Any company that is trying to expand its product line will have false starts from time to time. What separates the good companies from the bad is at what point they realize they've got a loser and drop it, or know it's going to be a winner and pile all their resources behind a big push.
Apple made a digital camera years ahead of its time, but almost no one has heard of it. The idea we know now was obviously a good one that would be a big hit with the consumer, but the technology just wasn't good enough, so they dropped it. They didn't sink a boatload of money into marketing and pump out millions of units. (they also made a moderately successful laser printer very early on, as well as many other things that, if brought new to market today, would be a huge success, but the stars just weren't aligned yet)
But then you have recent flops like the zune and playbook, products that we must assume had some market research done on them that was turd-polished and presented to the decision makers as "the next huge hit". So they plowed money and resources into it and it went over like a lead balloon. It costs the company not just money, but also resources like engineering teams' time and also damages your brand. I have to wonder when I see that, is it a case of a project manager ignoring reality and pushing real hard, or knowing it's going to flop and pushing ahead anyway, bad analysis, or just plain lack of quality market research, that leads to these sorts of flops?
Making mistakes isn't all that big of a deal. If you're not making mistakes, you're not trying. Backing your mistakes and belligerently trying to pump cash into them to create success, that's a problem. "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."
Of course there's another option. With something like the Zune it may have been a case of "we figure this has only a 30% chance of gaining traction, but we NEED a response to the ipod, and this is the best thing we've got". In cases like that, even bad odds must be played, eve if a little bit out of desperation. They had the money to spare, it wasn't a "if we go BIG and this flops, it could put us out of business", so it was a valid option, even if it doesn't appear to make sense.
You sound like you need to gather a little more information on the problem. The most important things concern Bob. Bob being a possible flight risk makes finding out exactlywhy he would leave very important. It probably won't be 100% one specific reason, but figure out the split. Ego? Job security? (even if not gainful) Pride in his "child" project? Worries for the organization's welfare if his masterpiece is replaced with a bad system? There are many other possibilities, and better understanding his concerns will provide you with better direction.
What you do from there varies wildly depending on what you find. Taking anyone here's single advice based on your limited information is almost acting at random.
You also need to find out where Bob would like to see the system in 10 years. He may think it's fine the way it is, or see its shortcomings. If you can get him to explore the possibilities you may find his attitude shifts radically in your favor. Don't shove it in his face, try to let him open his own eyes so he doesn't clam up while going on the defensive. People are much more receptive to the voice of reason when it's coming from within.
If you can't get him to acknowledge that change is necessary, then it's time to take off the gloves and force the issue. If you're afraid he's going to jump ship now, don't think about how bad it will be tomorrow... think about how much worse it will be when it (inevitably) happens 5-10 years from now. If you put it off, it will only get worse.
If Bob goes on the D and you need to diffuse the situation, walk him through the "bus error" scenario. There's no malice possible there, it's just him placing you in a very dangerous, completely unavoidable risk of serious problems, including collapse of the business. Is keeping the system the way it is worth risking the loss of the entire enterprise? If he thinks it is... then you're wasting your time, he's just being a BOfH. Go completely on the offensive, swallow the big bitter pill, and forcefully change things as you either watch him leave, or shove him out the door.
I hope that helps you with the next few steps. Good luck.
Wrote, past tense. It's not like it costs them any more for each tablet sold.
And that point is easily offset by the very large cost for development. It may have cost Apple half a million (or more) to write all the software on that device. So it's not reasonable to charge on either end of the cost spectrum, from free to very expensive. So they assign a cost to it (and use that figure to mark up the hardware) by guessing how many copies/licenses they can sell at $x. Just because software is cheap to copy doesn't mean it's cheap to develop in the first place. (or to maintain for that matter)
An important part of the cost of any CPU-using device is the cost of the development and maintenance of the software that runs it. An ipad without software is about as useful as a car without an engine.
This is probably because a lot of consumers have figured out that the TV they have is fine and they don't need a new one. Since they just got done buying one recently, the manufacturers seem to think that the buying trend will just continue to climb. It's a bubble, and it's popping.
