I'm with you on this one- I picked up a 2G from a friend for $50 when he got a 3G. I've had it for over two years now, and it's still going strong. The battery life is still really strong- I use it for about 90 minutes a day and only have to charge it once or twice a week. As far as I know, anything that's 3G+ is dead after 18 months these days.
Every time a new G comes out I think "Hey, maybe now is the time to upgrade" and then I remember that a new, better model will be out in about a year, so i might as well hold onto the one I have.
realize that the resources required for such an effort FAR exceed any possible benefit.
At the moment. Some breakthroughs in technology could change this- such as a way to get off the planet at a significantly reduced cost. It really just takes a couple of shifts before the whole thing opens up to other opportunities. Really it's just one Big Idea that will lead to a chain reaction of the others.
I'm the sole IT person at this company (it's very non-technical), and I view my role as simultaneously janitor and wizard of oz- people need me to do things, but don't know what it is that they want. They consider me beneath them, but need my level of knowledge in order to get things done. More often than not, I'm seen as an obstacle to getting things done. Although, from where I sit, their expectations are so far off base with reality I need to try and reign them in, which they don't like. People don't see that I'm argueing a logistical/technical impossiblility with them, and think I'm just "pushing back" so I don't have to do any work. In truth, I'm happy to work as long as everyone is on the same page.
This turned into more of rant that I thought it would.
It's no start, it's just another business opportunity. Now going BACK to what you had is just another way for MS to make money, as you'll have to pay for the copy of XP along with the Vista license you already have.
It's almost like the "new coke" thing- make something worse and people will be happy when you give them back the crap they had. Only this time, M$ makes out like a bandit.
I hear you- I was hired by my girlfriends company (5 people) to help "upgrade" their systems after a renovation. They decided to rip out the already installed Cat5 and go with an all-wireless network before they had contacted me. I told them this was going to cause more problems than it solved, but they still had me go ahead with it. Now I get at least one phone call a week because the wireless print server I had to install isn't working, one person can't get online, or some other such nonsense.
Wireless connections shouldn't be used in the office for all the issues mentioned in TFA. Wireless will never replace a good, solid wired connection. (watch me eat those words in ten years...)
Huge Apple Fanboy that I am, I just don't think this one is going to fly- it's too pricey for personal use, and it doesn't have the features to attract the business professional. Other similar devices (like the Motorola Q) run about $200, and can integrate nicely into exchange. I just don't know who is actually going to buy these things, other than people looking for a status symbol (ok, that's going to be everyone at first).
I think the amazing Apple marketing machine is stopping right here, folks.
I don't think Apple's interested in the browser market as it exists, I think they are interested in having cross-platform "client" to run a new generation of web-based content that they will release over the next few years- things like a Safari-based Word Processor, or perhaps photo editor- a remote connection client so you can always get to your Mac. I think Apple wants / need certain features to make this work, and it's easier all around if they use their browser rather than IE or FF. Watch Safari turn into a client for Safari apps, not a new entrant into the browser war. They want it cross-platform so PC users will also be able to take advantage of it, possibly selling more Macs in the process.
Good people don't like being told to do a shitty job, and they will leave.
Amen to that! I'm getting ready to leave my current gig for just that reason! There's only so many times you can be directed to do sub-par work before you start looking for something else.
I think he's getting at "Features are less important than ease of use is."
I worked at a software company that made this product that could do a lot of things, and it did them fairly well. However, the software was a beast to navigate and understand... in the year that I was there, there were entire sections of it that I didn't have a clue how to use, despite repeatedly trying to figure them out. Now, if a potential client asked "can your software do X?" the answer would be "yes", but in reality, making it do what you wanted was a heavy task.
Let's compare Gmail to Yahoo mail- Yahoo has cool drag and drop, you can use it pretty much like a desktop email program... but for the most part, who needs that stuff? Google's approach, while lacking in all the features, is a much nicer experience (in my opinion).
THAT is where software is heading- things that are easy to use over having bells and whistles- making an application that does one thing really well, instead of one that does all kinds of things.
Anything that raises the price of food means portions will need to be reduced, and farmers will be more likely to be able to support themselves by growing crops.
In the US, sure, this could possibly lead to smaller portions, but what about people in other countries that don't have enough to eat to begin with? The price of torilla's rising 50% in Mexico doesn't mean "smaller portions" it means NO portions.
From a writing standpoint, I think it's great. BSG and Lost both have the same problem... they have a very definite end-point... for BSG, it's finding and populating Earth. For Lost, it's getting off the damn Island. These are the driving forces behind the shows, and on one level or another the action and drama come out of these arcs. However, if you keep stringing them along for two long, they start to suck... there's only so many ways you can delay the end-point before the audience gets tired, and you jump the shark.
