Kind of like setting the password for your atmospheric shield to 1-2-3-4-5, then later finding out it's the same combination President Skroob uses for his luggage.
It's also interesting that, if you read or hear other people's comments, it seems like Roddenberry wasn't the "all seeing genius" many make him out to be today. Perhaps he just got lucky with Trek by getting good writers and other talented staff.
Genesis II was a good idea, but from what I remember (including seeing it re-run at times), he developed the concept by basically copying Trek, but re-locating it. Planet Earth was close to the same story.
I agree, it would be nice to let him rest in peace. I know I couldn't stand another show as horrid as Earth:Final Conflict. I remember watching that show and wondering where it was going (and being intrigued) during the 1st season, but feeling like it lost its direction after that. It was either the 2nd or 3rd season where almost every episode was the same -- there's some dark Tailon plot hatched by the leader (forgot his name) that they uncover in time to save mankind. I never even bothered to see how the cliffhanger with the human-pregnant-with-a-Tailon (or whatever) turned out -- by that time I just didn't care about the characters and felt it had gotten to convoluted.
Oh, and before anyone tries to get picky, NO, it was not the same "Earth II" that Speilberg was behind several years ago -- about colonizing another planet.
No offence to those who like Andromeda, but I think it's about time people stopped cashing in on Gene Roddenberry's name just to get ratings.
Actually, Andromeda did have a basis in Roddenberry's work -- at least more so than Earth:Final Conflict did (unless I missed something). The original idea was a show called "Genesis II" about a man named Dylan Hunt who was put in some kind of suspension for an experiment, and found by a group called Pax something like 150 years later, after Earth had been through bad events and balkanized. He and the Pax teams would use subshuttles to get to all the different city-states that had grown up after a technological and civil collapse. The intent was to give the characters access to many different cultures, like the Enterprise had in Trek, and let us watch as Pax and Dylan rebuilt society. There was another pilot, very similar, called "Earth II" (I think), that, again, had Dylan Hunt sleep for a long time (this time on a space station), before returning to a balkanized Earth to help rebuild civilization.
Yes, and, at least in Andromeda's case, it's a good thing (tm). I liked Andromeda when it first came out, but when they canned the lead writer because, as Sorbo put it, he created plots that were too subtle for most people to understand, I knew it was headed for trouble.
Then, then next season, the credits started with a line like "The universe can be a dangerous place." I almost shut it off right there, but wanted to give it a chance. I thought that season opener (where they rescue Becca and Tyr) was weak, but John DeLancie was on the next one, so I watched it. They took a character (DeLancie's), who had been defined as definitely evil and suddenly tried to make him only unpredictable. I've never watched another episode since.
the liberal participants liberal = "anyone I don't agree with"
non-political events but it is political -- it is controlled by the government and part of the policy that is, ultimately, determined by the elected officials.
as a means to attack conservatives. Or maybe point out facts that the conservatives don't want to see, acknowledge, or take responsibility for contributing to through the administration they support?
Does anyone really believe that conservatives are responsible for ID theft No, but they're responsible for how the goverment deals with it, or doesn't want to deal with it because they'd rather act important and enjoy the high from their testosterone poising as they send more soldiers off to war so we get more coffins back.
This is part of a pattern -- both of the administrations behavior, and of knee-jerk conservatives who, whenever they read something they don't like that critizes their views or politicians in any way, the first thing they do is call it liberal (is that supposed to be a bad word?) and promptly jump all over the "liberal" point, whether they can support their comments or not.
Learn to separate fact from opinion.
And, while you're at it, learn to accept that there is more than one viewpoint in this world Sometimes yours is right, sometimes yours is wrong. In this case, it's just a knee-jerk reaction that leads to trying to pass off opinion as fact.
...At least as long as Bush and his group of neo-Facists are in power. Theyv'e gone out of their way to make sure they are NOT responsible to anyone -- from giving as few newsconferences as possible, to calling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic (like a certain Senator who called everyone who disagreed with him a Communist or unAmerican).