There's just very little profit to be made selling TVs nowadays. Everyone that wanted a large TV *has* one by now, and there's nothing really that new that will encourage them to replace what they have. Prices have been driven down so far now that it's hard to turn a buck.
was going to happen eventually. Springs of any sort (hot or otherwise) are a bit of a fluke, it just takes nature awhile to correct them. Water's not supposed to flow uphill;)
Hot springs are going to be forming in volcanic active areas anyway, and those are going to be messing up the plates in their area, making earthquakes (even if only small ones) more common. So hot springs themselves should be considered very temporary by their very nature and design. A lot more temporary than say, a cold spring. We have a few of those here in Iowa, and I don't see an earthquake busting their pipes anytime soon out here.
I get the curtilage thing, but isn't this just outright trespasing? It was posted. If a private citizen walked up on this guy's land, he could charge them with trespassing couldn't he? I don't recall reading anywhere that an officer is exempt from this.
Further into this, they put a camera there. What would happen to that private citizen if he installed a camera on the other side of that No Trespassing sign? It's "in plain sight" so I don't imagine Invasion of Privacy in the strictest terms would hold up, but it'd certainly be creepy to hear that Joe Citizen can bug my property legally?
Would you care to name those religions and provide hyperlinks to parts of their texts which claim that disagreement is an insult?
A pretty universal one is simply claiming another god exists. Try that with islam for example. "There is no god but God" I think is how it translates. I can't think of any religions I've ever heard of that don't explicitly say their god is the only god. And for the radical religions, disagreeing with them is akin to insulting them. Look at what happens when a (very very brave) artist draws a comic insulting allah... immediate riots in the streets for "insulting islam" and here come the kill-him-fatwah's.
There's a reason there are no non--islamic churches in islamic controlled countries. If you go visiting Saidi Arabia for example, and want to attend your christian sunday mass, you might be able to pull it off. There are fairly well-hidden little groups that get together periodically for a secret mass if you're up for it. But you could easily be arrested, beaten, jailed, etc, for attending if they catch you. I don't even want to guess what they'd do with your priest.
There are similar issues in China for example. You can't open a church or hold a mass without a state permit, for much the same reason.
But I suppose it's not so much the "letter of the law" vs the "common interpretation" of it. Most religious radicals consider disagreeing with their Holy Book as an insult to them and their god, and tend to predictably over-react.
According to news reports, the engine broke down and they were not able to repair in time.
Gotta love it when your sailboat suffers an engine breakdown... (I wonder if any of their crew even knew how to operate sails?)
But like I said before, they should have had a tug or some other vessel helping them out. I wonder if there were any naval destroyers or other military vessels hanging around that could have tossed them a rope?
but what they were doing bobbing around in the path of frankenstorm i don't know.
You've got very little if any control over where your boat goes in a storm like that. If you're anywhere near the coast, there's very good odds you're going to end up on the rocks. (or in the street, or on top of the building, etc) Just look at the tsunami in japan, all the boats that were shoved inland.
Best thing they can do is get the boat out as far as possible away from anything it can get tossed into. But for a ship of that design, it's got such a high profile and poor waterproofing topside that it's also in serious danger from high winds and tall waves.
Anchored in port, it was a goner for sure. It at least had a (small) chance being out to sea. I don't understand why they didn't set sail sooner, even with a tow to speed it up.
was just gonna say that myself so I'll refrain from a dup and just forward my chuckle. I dare him to say that while standing in front of a market share pie chart. anytime. actually, I'ld like to see him lose a bet and be forced to do it, a year (or two) from now.
(didn't MS try that same line with the Zune / iPod?)
to some groups, disagreeing with their religion is, by definition, insulting it. There's no process of debate involved. It's right there, written in their Book of Facts.
And it's a complete waste of your time to argue with them over their "Facts".
We're already very aware of how viruses constantly mutate. So, how long before this one mutates such that the "switch" is always in the "ON" position, and then proceeds to wipe out most of the human population?
BRILLIANT idea. brilliant. It's these sorts of mad scientists that truly scare me.