These shows will ultimately be more successful with end-points written- the writers will have a clear goal of what to write to and how to make it interesting to get there, instead of just coming up with more ways to string viewers along.
While it sucks that it's going off the air, it'll make for better TV along the way.
While your comment is funny, it's not a bad idea to Google a potential employer. I made the mistake of taking a job once without doing such, and I discovered the people that I was working for had quite a sorted professional and personal past that greatly effected how they managed the company. Working there was beyond awful, and had I done the Google search during the interview process, I would not have taken the job.
I submitted this story (full disclosure, I know Rachel personally), and I wish I had leaned it more towards this issue, because that's what's really interesting. Who at Google decided this fell under the DMCA? was it an automated proscess? How can Rachel get her post back up? As interesting as the idea that this is a forged document as art is, I think the bigger issue is what's up with Google's policies.
I see what you are saying, but MS would be stupid to integrate Yahoo mail and Hotmail... you'd be removing a choice from the playing field, and people might switch over to gmail they don't like whatever interface MS gives them. If MS was smart, they'd keep all the Yahoo branding and make it at least look like there is a choice.
Starcraft was an excellent game, no doubt. Warhammer 40K was an excellent game along the same lines, and their resource management (taking strategic flags on the board) made gameplay a lot more war-like, in that you really had to start securing parts of the map in order to proceed. Also, units of 6-10 troops act as a single entity, which also change tactics a little.
kinda saw it first hand
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have a friend that works at Google in NYC, and I went to visit the office once. I had lunch with him and a couple of other people that worked there. They started talking about work-related things, and one of them turned to me and said "Are you a Goolger?" (Google employee) and I said no. All three of them suddenly became very careful not to use any terms that would give me a clue what they were talking about- using lots of pronouns and very general type of language as to not disclose any of what they were talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you on this one- I picked up a 2G from a friend for $50 when he got a 3G. I've had it for over two years now, and it's still going strong. The battery life is still really strong- I use it for about 90 minutes a day and only have to charge it once or twice a week. As far as I know, anything that's 3G+ is dead after 18 months these days.
Every time a new G comes out I think "Hey, maybe now is the time to upgrade" and then I remember that a new, better model will be out in about a year, so i might as well hold onto the one I have.
To hell with atoms- fisherman have entangled entire schools of fish for thousands of years...
realize that the resources required for such an effort FAR exceed any possible benefit.
At the moment. Some breakthroughs in technology could change this- such as a way to get off the planet at a significantly reduced cost. It really just takes a couple of shifts before the whole thing opens up to other opportunities. Really it's just one Big Idea that will lead to a chain reaction of the others.
sounds like we'd better start prepping venus, then.
i can't believe in this day and age, we haven't landed on Mars yet!
Question- had funding levels and interest in space contunues at the level it was at in the 60s and 70s, would we have landed on Mars by now?
For any interested parties, the Apollo Archive is another great project to put Apollo media online.
The first was Gary Coleman.
"Wha'chu livin' long and prospern' about, kirk?"
I'm the sole IT person at this company (it's very non-technical), and I view my role as simultaneously janitor and wizard of oz- people need me to do things, but don't know what it is that they want. They consider me beneath them, but need my level of knowledge in order to get things done. More often than not, I'm seen as an obstacle to getting things done. Although, from where I sit, their expectations are so far off base with reality I need to try and reign them in, which they don't like. People don't see that I'm argueing a logistical/technical impossiblility with them, and think I'm just "pushing back" so I don't have to do any work. In truth, I'm happy to work as long as everyone is on the same page.
This turned into more of rant that I thought it would.
This sounds like something a Marketing Executive would say- "Make sure you mention the brand as many times as possible."
And that, friends, is how W got elected, and how every other president we ever have will get elected... through superior marketing.
...for companies when Microsoft stops supporting XP?
It's no start, it's just another business opportunity. Now going BACK to what you had is just another way for MS to make money, as you'll have to pay for the copy of XP along with the Vista license you already have.
It's almost like the "new coke" thing- make something worse and people will be happy when you give them back the crap they had. Only this time, M$ makes out like a bandit.
I hear you- I was hired by my girlfriends company (5 people) to help "upgrade" their systems after a renovation. They decided to rip out the already installed Cat5 and go with an all-wireless network before they had contacted me. I told them this was going to cause more problems than it solved, but they still had me go ahead with it. Now I get at least one phone call a week because the wireless print server I had to install isn't working, one person can't get online, or some other such nonsense.