It's like with the no-fly lists -- if you're on, there's no way to get off it. From what the current administration has said, it's for our own good, so some people might be inconvenienced.
I currently have phpBB running on a site. Has anyone ever tried integrating their blogging into something like this? I'd think it could be done easily by creating a special topic where only the administrator can post, then another topic for replies.
Has anyone done this? Is there any problem with it that experienced users can warn about?
Ask him if his years of experience matter, or if a manager with 2 years experience can do as well as one with 10 years of experience.
He'll probably say it is different, since his skills involve people. You can point out (if you want to piss him off) that his people skills can't be that great, or he wouldn't be degrading you the way he is. In 12 years someone in ANY field has time to watch the changes, learn the trends, figure out which way things tend to move, and see many, many things that don't work and learn to avoid them for things that do work.
I have been programming seriously for a few years, but will be moving on beyond any programming soon for my passion: writing. (I write poetry and screenplays and came close to writing for Trek:TNG at one point.) I have no problem saying programming is as intuitive as writing poetry and requires the same experience and practice to improve one's art and skill. It seems that your manager doesn't understand this and thinks computers, being made up of bits, can only be but so complex.
Or, there's the other side of the situation: you can't enlighten someone who thinks they know everything. Obviously your boss, who has likely been his job for a while, has NOT learned much about people, but thinks he has. You can't teach people like that. In his case, there is probably no difference in the skills he knew in his job after 2 years and those he learned in the next 10 -- he's too busy saying he knows everything to learn anything.
I can remember when everyone was saying that about Cobol. Everyone I went to college with who was a CS major (I wasn't) was getting jobs in Cobol, even though the Computer dept. didn't teach it. (They had to take Cobol through the business dept.)
That's one part of the "good ol' days" I definitely do NOT long for.
From my response to the post directly above yours:
This idea that the users need to be better educated is simply another way of saying, "I don't want to waste time understanding them or conforming the product to those who will use it. They should conform to me." There is no reason users need to learn more about computers. I found that out by working night and day for several years to create software that users could use without having to learn about it. I can see why programmers don't like to do it, but when someone is paying over 4 figs a month to subscribe to software, they expect it to work, to be easy to use, and to not have to spend hours learning it. I work with lawyers, who are well educated and spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes in their field and meeting the continuing education requirements they have to face. They don't have time to ALSO learn about computers. They have a demanding job and a life.
From your post, it appears you would rathre the vast majority of users conform to what you think the world SHOULD be rather than FOSS programmers conforming to the way the world, of which they are a small minority, actually IS.
As long as the majority of FOSS developers think like that, you can expect FOSS products to continue on a road to esoterica and obscurity.
Because companies like Apple have shown it can be done. But, as I've said in other posts here, it seems clear many developers would rather expect the world to conform to their point of view, than to open their eyes, get a life, and possibly take time to understand the world the way it already is.
But, from my experience, it seems most techies believe theirs is the only way, and that the world should conform to their view than that they, in the vast minority, should make any effort to understand and work with the world as it already exists.
Than stop proving the stereotypes. It's that simple.
I posted one post about the fact that programmers need to look at things from a different point of view, and I get a lot of responses saying users need to be more educated. These usually focus on the US (and forget the fact that the US has one of the highest educational levels in the world). They also focus, as I said in another post, on the idea that users have to be educated in computers. They forget that many who use computers are highly educated in other fields, but may be overworked, or busy keeping up education in other fields, and don't have time to read tech manuals.
I'd like to believe stereotypes aren't true, but every time I see a/. story about FOSS needing better understanding of users and creating a good UI, I see an avalanche of posts blaming users.
This idea that the users need to be better educated is simply another way of saying, "I don't want to waste time understanding them or conforming the product to those who will use it. They should conform to me." There is no reason users need to learn more about computers. I found that out by working night and day for several years to create software that users could use without having to learn about it. I can see why programmers don't like to do it, but when someone is paying over 4 figs a month to subscribe to software, they expect it to work, to be easy to use, and to not have to spend hours learning it. I work with lawyers, who are well educated and spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes in their field and meeting the continuing education requirements they have to face. They don't have time to ALSO learn about computers. They have a demanding job and a life.