Add to that, there's no "kill switch" if you have a problem. Anyone caught making a virus weapon needs to die by fire. Along with the ones that funded and assisted them. The whole world needs to be completely clear about this, because it's a serious danger to every living soul.
OK now go get a snow saucer and tape a few strong magnets on some inside edges. go out to the parking lot. Put a quarter into the meter, sit, and spiiiiiin !
It's funny to see that usually democracy is outed a the form of government most susceptible to corruption and disparity of wealth. But then we see that the communist system in china is basically in the same situation, where there's a small group of super-rich. I think most ANY form of government is susceptible to this form of rot. It's very hard to keep the powerful citizens in check regardless of the form of government you use, especially over the long-term.
Communist governments usually get their kickoff in a flurry of the super rich getting ransacked and their money and property being turned over to the people. China is pretty far down that road again it would seem. It must just occur in cycles. Time for another communist revolution in china. China isn't communist anymore. It's something different. Something that the Chinese government desperately doesn't want their citizens to see. Censorship is no longer a tool to prevent outside influence, it's a tool to prevent the lower class from seeing that the government they are supporting now looks surprisingly similar to the one they just recently took up arms and overthrew.
Greed and corruption are like a weed that you can't kill. You can try something to suppress it, but it'll come back. Maybe the same, maybe in a different form, but it WILL return. "Liberty" doesn't mean "democracy", you can have liberty under many forms of government, including communism. And for that the same basic rule applies: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
So it'll be interesting to see where China is in 20 years. I see them in much the same position as Russia was 20 years ago. Big, menacing, dangerous, unstoppable, unlikely to change. See how that went. Eventually the greed and corruption that comes with it just became too top-heavy and the system fell over. The greed and corruption just keep growing, there's nothing that even the people at the top that are involved with it can do to prevent it even if they see it coming, and at some point it goes critical and there's a revolt. Things like that tend to break from the inside.
Russia IMHO was an interesting exception. They actually did a pretty good job of softening the fall. They couldn't stop it, but they were able to keep the inertia in check in a way that led to a slow winding-down instead of a catastrophic collapse. The "fall of the soviet union" didn't happen in a massive revolution and huge bloodshed, it was more of a controlled fall, a transition.
Maybe in 10 years we'll see a breakdown or a revolution in china. Maybe "correct, beneficial communism" will be restored. Or maybe they'll try something else. I wonder if it will be a big messy affair or a transition? who knows.
There's also the basic issue that some people have when around techs. I've found that professionals in other areas become very defensive when they're no longer "the expert". They can have very delicate egos, and it can be very difficult to avoid bruising them. Part of your job as an IT person is to have a high level of skill at your job, and its not easy to hide that while at the same time inspiring confidence in the less sensitive people around you. You can look like an idiot or like a guru, and it's very challenging to come to a middleground that keeps both egos and confidence intact.
Be thankful when someone tells you that you're talking over their head, or isn't interested in your explanation of a problem they're having and what you're going to do to fix it. ("can't you just shut up and fix it? I don't want to hear about it.", in other words) Bigger problems can well up out of sight when they nod-and-smile and act like they're understanding your explanation and are interested in what you have to say. You walk away feeling like you did a good job of communicating the problem, informing the client, and generating confidence in your ability to take care of them. And they are left embarrassed that they felt like a fool not understanding most of what you said, worried that coworkers around them noticed their ignorance, and actually ended up having a very negative experience with you. This is a bigger problem in a setting where you are supporting professionals in other areas, because they are more likely to "nod and smile" rather than risk "sounding dumb" in front of their peers. Whether or not you "think they're dumb" doesn't matter to them, it's the judgement of their peers that they're afraid of, and you can't do much about that besides avoiding the situation completely. Best you can do is sharpen your observation skills and try to detect when the "nod and smile" is kicking in, and quickly back way way off to get them back in their comfort zone.
