Consider this: perhaps owing to the ubiquity of space combat in the Star Wars universe, every starship contains a synthesizer system combined with radar which senses ships in the vicinity, explosions, and blaster trails, and generates a surround-sound representation of all within the cockpit, to aid the pilot in dodging and maneuvering.
This explanation makes about as much sense as any other.
Thanks for your clarification, but don't bag on me for spreading FUD. I read what you posted several times before making my statement, because there's nothing I hate worse than accusing an innocent person. The statement which you quoted is completely ambiguous; it doesn't directly say "we're going to look into getting a license", and could be construed as "we're going to try to work out a legal loophole", or "we're going to try to work out a way to hack this without being caught".
I felt the need to point out this fact, since the lumpen proletariat of Slashdot think that Microsoft actually exercising their right to control access to servers which they own is somehow akin to being crushed under the heel of a totalitarian despot.
I'm glad to hear that you are in fact trying to achieve a mutually agreeable solution with Microsoft, rather than simply spreading FUD yourself. Bravo. Of course, as I implied in my previous post, if the licensing terms are simply too dear, I agree that you have the right to piss and moan about Microsoft.
I missed the part in this response where GAIM indicates that they even bothered to ask Microsoft about the licensing terms necessary to create an interoperable client. I mean, god forbid you should ask.
As far as I'm concerned, unless they've asked and found that the licensing terms are far too dear to consider a licensed client, they're failing their user community and attempting to set up Microsoft as a straw man to burn down for this failure.
It's like admiring a beautiful girl from afar, being too afraid to chat her up and ask her out, and then proceeding to assume that she's a stuck up stupid bitch who would never talk to you and probably a lesbian based on what? Fear?
I'm amazed that there isn't a single person on Slashdot who can figure this out. I hear plenty of conspiracy theories about how Microsoft wants to maintain their marketshare (for a free piece of software?) or that they don't want the protocol in the public domain (here's a hint: the APIs are all documented at MSDN Library) or that somehow this is some evil ploy to enslave all those people who couldn't just go use another FREE IM network. None of it withstands the test of logic.
The only thing, and I mean the ONLY THING this is about is preventing the sort of widespread IM Spam garbage that permeates other IM networks. Messenger has always been top notch at this in the past, but if they don't lock down the service to known, registered client programs, it's just a matter of time until someone creates a high volume IM spambot (if they haven't already).
It seems that once Microsoft starts tracking the behavior of individuals, you're asking for trouble. What about privacy?
I think it's a very important thing. And we have build NetScan to protect what I think are legitimate claims for privacy. Like a Net spider, NetScan takes publicly accessible documents off the Internet, and it respects metadata that says "Leave me alone!" There is the robots.txt file that says, "You can look at this but not that." With Usenet there is one that says "Leave my messages alone," and we respect that. We will not store your messages if you put that in them.
Nope. Just FYI, here's a little tidbit on how the virus is transferred (according to publicly available decompilations):
Infected host sends exploit packet to IP address, which launches cmd shell and binds it to port 4444
Worm sends command to this shell, using the TFTP.EXE utility available in NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 to connect back to the first infected host
Worm listens for the callback on port 69, and has an extremely simple TFTP daemon built in to transfer its own executable to the new host (just starts firing packets of the binary)
Worm sends command to remote shell to execute itself
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The only way to find the source would be to collect the file creation times from the virus executable on every infected computer, and look for the oldest one. Then, try to find out who infected that computer.
The only ones you are missing contain info that would let you figure out how to pirate games, and aren't necessary to understanding the bulk of the system.
Yes, but all the people who buy the Linux kit are only interested in figuring out how to pirate games, therefore it's crippled.