If I, someone who had only 2-3 classes in programming can write software users can use without having to study tech manuals and picking up an education (or mini-education) in computers, then I don't see why professional programmers, or those who majored in computers, can't do the same.
But my experience tells me the stereotypes you complain about are true -- and you do a good job of helping to prove it. You are expecting everyone to conform to the world as you think it SHOULD be, instead of developers (the vast minority) learning to conform to the world AS IT EXISTS.
Again, you are proving my point: from your point of view, if things aren't A, they must be B. Just like boolean logic -- on or off. It doesn't have to be that way.
People would like computers to be a simple tool. You say that is impossible. I guess you've never heard of a computer called a MacIntosh. It's made by a company called Apple. You want to make DVDs? They've got the software to do it easily. While Mac is a minority, the computer and software itself shows that you don't have to say it is either one way or another. It shows that you can have techies that create software that is easy and intuitive for the user to understand and use.
If we were forcing everyone to think the way we do, the world might be a better place
Another example of limited thinking -- like Plato's cave -- you're in the cave watching shadows and have absolutely no comprehension of the color and diversity available outside. Since the shadows on the wall is all you can see, you simply show no ability to conceive of the myriad shades of color that don't show up as just black and white shadows.
Think of all the people who have said that line -- and felt everyone should think like they do: Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, the members of Heaven's Gate....
The world is full of diversity and that's what makes it such a wonderful place to explore. If the limit of your view is that we'd be better off if everyone thought like you, then your thinking is quite limited, totally within a limited box, and exactly like those in Plato's cave anology.
If you ever want to emerge from the shadows, you might want to check out the real world. It's an amazing and wonderful place, with more types of people, things and ideas than you can imagine.
And many of those people use computers -- but some would have all who use computers to think just one way and force all users to think like or become techies -- forgetting that many users are M.D.s who use the computer to write or help in their jobs, which are hard enough without having to learn a new technical skill becuase they have to keep up with their jobs, or secretaries who are overworked and don't have time in their 10 hour days to read tech manuals, or teachers who (contrary to belief) often work 10-12 hour days preparing lessons, teaching, and evaluating work and would like to use the power of computers in the classroom, but are so busy trying to have a life (like all the other people), teach, and keep up their certification with their required classes, that they don't have time to study manuals on programs.
Face it -- there are MANY educated people out there who know their jobs, but don't have time to RTFM, and need a tool. You want these people -- many of whom are already overworked and already spend a lot of time learning just to keep up with their jobs -- to spend even more time reading manuals on computer programs. This is absurd, especially when companies like Apple and (I hate to say it) Microsoft have proven it IS possible for techies to create software with a UI that users can use without having to read manuals.
But it seems you would rather the world conform to your view of things SHOULD be than for you to conform to the way the world IS.
Please, don't ever bother to apply for a job in my firm. I like well rounded people who have a life and can see more than one point of view.
And how many times do you see someone pick up a hammer and slam their thumb. Or even worse, start driving nails with a wrench? Intuitive right?
Not often, really. Actually, now that I think about it, hardly ever -- at least in real life.
I would rather think of a computer as a car, users have to be educated first.
I'm sure you would, especially if you're on the tech end -- that means it works the way you WANT it to be -- not the way MOST people want and NEED it to be. If you have it your way, and require users to be educated first, that takes the burden off you to make the software (and especially the UI) bulletproof, intuitive, and easy for any user to be able to use without education.
That's just an easy way of saying, "I think users should be educated so I don't have to go the extra mile and meet their needs -- they should see things my way and do the extra work."
In other words, users should think the way you want them to think, instead of programmers and designers learning about users, how they think, and doing some extra work to give the customer what they want?
Thank you for your post -- it just goes to prove my point -- that the people on the tech end just simply can't understand how others think. Instead they think all users should be forced to think the way techies want them to think.
I knew I'd find a comment like this pretty early in this discussion.
It's a perfect example of a techy who may be more intelligent than Einstein, but is still dumb when it comes to understanding people.