Wireless connections shouldn't be used in the office for all the issues mentioned in TFA. Wireless will never replace a good, solid wired connection. (watch me eat those words in ten years...)
I'll bite
Huge Apple Fanboy that I am, I just don't think this one is going to fly- it's too pricey for personal use, and it doesn't have the features to attract the business professional. Other similar devices (like the Motorola Q) run about $200, and can integrate nicely into exchange. I just don't know who is actually going to buy these things, other than people looking for a status symbol (ok, that's going to be everyone at first).
I think the amazing Apple marketing machine is stopping right here, folks.
I don't think Apple's interested in the browser market as it exists, I think they are interested in having cross-platform "client" to run a new generation of web-based content that they will release over the next few years- things like a Safari-based Word Processor, or perhaps photo editor- a remote connection client so you can always get to your Mac. I think Apple wants / need certain features to make this work, and it's easier all around if they use their browser rather than IE or FF. Watch Safari turn into a client for Safari apps, not a new entrant into the browser war. They want it cross-platform so PC users will also be able to take advantage of it, possibly selling more Macs in the process.
Amen to that! I'm getting ready to leave my current gig for just that reason! There's only so many times you can be directed to do sub-par work before you start looking for something else.
I think he's getting at "Features are less important than ease of use is."
I worked at a software company that made this product that could do a lot of things, and it did them fairly well. However, the software was a beast to navigate and understand... in the year that I was there, there were entire sections of it that I didn't have a clue how to use, despite repeatedly trying to figure them out. Now, if a potential client asked "can your software do X?" the answer would be "yes", but in reality, making it do what you wanted was a heavy task.
Let's compare Gmail to Yahoo mail- Yahoo has cool drag and drop, you can use it pretty much like a desktop email program... but for the most part, who needs that stuff? Google's approach, while lacking in all the features, is a much nicer experience (in my opinion).
THAT is where software is heading- things that are easy to use over having bells and whistles- making an application that does one thing really well, instead of one that does all kinds of things.
Anything that raises the price of food means portions will need to be reduced, and farmers will be more likely to be able to support themselves by growing crops.
In the US, sure, this could possibly lead to smaller portions, but what about people in other countries that don't have enough to eat to begin with? The price of torilla's rising 50% in Mexico doesn't mean "smaller portions" it means NO portions.
better spent on roads or crime-fighting.
Did anyone else instantly think "SimCity" when they read that?
Yeah? No?
Reminds me of when the company "Pen Island" or "Mole Station Nursery" set up their domain names...
From a writing standpoint, I think it's great. BSG and Lost both have the same problem... they have a very definite end-point... for BSG, it's finding and populating Earth. For Lost, it's getting off the damn Island. These are the driving forces behind the shows, and on one level or another the action and drama come out of these arcs. However, if you keep stringing them along for two long, they start to suck... there's only so many ways you can delay the end-point before the audience gets tired, and you jump the shark.
These shows will ultimately be more successful with end-points written- the writers will have a clear goal of what to write to and how to make it interesting to get there, instead of just coming up with more ways to string viewers along.
While it sucks that it's going off the air, it'll make for better TV along the way.
While your comment is funny, it's not a bad idea to Google a potential employer. I made the mistake of taking a job once without doing such, and I discovered the people that I was working for had quite a sorted professional and personal past that greatly effected how they managed the company. Working there was beyond awful, and had I done the Google search during the interview process, I would not have taken the job.
Ding Ding Ding!
I submitted this story (full disclosure, I know Rachel personally), and I wish I had leaned it more towards this issue, because that's what's really interesting. Who at Google decided this fell under the DMCA? was it an automated proscess? How can Rachel get her post back up? As interesting as the idea that this is a forged document as art is, I think the bigger issue is what's up with Google's policies.
I see what you are saying, but MS would be stupid to integrate Yahoo mail and Hotmail... you'd be removing a choice from the playing field, and people might switch over to gmail they don't like whatever interface MS gives them. If MS was smart, they'd keep all the Yahoo branding and make it at least look like there is a choice.
Starcraft was an excellent game, no doubt. Warhammer 40K was an excellent game along the same lines, and their resource management (taking strategic flags on the board) made gameplay a lot more war-like, in that you really had to start securing parts of the map in order to proceed. Also, units of 6-10 troops act as a single entity, which also change tactics a little.
I have a friend that works at Google in NYC, and I went to visit the office once. I had lunch with him and a couple of other people that worked there. They started talking about work-related things, and one of them turned to me and said "Are you a Goolger?" (Google employee) and I said no. All three of them suddenly became very careful not to use any terms that would give me a clue what they were talking about- using lots of pronouns and very general type of language as to not disclose any of what they were talking about.