Google and Findlaw have a complete blank on Kitzmiller v. InterAmerica, but I'll take your word for this as true. If you are a lawyer, then you know that in contract law a contract (which a software or copyright license is) creates private law which often supercedes common law or precedent. Your rights are enumerated in the license agreement; you do not have any rights outside of these unless statute disallows some of the restrictions in the EULA, at which point the EULA would fall back on a enforceability clause and whatever right was asserted by statute would be granted, but the remainder of the EULA would be enforced. I don't know of any statutes disallowing a contract clause specifying that the copyright license for a piece of software only applies to one PC, so I doubt very much that you have the right to make arbitrary copies of Apple's intellectual property, unless this right was asserted in the original EULA. Also I also don't know of any statutes which guide construction of a refund agreement mandating that the refundee retains ownership of the chattel, but it would be up to the refunding party to specify in the refund agreement that the chattel ought to be recovered or destroyed, and that any original license agreement is annulled. Presumably in the case you mention, InterAmerica probably didn't make any of these sort of provisions in their initial license agreement or their refund agreement, so the plaintiff ended up both with his original purchase price in hand and a valid license agreement for the software, and InterAmerica got screwed because they didn't protect themselves. Judging from their website, they are a minority-owned company so they probably lost because they are a bunch of stupid spics and niggers. Presumably, since Steve Jobs is a white man, he will be intelligent enough to assert his right to recover the software CD and/or rescind the license agreement as a condition of receiving a full refund. So basically, you're doubly wrong.
They didn't give it away in any legal sense. If you avail yourself of the refund (which I'm sure rescinds your license to the software, and probably you have to agree to destroy the CD), but continue to use the software without a license, you're just as much of a thief as millions of MP3 downloaders. Just because you have a CD in your hand doesn't mean you have the right to make an arbitrary number of copies of it, especially if the copyright holder has rescinded your right to use it.
What happens when you've got 50 people waiting in the lobby, four elevators to service them all, they're all going to a different floor and hear a *ding?* Who's elevator is it? Do people want to have to stop and look to see if the elevator door that just opened is going to their floor?
Presumably this can be communicated back to the cellphone, so that it says "go to door #5". Perhaps it'll be in a LED ticker over the elevator door "destinations: 5, 12, 15". Whatever (obviously) makes more sense. For what it's worth, having 50 people in the Lobby all waiting to go up isn't really a highly likely traffic pattern, and isn't something where this is meant to add value. This adds value to cases where, in a skyscraper, mis-scheduling of an elevator leads to people waiting for many minutes. Ever play SimTower?
Assuming that the utility value is higher than the production value, what is best for the consumer is to pay as close to the production value as possible, whereas what is best for the vendor is for them to pay as close to the utility value as possible.
This sort of economic philosophy doesn't foment economic growth. If we live in a world where everyone nickels and dimes each other to the point where the total profit through the supply chain is on the order of pennies on the dollar, then it drags down the whole system. I don't want to get into an Econ 101 example here, but if Consumer A doesn't want to pay for the utility value of Product X made by Company Y, and thus forces the price point to have no built-in profit, this impacts the ability of Y and all its vertically integrated vendors to reinvest profits in new technologies to increase productivity (in the interest of decreasing production value/costs), and also prevents Consumer B, who works for Y, from getting a year-end bonus. Consequently, Consumer B doesn't have enough disposable income to consider buying Product I from Company J, who Consumer A happens to work for, ergo A ends up in the same position with respect to his disposable income.
The net-net of this is that the economy remains in stasis. There's no profit motive, little growth of life-saving or bettering technology, and no opportunity for individuals to profit. It's almost communist.
So to complete the thought, people should actually be willing to pay close to the full utility value, or the value which it personally brings to their lives, for the good of the economy. If owning this "thing" will save me $10,000 -- or an equivalent amount of time/frustration -- a year (ipso facto, not "according to advertising"), I should be willing to pay any asking price up to say $9,999, even if it only cost $1 to produce.
The matter of the producer's profit is immaterial to me; it's the net positive value (realized value - price paid) to me that matters. Behaving as though the producer has no right to profit is fundamentally more selfish than rampant profiteering.
Price differentiation basically allows companies to maximise profits from ill-informed consumers when there isn't much competition or comparison shopping to undercut the inflated prices
I would daresay that a smart Company C would use price differentiation to present the more competitive price to the informed, cost-conscious Consumer D; they would be motivated to buy the product since they would save time shopping around -- they would come to trust that Company C has the best prices, and would buy again. The less competitive, but still fair price is presented to Consumer E, who is independently wealthy and doesn't give a shit about clipping coupons. E requires a different overall marketing strategy, since they might be more swayed by advertising punch, fads, etc. The extra profit can be used to further growth in E's market.