People don't want to have to be educated about software. It's a tool, like a hammer. You don't have to take classes to use a hammer (or most carpentry tools -- unless you want to be a master craftsman).
When I started my business, I hadn't programmed in 10 years. At first I was extremely frustrated because programmers are so self-centric that they don't get the fact that, to most people, a computer and the software is just a tool. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, turn it on, AND DO THEIR WORK -- not read manuals or books -- just DO THEIR WORK. Then I spent several years building up the software my business is based on. Without wanting to, I had to become a programmer and think of nothing else for over 2 years. Then I understood the programmer mindset -- GUIs are a pain to write, using tools that think logically to provide a intuitive interface is hard (and other similar attitudes).
That's when I realized the problem with open source software is that many of the programmers are simply incapable of listen to thers or understanding there are other points of views regarding computer use that are just as legitimate as theirs.
If you want to rant about GUI design, go ahead. If you want to complain about the "shitload of people" who need "a bit of eduction," please do. But, after you do that, don't sit back and wonder why people are paying hundreds of dollars for programs that do what FOSS programs do, but do it in a way that is easier for users to grasp.
Until programmers learn to look at things from the point of view of a user who JUST WANTS TO DO THEIR WORK, the FOSS will always be relegated to the back room where geeks who can't understand human interaction work and live.
It's not his statement that the casino's are in trouble, and he's not the one making noise about it. Others invovled are worried about what to do.
On the other hand, it's probably important to point out nobody really knows just how much of his net worth is tied up with the casinos. It could be as small as 1% or as big as over 50% -- the info isn't public, so we don't know.
Yes, you can write about it all you want. But that's why companies like that DON'T want it done, and work so hard to protect their trademark. Once the name becomes a generic and common-place word (noun or verb), they've lost their trademark and anyone can use that name.
They don't want their company name to become a verb.
That's also a guy who owns a chain of casinos that are about to go bankrupt -- he's at the point where he can give up all control to get bailed out, or let them go under.
There are many of us who see no reason to listen to someone just because of net worth. Many of us judge people by deeper things than dollars.
As to fighting or not fighting -- some of the bravest people I've ever read about or known are those strong enough to NOT fight. (People like the Quakers who ran the Underground Railroad, or Ghandi, who led a revolution without fighting.)
But there is a point in that post -- many people only understand money and power -- and those people, in their limited view, will see anyone who doesn't fight as weak.
Ever heard of a brand called Asprin? They didn't protect their trademark, now it's generic and they've lost it. When I used to read Writer's Digest, I saw ads from Chrysler (who owns Jeep) specifying that Jeep was a vehicle made by a specific company, and asked (paraphrased), "When you're writing, remember, it's not a Jeep unless it's made by Jeep." (As opposed to calling a Suziki Samuri a jeep -- small j.)
Companies have to do this. They have to prove they are aggressively defending their trademark, or they could lose it. That's happend with a number of companies. Another example -- Xerox. In many offices people say, "Please xerox this." (Note small X at start of word). This could lead to xerox, as a word, meaning to make a copy. If it continues, Xerox would lose the trademark for their name, which could hurt them. After they've spent years and millions building up brand recognition, if the name is considered generic, any company could come in and capitalize on the benefit of the name.
Contrary to what some people are saying, this does not mean a company has a big ego -- they're just doing what they need to do, and it is even possible it is automated so there may not be any human even aware of your situation.
You could just change the tags, which would be easiest, or you could even write a response, explain that you are using the two words (instead of one combined word), and you might even ask if you could have permission to continue to use these words in this fashion.
I know it's frustrating, makes you feel violated, and seems pigheaded, but they're just doing what they have to in order to protect their investment. Don't blame them.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like setting the password for your atmospheric shield to 1-2-3-4-5, then later finding out it's the same combination President Skroob uses for his luggage.
Make it clear Java is strong competition for .Net and let MS buy them out.
But they blew that one when they settled out of court.
What's even worse is that they all stink.
