out how to be very effective.
Most of the time I find his movies both repulsive (because of his tactics) and also highly interesting at the same time. It's strange.
The phone companies would have plenty of incentive to stop scamming if the anti-scamming, anti-slamming laws already on the books were being actively enforced.
You may want to recommend to Congress (since you work for the whole place - Ha!), that they put pressure on Justice to do their jobs.
Plus, who cares? If phone companies are scamming people with something as simple as a Caller ID bait and switch, those people are insanely stupid, and need to learn a few hard lessons about phone companies.
It's easy to find the fatal statistical flaw in this.
It would (mistakenly) seem to indicate that the best way to raise the total population's IQ would be to divorce as soon as the first child is born, and to go have another "first-born" with another mate.
There's lots of places where you can do this. Pikes Peak on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado can see Kansas on a clear day... it gets real flat out there, real quick going East.
"Please respect others and don't commit suicide during rush hour, you're delaying the trains."
That concept alone might be enough to drive some to suicide. Good lord.
People get downright strange when you pack them in too closely. LA, NYC, Tokyo... all full of nutjobs with ideas like the above.
I'm imagining the conversation that led to the above:
"You know, if we ask folks not to commit suicide on the train tracks during rush hour that will save us a lot of headaches."
"Hey, even better, let's publish locations so in case they do want to commit suicide, they'll know where to go so we can clean them up efficiently"
"Great job!"
I'm convinced that continued urbanization in places so crowded they have to schedule suicides... means that society has much more serious problems ahead of it.
Lots of words to try to justify your concerns, but none of them hold any water. Apple's allowed to make "the whole thing" and still sell a slow low-end machine. If you don't want that machine, you buy a faster one. Just like car companies make low-end cars that can't reasonably be used to drive in the mountains around here, and barely get out of the way in regular rush-hour traffic.
So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale?
I still don't get your point. Cheap = slow. He bought cheap. He got slow. He didn't even bother to try to get to halfway up the price scale to do a review, and the review was supposed to be about the OS, not the hardware.
You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong".
The two simply don't relate. Buy the hardware speed you need for your own computing experience to be as fast as you like. Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this. They give options from the low-end ("sluggish") machines to the screaming fast with options in-between also.
Your arguing a point that's just not there. He's wrong to decide that Apple is somehow at "fault" for the low-end machines being "sluggish". Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end.
Those machines are not targeted at the crowd this reviewer was intending to reach, is my point. My wife's iBook is FAR slower than those machines, and yet -- for the things she does: E-mail, web, quicken, word processing (with NeoOffice, by the way -- which as many others have pointed out, works just fine), and photo/music/other media storage and organization... in other words, a "regular user" type of experience... it runs fast enough that she doesn't care.
If the reviewer was going for the technical crowd, buying the absolute lowest-end machine (well "borrowing" it from the Apple store because he obviously has no budget for hardware, I would agree with him complaining about performance issues. But when you buy/borrow the BOTTOM of the line of anything, you never expect it to be a speed demon.
Example from the PC world to make the point: If he'd have based his opinion of how "sluggish" WinXP feels to him, and then borrowed the cheapest Celeron or Duron type machine with minimal RAM to even load the OS, let alone run applications... and THEN complain about performance problems -- His review would have been laughed out of existence.
OF COURSE the PC geeks would say... those systems SUCK.
But if I say the same wording, but now related to Mac hardware -- OF COURSE, the bottom-line Apple machines performance numbers were horrible. What'd he expect?
Slashdot Mirror
How about, "and IT if you like dealing with the bugs from the first two guys and no authority or tools to fix them".
Especially fun are the ones that wake you up, or keep you up dealing with their consequences anytime after 2AM local.
And just think... The FCC wants the price HIGH... they're one of the only governmental agencies that pulls in the big bucks.
Don't think they don't have a desire to see this spectrum go for the absolute highest price possible.
A capitalistic FCC is (and has been) a really bad idea for a very very long time.
Document your concerns, state that you've been monitoring for the (very real) problem using your own equipment and that is no longer an option, and stop monitoring.
It'll get cracked, messed with, and THEN there will be a business need for your much-needed upgrades.
In other words, quit saving them from themselves. The sooner the network gets taken down, the sooner you get the proper budget to do it right.
Because it's a diminishing return if you're salaried.
Stay longer, effectively lower your paycheck.
If you feel there's a good reason to stay, political reasons (impressing the boss), for example... that's up to you, but you don't get paid any more than the guy who left at his regular time.
If you're NOT salaried... it's all different.
LOL... careful, you'll make someone suicidal!
Perhaps his documentaries serve to foster enough discussion and outrage, that those who think they know how to fix things start to have motivation to do so, and really start to take action.
GM certainly started working on many of their serious problems only after Roger & Me, even if it was less than truthful.
Maybe that's the most useful "purpose" to Moore's movies. And if you believe that he feels the causes are more important than making money from the movies (I don't, but some might)... perhaps he's figured out how to be very effective.