I like to talk about what I do, and enjoy discussing my work with others, which unfortunately can quickly get me into "nod and smile land" with someone while I work on their problem. Occupational Hazard I guess. All I can hope to do is try to pick up on it fast. I find asking clients questions about what sort of service they would like is very helpful here. "Would you like me to explain this, or just fix it for you?" I've been surprised by the response to this question on so many occasions. Technical people sometimes don't have time for it and want you to fix it and disappear so they can get back to their work. People you saw as non-technical may also want you to fix it and disappear, but "maybe you can stop by tomorrow afternoon to show me how to make those macros?". o_O okay! Sometimes they will really surprise you. And then you win.
First of all, XP is still reasonably secure if you keep it up-to-date with patches (which will still be available until mid-2014).
True, and most likely, completely irrelevant. I service POS systems from time to time, and so far, every single one of them has been running XP-embedded. That means NO updates, ever. Well, until the vendor sends you new rom chips. Which they never bother with.
I forget the hardware vendor, (and that's where the embedded OS is coming from) but I do know the POS software running on them is Aloha, which is a very popular bar/restaurant POS software. Aloha was written for and continues to be developed to run on it.
"Forging" is where you are trying to pass off a copy as an original. To sell it as "authentic" for an inflated price, or to get past a security check, etc.
"Counterfeiting" would be closer, it's not frequently used to describe forged credentials, but still applies to selling a copy as an original.
"Knockoff" probably comes closest here. Where you're copying the design reasonably closely, probably violating trademark and patent, but where there is not deception as to it being a copy, and often sold for less. (or in the case of piracy, often for free)
The problem here is "knockoff" implies a lower quality product, that you still have to pay something for. Software piracy creates a (typically) identical quality product (without some benefits like updates and support) and sometimes at zero cost. So even that word isn't sufficient to describe it.
I think part of the problem in terminology here is there aren't different words to differentiate between someone giving a copy away and someone selling it for profit. I think the two should be handled very differently. In the end, there are two basic differences from the author's point of view if you compare a freecopy and a paycopy:
1) the paycopy is trying to make money off the copy. the freecopy may also be making money off the process (through banner hits, or even bundling malware) but may be doing it for free. people participating in torrent swarms are freecopying. The difference is one is doing it to make money and the other is not. For comparison purposes you can ignore the small minority that are making any real money off freecopies. Due to the free nature of the act, the people participating and the number of freecopies made does not have anywhere near a 1:1 relation to the number of "lost sales" for the author. The freecopiers will be a mix of people that would have bought authentic if the freecopy wasn't available, people that are getting a freecopy to try (that either don't like it, like it and buy authentic, or like it and neglect to buy it), and people that want the idea and would pay for it if they had to but freecopy instead because it's available. The "creative industry" publicly denies the existence of any but the last group, because that will produce the appearance of greatest harm to them.
2) the availability of freecopies lowers the value of the authentic product by lowering demand, causing a drop in sales, a lower price point to maintain sales, or a combination of the two. People will argue that "piracy isn't theft because it doesn't deny the owner of property" which is true, but it does have a similar effect. When you are "selling an idea", you aren't making money off the idea itself, and it costs very little for you to copy. You invest a large amount of money in coming up with the idea, and then try to sell copies of the idea to as many people as possible for as much as possible, to recoup your investment and turn a profit. Your copying the idea to sell costs a lot less than your asking price. So when piracy lowers your price point or number of sales, it does have a real cost, it's just not a direct cost, and is very difficult to firmly quantify.
I've seen the issue of "why do people copy?" and "how much does piracy really end up costing the authors?", but I have yet to see anyone be able to arrive at any confident numbers. The "creative industry" has paid for many studies in these areas, which always seem to arrive at numbers which everyone that looks at them considers unreasonable.
New Evidence That the Moon Was Created In a Massive Collision
Better I think would be "New information discovered adds support to theory of moon created by massive collision"
The headline made it sound like it was already established fact. And even though it's correct use of the word, I think that calling this new discovery "evidence" contributes to this confusion. (though it is the strongest current theory, and will probably eventually be accepted as fact although not likely ever proven)
Slashdot Mirror
Any company that is trying to expand its product line will have false starts from time to time. What separates the good companies from the bad is at what point they realize they've got a loser and drop it, or know it's going to be a winner and pile all their resources behind a big push.