It's also interesting that, if you read or hear other people's comments, it seems like Roddenberry wasn't the "all seeing genius" many make him out to be today. Perhaps he just got lucky with Trek by getting good writers and other talented staff.
Genesis II was a good idea, but from what I remember (including seeing it re-run at times), he developed the concept by basically copying Trek, but re-locating it. Planet Earth was close to the same story.
I agree, it would be nice to let him rest in peace. I know I couldn't stand another show as horrid as Earth:Final Conflict. I remember watching that show and wondering where it was going (and being intrigued) during the 1st season, but feeling like it lost its direction after that. It was either the 2nd or 3rd season where almost every episode was the same -- there's some dark Tailon plot hatched by the leader (forgot his name) that they uncover in time to save mankind. I never even bothered to see how the cliffhanger with the human-pregnant-with-a-Tailon (or whatever) turned out -- by that time I just didn't care about the characters and felt it had gotten to convoluted.
Oh, and before anyone tries to get picky, NO, it was not the same "Earth II" that Speilberg was behind several years ago -- about colonizing another planet.
No offence to those who like Andromeda, but I think it's about time people stopped cashing in on Gene Roddenberry's name just to get ratings.
Actually, Andromeda did have a basis in Roddenberry's work -- at least more so than Earth:Final Conflict did (unless I missed something). The original idea was a show called "Genesis II" about a man named Dylan Hunt who was put in some kind of suspension for an experiment, and found by a group called Pax something like 150 years later, after Earth had been through bad events and balkanized. He and the Pax teams would use subshuttles to get to all the different city-states that had grown up after a technological and civil collapse. The intent was to give the characters access to many different cultures, like the Enterprise had in Trek, and let us watch as Pax and Dylan rebuilt society. There was another pilot, very similar, called "Earth II" (I think), that, again, had Dylan Hunt sleep for a long time (this time on a space station), before returning to a balkanized Earth to help rebuild civilization.
Yes, and, at least in Andromeda's case, it's a good thing (tm). I liked Andromeda when it first came out, but when they canned the lead writer because, as Sorbo put it, he created plots that were too subtle for most people to understand, I knew it was headed for trouble.
Then, then next season, the credits started with a line like "The universe can be a dangerous place." I almost shut it off right there, but wanted to give it a chance. I thought that season opener (where they rescue Becca and Tyr) was weak, but John DeLancie was on the next one, so I watched it. They took a character (DeLancie's), who had been defined as definitely evil and suddenly tried to make him only unpredictable. I've never watched another episode since.
That one jumped the shark long ago.
I guess you'd have to say the same thing about Bush, then, too.
a few loudmouth obnoxious types that engage in ad hominum attacks at the outset.
I guess we're ignoring conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc?
Whilst the left loonie are more interested in making a spectacle of themselves.
I guess we're ignoring conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc?
the liberal participants
liberal = "anyone I don't agree with"
non-political events
but it is political -- it is controlled by the government and part of the policy that is, ultimately, determined by the elected officials.
as a means to attack conservatives.
Or maybe point out facts that the conservatives don't want to see, acknowledge, or take responsibility for contributing to through the administration they support?
Does anyone really believe that conservatives are responsible for ID theft
No, but they're responsible for how the goverment deals with it, or doesn't want to deal with it because they'd rather act important and enjoy the high from their testosterone poising as they send more soldiers off to war so we get more coffins back.
This is part of a pattern -- both of the administrations behavior, and of knee-jerk conservatives who, whenever they read something they don't like that critizes their views or politicians in any way, the first thing they do is call it liberal (is that supposed to be a bad word?) and promptly jump all over the "liberal" point, whether they can support their comments or not.
Learn to separate fact from opinion.
And, while you're at it, learn to accept that there is more than one viewpoint in this world Sometimes yours is right, sometimes yours is wrong. In this case, it's just a knee-jerk reaction that leads to trying to pass off opinion as fact.
...At least as long as Bush and his group of neo-Facists are in power. Theyv'e gone out of their way to make sure they are NOT responsible to anyone -- from giving as few newsconferences as possible, to calling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic (like a certain Senator who called everyone who disagreed with him a Communist or unAmerican).