Most of the time I find his movies both repulsive (because of his tactics) and also highly interesting at the same time. It's strange.
First you say it's not "normal", then you praise "smart companies" who acknowledge it.
By your own admission, it's normal. Sad, but normal.
I agree with your assessment that it's not rational.
The battery on the iPhone is not (easily) replaceable. It's "built in" and you can't swap it.
The phone companies would have plenty of incentive to stop scamming if the anti-scamming, anti-slamming laws already on the books were being actively enforced.
You may want to recommend to Congress (since you work for the whole place - Ha!), that they put pressure on Justice to do their jobs.
Plus, who cares? If phone companies are scamming people with something as simple as a Caller ID bait and switch, those people are insanely stupid, and need to learn a few hard lessons about phone companies.
Wage slaves are sometimes cheaper than machines. That's why the legal limit on usury keeps going up.
Best to keep the masses in debt up to their eyeballs, chasing after that $1000 HDTV... otherwise they might not want to work!
It's easy to find the fatal statistical flaw in this.
It would (mistakenly) seem to indicate that the best way to raise the total population's IQ would be to divorce as soon as the first child is born, and to go have another "first-born" with another mate.
I doubt it would work.
There's lots of places where you can do this. Pikes Peak on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado can see Kansas on a clear day... it gets real flat out there, real quick going East.
A decade of this fallacy now, pretty amazing isn't it?
Climb? Screw that...
http://www.pikespeakcolorado.com/ - 14,110 in the comfort of your car.
He's just kissing ass to the people that paid for and allowed him to go. Nothing to see here, move along.
You read ads?
"Please respect others and don't commit suicide during rush hour, you're delaying the trains."
That concept alone might be enough to drive some to suicide. Good lord.
People get downright strange when you pack them in too closely. LA, NYC, Tokyo... all full of nutjobs with ideas like the above.
I'm imagining the conversation that led to the above:
"You know, if we ask folks not to commit suicide on the train tracks during rush hour that will save us a lot of headaches."
"Hey, even better, let's publish locations so in case they do want to commit suicide, they'll know where to go so we can clean them up efficiently"
"Great job!"
I'm convinced that continued urbanization in places so crowded they have to schedule suicides... means that society has much more serious problems ahead of it.
So an old company with lots of "legacy" shit has to re-design their bad network.
I'm still trying to figure out why that's even slightly interesting on a Geek News website.
If I'd have known, I could have had that guy write some stupid articles about everyplace older than 5 years old that I've ever worked for.
They use scripts? Hell, most TV is so bad I figured they were just making it up on the spot.
Yep. No problem. Plenty of underpowered products out there.
Just take a look at the nutritional value of fast food sometime... but it sells by the billions.
LOL! Take care...
Lots of words to try to justify your concerns, but none of them hold any water. Apple's allowed to make "the whole thing" and still sell a slow low-end machine. If you don't want that machine, you buy a faster one. Just like car companies make low-end cars that can't reasonably be used to drive in the mountains around here, and barely get out of the way in regular rush-hour traffic.
Summary:
Pay attention. There's going to be a test.
So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale?
I still don't get your point. Cheap = slow. He bought cheap. He got slow. He didn't even bother to try to get to halfway up the price scale to do a review, and the review was supposed to be about the OS, not the hardware.
You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong".
The two simply don't relate. Buy the hardware speed you need for your own computing experience to be as fast as you like. Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this. They give options from the low-end ("sluggish") machines to the screaming fast with options in-between also.
Your arguing a point that's just not there. He's wrong to decide that Apple is somehow at "fault" for the low-end machines being "sluggish". Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end.
Those machines are not targeted at the crowd this reviewer was intending to reach, is my point. My wife's iBook is FAR slower than those machines, and yet -- for the things she does: E-mail, web, quicken, word processing (with NeoOffice, by the way -- which as many others have pointed out, works just fine), and photo/music/other media storage and organization... in other words, a "regular user" type of experience... it runs fast enough that she doesn't care.
If the reviewer was going for the technical crowd, buying the absolute lowest-end machine (well "borrowing" it from the Apple store because he obviously has no budget for hardware, I would agree with him complaining about performance issues. But when you buy/borrow the BOTTOM of the line of anything, you never expect it to be a speed demon.
Example from the PC world to make the point: If he'd have based his opinion of how "sluggish" WinXP feels to him, and then borrowed the cheapest Celeron or Duron type machine with minimal RAM to even load the OS, let alone run applications... and THEN complain about performance problems -- His review would have been laughed out of existence.
OF COURSE the PC geeks would say... those systems SUCK.
But if I say the same wording, but now related to Mac hardware -- OF COURSE, the bottom-line Apple machines performance numbers were horrible. What'd he expect?
So stop fixing their Apple systems if you don't know what the fuck you're doing on them. Sheesh. Find a pro.
Apple provides them at these places called "Apple Stores" and there are others out there that know Mac better than they know PC's.
"I hate working on my friend's Hummers and Mercedes-Benz's because I have only ever worked on my Ford. They make me feel stupid." Duh?