Apple made a digital camera years ahead of its time, but almost no one has heard of it. The idea we know now was obviously a good one that would be a big hit with the consumer, but the technology just wasn't good enough, so they dropped it. They didn't sink a boatload of money into marketing and pump out millions of units. (they also made a moderately successful laser printer very early on, as well as many other things that, if brought new to market today, would be a huge success, but the stars just weren't aligned yet)
But then you have recent flops like the zune and playbook, products that we must assume had some market research done on them that was turd-polished and presented to the decision makers as "the next huge hit". So they plowed money and resources into it and it went over like a lead balloon. It costs the company not just money, but also resources like engineering teams' time and also damages your brand. I have to wonder when I see that, is it a case of a project manager ignoring reality and pushing real hard, or knowing it's going to flop and pushing ahead anyway, bad analysis, or just plain lack of quality market research, that leads to these sorts of flops?
Making mistakes isn't all that big of a deal. If you're not making mistakes, you're not trying. Backing your mistakes and belligerently trying to pump cash into them to create success, that's a problem. "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."
Of course there's another option. With something like the Zune it may have been a case of "we figure this has only a 30% chance of gaining traction, but we NEED a response to the ipod, and this is the best thing we've got". In cases like that, even bad odds must be played, eve if a little bit out of desperation. They had the money to spare, it wasn't a "if we go BIG and this flops, it could put us out of business", so it was a valid option, even if it doesn't appear to make sense.
You sound like you need to gather a little more information on the problem. The most important things concern Bob. Bob being a possible flight risk makes finding out exactly why he would leave very important. It probably won't be 100% one specific reason, but figure out the split. Ego? Job security? (even if not gainful) Pride in his "child" project? Worries for the organization's welfare if his masterpiece is replaced with a bad system? There are many other possibilities, and better understanding his concerns will provide you with better direction.
What you do from there varies wildly depending on what you find. Taking anyone here's single advice based on your limited information is almost acting at random.
You also need to find out where Bob would like to see the system in 10 years. He may think it's fine the way it is, or see its shortcomings. If you can get him to explore the possibilities you may find his attitude shifts radically in your favor. Don't shove it in his face, try to let him open his own eyes so he doesn't clam up while going on the defensive. People are much more receptive to the voice of reason when it's coming from within.
If you can't get him to acknowledge that change is necessary, then it's time to take off the gloves and force the issue. If you're afraid he's going to jump ship now, don't think about how bad it will be tomorrow... think about how much worse it will be when it (inevitably) happens 5-10 years from now. If you put it off, it will only get worse.
If Bob goes on the D and you need to diffuse the situation, walk him through the "bus error" scenario. There's no malice possible there, it's just him placing you in a very dangerous, completely unavoidable risk of serious problems, including collapse of the business. Is keeping the system the way it is worth risking the loss of the entire enterprise? If he thinks it is... then you're wasting your time, he's just being a BOfH. Go completely on the offensive, swallow the big bitter pill, and forcefully change things as you either watch him leave, or shove him out the door.
I hope that helps you with the next few steps. Good luck.
And that point is easily offset by the very large cost for development. It may have cost Apple half a million (or more) to write all the software on that device. So it's not reasonable to charge on either end of the cost spectrum, from free to very expensive. So they assign a cost to it (and use that figure to mark up the hardware) by guessing how many copies/licenses they can sell at $x. Just because software is cheap to copy doesn't mean it's cheap to develop in the first place. (or to maintain for that matter)
An important part of the cost of any CPU-using device is the cost of the development and maintenance of the software that runs it. An ipad without software is about as useful as a car without an engine.
This is probably because a lot of consumers have figured out that the TV they have is fine and they don't need a new one. Since they just got done buying one recently, the manufacturers seem to think that the buying trend will just continue to climb. It's a bubble, and it's popping.
There's just very little profit to be made selling TVs nowadays. Everyone that wanted a large TV *has* one by now, and there's nothing really that new that will encourage them to replace what they have. Prices have been driven down so far now that it's hard to turn a buck.