They are merely trying to ensure that they get the best value for their dollars.
Of course they are, but the way you put it reminds me of my grandfather demanding I give him the fucking 4 cents change left over when I go to the store to buy a loaf of bread for him.
I would say that there are at least 3 different forms of targeted pricing, none of which are that bad for the consumer:
The "Used Car Salesman" Technique: The Used Car Salesman has a listed price, and a "bottom line" price which is his minimum profit. He's never going to let you know the bottom line. If you want to take the list price, that's fine by him - maximum profit. If you want to haggle it down, he's going to haggle you back in a number of ways; value of your trade-in, financing available, etc., but if you try to undercut his bottom line, end of conversation. This is targetted in that the UCS is going to base his arguments and approach based on what he thinks you are willing to pay, even though you may be trying to go cheaper than this.
The "Preferred List" Technique: This is the one that really rankles people most, since it implies that somebody else is getting a benny that you aren't. When you find out that Mr. Jones across the street gets a catalog with lower prices just because he's in a different demographic segment, there's a certain amount of jealousy that "he's saving $5 where you aren't, therefore that company is giving him $5." Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Jones is only being marketed to more aggressively. Also, it's a staple of capitalism that the money exchanged for a product is valued by the seller more highly than the product being bought, and vice versa. Otherwise, why would the transaction take place? Therefore, the "loss" that the consumer feels by paying a higher price than another is really just a form of covetousness, since they can avoid the "loss" by simply declining to purchase.
The Auction Technique: Obviously we see this all over the place on eBay and Priceline, but it is also a form of targeted pricing. Rather than relying upon some classification of the customer to try to determine their "willing to pay" price, the customer is encouraged to volunteer it. There is still a "bottom line" as in the UCS Technique, which is enforced by Reserve prices or by declining to transact after the auction. However, the customer is quite often willing to pay the same higher price that they would be rankled by in another marketing method, due to some form of "gambling frenzy" that overrides the psychology of "perceived loss". In reality, the customer is just becoming honest about what they are able and willing to pay, or what is an acceptable value proposition.
To wit: imagine the "Preferred List" technique, where you and Mr. Jones receive a catalog. There is a product which normally lists for $700, but Mr. J's catalog has it for $500, where your catalog has it for $600. This is unfair. However, imagine being in an online auction for the same product. He bids $500, you bid $600. You win, AND you save money.
The only difference is that you feel superior in the auction method due to beating a number of people, whereas in the Preferred list method, you feel inferior due to being excluded from a perceived "gift".
Well...that was reasonable analysis there, but it still comes down to the fact that if Clippy was a good idea, one has to explain why Microsoft is throwing it out.
I'm sure they have a better explanation, but I thought I just gave one: it caused a few more people to "understand" the UI than before, but it's obviously not the optimal solution.
QUOTED FROM MR. 0x0d0a, USER ID 568518 (I didn't say it): If someone shoves a big, fleshy thing into *your* mouth, is *your* first reaction "Hmm, I think I'll suck hard on this for a while"?
What you say is true - but only in theory - as it requires user intervention to support it. Do you really think your average secretary is going to bother pre-ordering each lift he wants to take?
Umm, you pre-order the elevator already, when you press the button in the waiting area. The only problem is that you're only telling the micro-processor that controls it "up or down". If I'm on the 5th, and going to the 10th, and there's an elevator on the 4th floor which already has 5 people in it who are going to the 10th, and 2 others for the 15th, it would make sense for that elevator to stop, rather than another elevator at the 4th which has 3 people destined for the 11th and 12th. Right now your average elevator just says "people who want to go up should get on elevators that are already going up, and vice versa". Now, we could have the same capability by just having the floor number buttons in the elevator waiting atrium, but the cell-phone capability has two potentials:
Since cell phones are nigh-ubiquitous, it replaces any unwieldy "50 buttons" interface needing to be in place in the building, and if adopted across the board, becomes an intuitive act for the user (i'm walking toward the elevator, pull out my cellphone...*beep* bam there's my elevator)
The location of the cellphone could be tracked within the elevator; therefore the scheduling doesn't get confused by someone getting off before their floor, or some prankster dialing up 50 random floors in a row
But what about clippy! that's a big innovation! it's so hard to think of keywords like "margins" and search for them, I like to type in "how do I change the margins?" instead. It's so much quicker!