It's like with the no-fly lists -- if you're on, there's no way to get off it. From what the current administration has said, it's for our own good, so some people might be inconvenienced.
I currently have phpBB running on a site. Has anyone ever tried integrating their blogging into something like this? I'd think it could be done easily by creating a special topic where only the administrator can post, then another topic for replies.
Has anyone done this? Is there any problem with it that experienced users can warn about?
I can't think of a single commercial game created entirely in Cobol, or anyone saying Cobol was the better choice for game programming.
Thank heaven for small favors.
Ask him if his years of experience matter, or if a manager with 2 years experience can do as well as one with 10 years of experience.
He'll probably say it is different, since his skills involve people. You can point out (if you want to piss him off) that his people skills can't be that great, or he wouldn't be degrading you the way he is. In 12 years someone in ANY field has time to watch the changes, learn the trends, figure out which way things tend to move, and see many, many things that don't work and learn to avoid them for things that do work.
I have been programming seriously for a few years, but will be moving on beyond any programming soon for my passion: writing. (I write poetry and screenplays and came close to writing for Trek:TNG at one point.) I have no problem saying programming is as intuitive as writing poetry and requires the same experience and practice to improve one's art and skill. It seems that your manager doesn't understand this and thinks computers, being made up of bits, can only be but so complex.
Or, there's the other side of the situation: you can't enlighten someone who thinks they know everything. Obviously your boss, who has likely been his job for a while, has NOT learned much about people, but thinks he has. You can't teach people like that. In his case, there is probably no difference in the skills he knew in his job after 2 years and those he learned in the next 10 -- he's too busy saying he knows everything to learn anything.
Of course, C++ is here to stay
I can remember when everyone was saying that about Cobol. Everyone I went to college with who was a CS major (I wasn't) was getting jobs in Cobol, even though the Computer dept. didn't teach it. (They had to take Cobol through the business dept.)
That's one part of the "good ol' days" I definitely do NOT long for.
From my response to the post directly above yours:
This idea that the users need to be better educated is simply another way of saying, "I don't want to waste time understanding them or conforming the product to those who will use it. They should conform to me." There is no reason users need to learn more about computers. I found that out by working night and day for several years to create software that users could use without having to learn about it. I can see why programmers don't like to do it, but when someone is paying over 4 figs a month to subscribe to software, they expect it to work, to be easy to use, and to not have to spend hours learning it. I work with lawyers, who are well educated and spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes in their field and meeting the continuing education requirements they have to face. They don't have time to ALSO learn about computers. They have a demanding job and a life.
From your post, it appears you would rathre the vast majority of users conform to what you think the world SHOULD be rather than FOSS programmers conforming to the way the world, of which they are a small minority, actually IS.
As long as the majority of FOSS developers think like that, you can expect FOSS products to continue on a road to esoterica and obscurity.
Why?
Because companies like Apple have shown it can be done. But, as I've said in other posts here, it seems clear many developers would rather expect the world to conform to their point of view, than to open their eyes, get a life, and possibly take time to understand the world the way it already is.
But, from my experience, it seems most techies believe theirs is the only way, and that the world should conform to their view than that they, in the vast minority, should make any effort to understand and work with the world as it already exists.
But most of all we aren't your damn stereotypes.
/. story about FOSS needing better understanding of users and creating a good UI, I see an avalanche of posts blaming users.
Than stop proving the stereotypes. It's that simple.
I posted one post about the fact that programmers need to look at things from a different point of view, and I get a lot of responses saying users need to be more educated. These usually focus on the US (and forget the fact that the US has one of the highest educational levels in the world). They also focus, as I said in another post, on the idea that users have to be educated in computers. They forget that many who use computers are highly educated in other fields, but may be overworked, or busy keeping up education in other fields, and don't have time to read tech manuals.