Apparently something along the lines of "I wonder how much more they'll demand next month?"
NEVER negotiate with criminals. If you do, they'll always come back for more.
oh here in Iowa you will have too much competition for that, in the winter when the temps wallow in the double digits below 0 (F)
was going to happen eventually. Springs of any sort (hot or otherwise) are a bit of a fluke, it just takes nature awhile to correct them. Water's not supposed to flow uphill ;)
Hot springs are going to be forming in volcanic active areas anyway, and those are going to be messing up the plates in their area, making earthquakes (even if only small ones) more common. So hot springs themselves should be considered very temporary by their very nature and design. A lot more temporary than say, a cold spring. We have a few of those here in Iowa, and I don't see an earthquake busting their pipes anytime soon out here.
I get the curtilage thing, but isn't this just outright trespasing? It was posted. If a private citizen walked up on this guy's land, he could charge them with trespassing couldn't he? I don't recall reading anywhere that an officer is exempt from this.
Further into this, they put a camera there. What would happen to that private citizen if he installed a camera on the other side of that No Trespassing sign? It's "in plain sight" so I don't imagine Invasion of Privacy in the strictest terms would hold up, but it'd certainly be creepy to hear that Joe Citizen can bug my property legally?
A pretty universal one is simply claiming another god exists. Try that with islam for example. "There is no god but God" I think is how it translates. I can't think of any religions I've ever heard of that don't explicitly say their god is the only god. And for the radical religions, disagreeing with them is akin to insulting them. Look at what happens when a (very very brave) artist draws a comic insulting allah... immediate riots in the streets for "insulting islam" and here come the kill-him-fatwah's.
There's a reason there are no non--islamic churches in islamic controlled countries. If you go visiting Saidi Arabia for example, and want to attend your christian sunday mass, you might be able to pull it off. There are fairly well-hidden little groups that get together periodically for a secret mass if you're up for it. But you could easily be arrested, beaten, jailed, etc, for attending if they catch you. I don't even want to guess what they'd do with your priest.
There are similar issues in China for example. You can't open a church or hold a mass without a state permit, for much the same reason.
But I suppose it's not so much the "letter of the law" vs the "common interpretation" of it. Most religious radicals consider disagreeing with their Holy Book as an insult to them and their god, and tend to predictably over-react.
Gotta love it when your sailboat suffers an engine breakdown... (I wonder if any of their crew even knew how to operate sails?)
But like I said before, they should have had a tug or some other vessel helping them out. I wonder if there were any naval destroyers or other military vessels hanging around that could have tossed them a rope?
You've got very little if any control over where your boat goes in a storm like that. If you're anywhere near the coast, there's very good odds you're going to end up on the rocks. (or in the street, or on top of the building, etc) Just look at the tsunami in japan, all the boats that were shoved inland.
Best thing they can do is get the boat out as far as possible away from anything it can get tossed into. But for a ship of that design, it's got such a high profile and poor waterproofing topside that it's also in serious danger from high winds and tall waves.
Anchored in port, it was a goner for sure. It at least had a (small) chance being out to sea. I don't understand why they didn't set sail sooner, even with a tow to speed it up.
Cook: "And so, Mr. Balmer, tell us more about this little blue slice here, how was it you were describing this last year?"
Balmer: "That was our umm... Market Dominance"
was just gonna say that myself so I'll refrain from a dup and just forward my chuckle. I dare him to say that while standing in front of a market share pie chart. anytime. actually, I'ld like to see him lose a bet and be forced to do it, a year (or two) from now.
(didn't MS try that same line with the Zune / iPod?)
to some groups, disagreeing with their religion is, by definition, insulting it. There's no process of debate involved. It's right there, written in their Book of Facts.
And it's a complete waste of your time to argue with them over their "Facts".
We're already very aware of how viruses constantly mutate. So, how long before this one mutates such that the "switch" is always in the "ON" position, and then proceeds to wipe out most of the human population?
BRILLIANT idea. brilliant. It's these sorts of mad scientists that truly scare me.
Add to that, there's no "kill switch" if you have a problem. Anyone caught making a virus weapon needs to die by fire. Along with the ones that funded and assisted them. The whole world needs to be completely clear about this, because it's a serious danger to every living soul.
OK now go get a snow saucer and tape a few strong magnets on some inside edges. go out to the parking lot. Put a quarter into the meter, sit, and spiiiiiin !
It's funny to see that usually democracy is outed a the form of government most susceptible to corruption and disparity of wealth. But then we see that the communist system in china is basically in the same situation, where there's a small group of super-rich. I think most ANY form of government is susceptible to this form of rot. It's very hard to keep the powerful citizens in check regardless of the form of government you use, especially over the long-term.
Communist governments usually get their kickoff in a flurry of the super rich getting ransacked and their money and property being turned over to the people. China is pretty far down that road again it would seem. It must just occur in cycles. Time for another communist revolution in china. China isn't communist anymore. It's something different. Something that the Chinese government desperately doesn't want their citizens to see. Censorship is no longer a tool to prevent outside influence, it's a tool to prevent the lower class from seeing that the government they are supporting now looks surprisingly similar to the one they just recently took up arms and overthrew.
Greed and corruption are like a weed that you can't kill. You can try something to suppress it, but it'll come back. Maybe the same, maybe in a different form, but it WILL return. "Liberty" doesn't mean "democracy", you can have liberty under many forms of government, including communism. And for that the same basic rule applies: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
So it'll be interesting to see where China is in 20 years. I see them in much the same position as Russia was 20 years ago. Big, menacing, dangerous, unstoppable, unlikely to change. See how that went. Eventually the greed and corruption that comes with it just became too top-heavy and the system fell over. The greed and corruption just keep growing, there's nothing that even the people at the top that are involved with it can do to prevent it even if they see it coming, and at some point it goes critical and there's a revolt. Things like that tend to break from the inside.
Russia IMHO was an interesting exception. They actually did a pretty good job of softening the fall. They couldn't stop it, but they were able to keep the inertia in check in a way that led to a slow winding-down instead of a catastrophic collapse. The "fall of the soviet union" didn't happen in a massive revolution and huge bloodshed, it was more of a controlled fall, a transition.
Maybe in 10 years we'll see a breakdown or a revolution in china. Maybe "correct, beneficial communism" will be restored. Or maybe they'll try something else. I wonder if it will be a big messy affair or a transition? who knows.
There's also the basic issue that some people have when around techs. I've found that professionals in other areas become very defensive when they're no longer "the expert". They can have very delicate egos, and it can be very difficult to avoid bruising them. Part of your job as an IT person is to have a high level of skill at your job, and its not easy to hide that while at the same time inspiring confidence in the less sensitive people around you. You can look like an idiot or like a guru, and it's very challenging to come to a middleground that keeps both egos and confidence intact.
Be thankful when someone tells you that you're talking over their head, or isn't interested in your explanation of a problem they're having and what you're going to do to fix it. ("can't you just shut up and fix it? I don't want to hear about it.", in other words) Bigger problems can well up out of sight when they nod-and-smile and act like they're understanding your explanation and are interested in what you have to say. You walk away feeling like you did a good job of communicating the problem, informing the client, and generating confidence in your ability to take care of them. And they are left embarrassed that they felt like a fool not understanding most of what you said, worried that coworkers around them noticed their ignorance, and actually ended up having a very negative experience with you. This is a bigger problem in a setting where you are supporting professionals in other areas, because they are more likely to "nod and smile" rather than risk "sounding dumb" in front of their peers. Whether or not you "think they're dumb" doesn't matter to them, it's the judgement of their peers that they're afraid of, and you can't do much about that besides avoiding the situation completely. Best you can do is sharpen your observation skills and try to detect when the "nod and smile" is kicking in, and quickly back way way off to get them back in their comfort zone.