I'd like to believe stereotypes aren't true, but every time I see a
This idea that the users need to be better educated is simply another way of saying, "I don't want to waste time understanding them or conforming the product to those who will use it. They should conform to me." There is no reason users need to learn more about computers. I found that out by working night and day for several years to create software that users could use without having to learn about it. I can see why programmers don't like to do it, but when someone is paying over 4 figs a month to subscribe to software, they expect it to work, to be easy to use, and to not have to spend hours learning it. I work with lawyers, who are well educated and spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes in their field and meeting the continuing education requirements they have to face. They don't have time to ALSO learn about computers. They have a demanding job and a life.
If I, someone who had only 2-3 classes in programming can write software users can use without having to study tech manuals and picking up an education (or mini-education) in computers, then I don't see why professional programmers, or those who majored in computers, can't do the same.
But my experience tells me the stereotypes you complain about are true -- and you do a good job of helping to prove it. You are expecting everyone to conform to the world as you think it SHOULD be, instead of developers (the vast minority) learning to conform to the world AS IT EXISTS.
Again, you are proving my point: from your point of view, if things aren't A, they must be B. Just like boolean logic -- on or off. It doesn't have to be that way.
People would like computers to be a simple tool. You say that is impossible. I guess you've never heard of a computer called a MacIntosh. It's made by a company called Apple. You want to make DVDs? They've got the software to do it easily. While Mac is a minority, the computer and software itself shows that you don't have to say it is either one way or another. It shows that you can have techies that create software that is easy and intuitive for the user to understand and use.
If we were forcing everyone to think the way we do, the world might be a better place
Another example of limited thinking -- like Plato's cave -- you're in the cave watching shadows and have absolutely no comprehension of the color and diversity available outside. Since the shadows on the wall is all you can see, you simply show no ability to conceive of the myriad shades of color that don't show up as just black and white shadows.
Think of all the people who have said that line -- and felt everyone should think like they do: Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, the members of Heaven's Gate....
The world is full of diversity and that's what makes it such a wonderful place to explore. If the limit of your view is that we'd be better off if everyone thought like you, then your thinking is quite limited, totally within a limited box, and exactly like those in Plato's cave anology.
If you ever want to emerge from the shadows, you might want to check out the real world. It's an amazing and wonderful place, with more types of people, things and ideas than you can imagine.
And many of those people use computers -- but some would have all who use computers to think just one way and force all users to think like or become techies -- forgetting that many users are M.D.s who use the computer to write or help in their jobs, which are hard enough without having to learn a new technical skill becuase they have to keep up with their jobs, or secretaries who are overworked and don't have time in their 10 hour days to read tech manuals, or teachers who (contrary to belief) often work 10-12 hour days preparing lessons, teaching, and evaluating work and would like to use the power of computers in the classroom, but are so busy trying to have a life (like all the other people), teach, and keep up their certification with their required classes, that they don't have time to study manuals on programs.
Face it -- there are MANY educated people out there who know their jobs, but don't have time to RTFM, and need a tool. You want these people -- many of whom are already overworked and already spend a lot of time learning just to keep up with their jobs -- to spend even more time reading manuals on computer programs. This is absurd, especially when companies like Apple and (I hate to say it) Microsoft have proven it IS possible for techies to create software with a UI that users can use without having to read manuals.
But it seems you would rather the world conform to your view of things SHOULD be than for you to conform to the way the world IS.
Please, don't ever bother to apply for a job in my firm. I like well rounded people who have a life and can see more than one point of view.
And how many times do you see someone pick up a hammer and slam their thumb. Or even worse, start driving nails with a wrench? Intuitive right?
Not often, really. Actually, now that I think about it, hardly ever -- at least in real life.
I would rather think of a computer as a car, users have to be educated first.
I'm sure you would, especially if you're on the tech end -- that means it works the way you WANT it to be -- not the way MOST people want and NEED it to be. If you have it your way, and require users to be educated first, that takes the burden off you to make the software (and especially the UI) bulletproof, intuitive, and easy for any user to be able to use without education.
That's just an easy way of saying, "I think users should be educated so I don't have to go the extra mile and meet their needs -- they should see things my way and do the extra work."
In other words, users should think the way you want them to think, instead of programmers and designers learning about users, how they think, and doing some extra work to give the customer what they want?