I like to talk about what I do, and enjoy discussing my work with others, which unfortunately can quickly get me into "nod and smile land" with someone while I work on their problem. Occupational Hazard I guess. All I can hope to do is try to pick up on it fast. I find asking clients questions about what sort of service they would like is very helpful here. "Would you like me to explain this, or just fix it for you?" I've been surprised by the response to this question on so many occasions. Technical people sometimes don't have time for it and want you to fix it and disappear so they can get back to their work. People you saw as non-technical may also want you to fix it and disappear, but "maybe you can stop by tomorrow afternoon to show me how to make those macros?". o_O okay! Sometimes they will really surprise you. And then you win.
True, and most likely, completely irrelevant. I service POS systems from time to time, and so far, every single one of them has been running XP-embedded. That means NO updates, ever. Well, until the vendor sends you new rom chips. Which they never bother with.
I forget the hardware vendor, (and that's where the embedded OS is coming from) but I do know the POS software running on them is Aloha, which is a very popular bar/restaurant POS software. Aloha was written for and continues to be developed to run on it.
for running XP on your POS system in 2012.
OK maybe not. I'm guessing. But it would be funny, ironic, and very very sad. And you have to admit, it's not that unlikely.
"Forging" is where you are trying to pass off a copy as an original. To sell it as "authentic" for an inflated price, or to get past a security check, etc.
"Counterfeiting" would be closer, it's not frequently used to describe forged credentials, but still applies to selling a copy as an original.
"Knockoff" probably comes closest here. Where you're copying the design reasonably closely, probably violating trademark and patent, but where there is not deception as to it being a copy, and often sold for less. (or in the case of piracy, often for free)
The problem here is "knockoff" implies a lower quality product, that you still have to pay something for. Software piracy creates a (typically) identical quality product (without some benefits like updates and support) and sometimes at zero cost. So even that word isn't sufficient to describe it.
I think part of the problem in terminology here is there aren't different words to differentiate between someone giving a copy away and someone selling it for profit. I think the two should be handled very differently. In the end, there are two basic differences from the author's point of view if you compare a freecopy and a paycopy:
1) the paycopy is trying to make money off the copy. the freecopy may also be making money off the process (through banner hits, or even bundling malware) but may be doing it for free. people participating in torrent swarms are freecopying. The difference is one is doing it to make money and the other is not. For comparison purposes you can ignore the small minority that are making any real money off freecopies. Due to the free nature of the act, the people participating and the number of freecopies made does not have anywhere near a 1:1 relation to the number of "lost sales" for the author. The freecopiers will be a mix of people that would have bought authentic if the freecopy wasn't available, people that are getting a freecopy to try (that either don't like it, like it and buy authentic, or like it and neglect to buy it), and people that want the idea and would pay for it if they had to but freecopy instead because it's available. The "creative industry" publicly denies the existence of any but the last group, because that will produce the appearance of greatest harm to them.
2) the availability of freecopies lowers the value of the authentic product by lowering demand, causing a drop in sales, a lower price point to maintain sales, or a combination of the two. People will argue that "piracy isn't theft because it doesn't deny the owner of property" which is true, but it does have a similar effect. When you are "selling an idea", you aren't making money off the idea itself, and it costs very little for you to copy. You invest a large amount of money in coming up with the idea, and then try to sell copies of the idea to as many people as possible for as much as possible, to recoup your investment and turn a profit. Your copying the idea to sell costs a lot less than your asking price. So when piracy lowers your price point or number of sales, it does have a real cost, it's just not a direct cost, and is very difficult to firmly quantify.
I've seen the issue of "why do people copy?" and "how much does piracy really end up costing the authors?", but I have yet to see anyone be able to arrive at any confident numbers. The "creative industry" has paid for many studies in these areas, which always seem to arrive at numbers which everyone that looks at them considers unreasonable.
telling us how piracy is hurting their business and costing them money!
oh this so reminds me of http://xkcd.com/927/
easy fix. open the fuse box under the hood. look for the one labeled "ABS". Pull. done.
Better I think would be "New information discovered adds support to theory of moon created by massive collision"
The headline made it sound like it was already established fact. And even though it's correct use of the word, I think that calling this new discovery "evidence" contributes to this confusion. (though it is the strongest current theory, and will probably eventually be accepted as fact although not likely ever proven)