Thank you for your post -- it just goes to prove my point -- that the people on the tech end just simply can't understand how others think. Instead they think all users should be forced to think the way techies want them to think.
And that is the way to esoterica and obscurity.
I knew I'd find a comment like this pretty early in this discussion.
It's a perfect example of a techy who may be more intelligent than Einstein, but is still dumb when it comes to understanding people.
People don't want to have to be educated about software. It's a tool, like a hammer. You don't have to take classes to use a hammer (or most carpentry tools -- unless you want to be a master craftsman).
When I started my business, I hadn't programmed in 10 years. At first I was extremely frustrated because programmers are so self-centric that they don't get the fact that, to most people, a computer and the software is just a tool. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, turn it on, AND DO THEIR WORK -- not read manuals or books -- just DO THEIR WORK. Then I spent several years building up the software my business is based on. Without wanting to, I had to become a programmer and think of nothing else for over 2 years. Then I understood the programmer mindset -- GUIs are a pain to write, using tools that think logically to provide a intuitive interface is hard (and other similar attitudes).
That's when I realized the problem with open source software is that many of the programmers are simply incapable of listen to thers or understanding there are other points of views regarding computer use that are just as legitimate as theirs.
If you want to rant about GUI design, go ahead. If you want to complain about the "shitload of people" who need "a bit of eduction," please do. But, after you do that, don't sit back and wonder why people are paying hundreds of dollars for programs that do what FOSS programs do, but do it in a way that is easier for users to grasp.
Until programmers learn to look at things from the point of view of a user who JUST WANTS TO DO THEIR WORK, the FOSS will always be relegated to the back room where geeks who can't understand human interaction work and live.
It's not his statement that the casino's are in trouble, and he's not the one making noise about it. Others invovled are worried about what to do.
On the other hand, it's probably important to point out nobody really knows just how much of his net worth is tied up with the casinos. It could be as small as 1% or as big as over 50% -- the info isn't public, so we don't know.
Yes, you can write about it all you want. But that's why companies like that DON'T want it done, and work so hard to protect their trademark. Once the name becomes a generic and common-place word (noun or verb), they've lost their trademark and anyone can use that name.
They don't want their company name to become a verb.
That's also a guy who owns a chain of casinos that are about to go bankrupt -- he's at the point where he can give up all control to get bailed out, or let them go under.
There are many of us who see no reason to listen to someone just because of net worth. Many of us judge people by deeper things than dollars.
As to fighting or not fighting -- some of the bravest people I've ever read about or known are those strong enough to NOT fight. (People like the Quakers who ran the Underground Railroad, or Ghandi, who led a revolution without fighting.)
But there is a point in that post -- many people only understand money and power -- and those people, in their limited view, will see anyone who doesn't fight as weak.
Ever heard of a brand called Asprin? They didn't protect their trademark, now it's generic and they've lost it. When I used to read Writer's Digest, I saw ads from Chrysler (who owns Jeep) specifying that Jeep was a vehicle made by a specific company, and asked (paraphrased), "When you're writing, remember, it's not a Jeep unless it's made by Jeep." (As opposed to calling a Suziki Samuri a jeep -- small j.)
Companies have to do this. They have to prove they are aggressively defending their trademark, or they could lose it. That's happend with a number of companies. Another example -- Xerox. In many offices people say, "Please xerox this." (Note small X at start of word). This could lead to xerox, as a word, meaning to make a copy. If it continues, Xerox would lose the trademark for their name, which could hurt them. After they've spent years and millions building up brand recognition, if the name is considered generic, any company could come in and capitalize on the benefit of the name.
Contrary to what some people are saying, this does not mean a company has a big ego -- they're just doing what they need to do, and it is even possible it is automated so there may not be any human even aware of your situation.
You could just change the tags, which would be easiest, or you could even write a response, explain that you are using the two words (instead of one combined word), and you might even ask if you could have permission to continue to use these words in this fashion.
I know it's frustrating, makes you feel violated, and seems pigheaded, but they're just doing what they have to in order to protect their investment. Don't blame them.