Clippy is definitely not for geeks. However, there is a large segment population that wouldn't know what the help menu was if it bit their ass, and who also don't look at things in terms of "input keyword - get results". They think in terms of "ask a question, get an answer." Also, bear in mind that clippy was a combination of two pieces; online help with "natural language" search, as well as a bayesian reasoning piece (the whole "It looks like you're writing a letter..." bit). The suggestion piece also doesn't go very far with geeks, since they generally know (or think they know) what they're doing, whereas that other segment of the population welcomes the help in many cases.
Also, bear in mind that as annoying as Clippy and the pop-up bits are, there are still some people who just can't grasp the concept of "asking Clippy" before they go elsewhere. I'd imagine because it still isn't "personable" enough to engage these novice users in the same way a helpful person would.
There's something about the paradigm of text on a screen, and the psychological experience of using a computer that just hasn't been understood yet in interface design. It's something more than a tool-using experience, but less than a "person to person" experience. Hence, the whole argument about "the only intuitive interface is the nipple".
Thank you for the useful link to this page detailing Microsoft's operating systems. Without your help I would be left wondering: "What operating systems does this Microsoft company make? Do they make the Lunix?"
Again, thank you.
Just to stay on-topic, the meeting robot reminds me of an anecdote by Richard Feynman I believe, where he was talking to a Danish princess after winning the Nobel Prize. Noticing all the people shaking hands at the event, he mused about a "hand-shaking robot" to save time and hand fatigue. He then further postulated that if one person had a hand-shaking robot, all the other hand-shakers would want one too, so at ceremonies such as the Nobel Prize Awarding, one dignitary would send his robot to go shake all the other robot hands waiting in a line.
I'm visualizing 10 robots sitting at a conference table, while the whole board of directors is sitting at home, naked, drinking their morning coffee, etc.
They'll get around to you eventually. John Tesh and David Hasselhoff remixes are just rather low on their hit-list right now.
Re:Solution to sweaty hands.
on
Clammy Modding
·
· Score: 2, Funny
So are we going to see an article/ad about people selling your Mouse Doilies on slashdot next week? Wait a minute, that doesn't have enough marketing cache... how about the Logitech Optical Mouse Nappy Pro EXTREME - For Gamers!!!
Re:Ahead of you in Japan...
on
Clammy Modding
·
· Score: -1, Troll
An American diplomat was at a dinner party in a Japanese home when he excused himself to go to the bathroom. He did his business, stood up and realized he didn't have a clue about how to flush the toilet.
Everyone knows that in Japan you don't flush your shit down the toilet. You get a schoolgirl to eat it out of your ass.
Re:What about sweaty fingers?
on
Clammy Modding
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't know, maybe all these people have small hands, but I just lightly grasp the mouse with my fingertips. Thumb holds the left side of the mouse, ring and pinky on the right, and index and middle over the buttons and wheel.
I move mostly with my forearm (to avoid carpal tunnel problems) but that works fine. I find that if I do rest my palm on the mouse for a few moments, it does get sweaty, but that's why I don't do it.
I'd rather not. In the first century BC, a Roman boy donned the toga virilis shortly after puberty, carried a sword, and had the right to join the army or start a family. However, in those times, or in the 1800s for that matter, if you fucked up and didn't take responsibility, your family starved and you died.
Nowadays if you drop out of school and knock up your girlfriend, if you fuck up, my tax dollars end up paying for your welfare, your kids, your child tax credits.
The basic entry level of society has changed. You need more than a sword and a toga to participate.
This is terrible. Our kids should be free to drop out of school and seek their own path in life, whether it's cleaning out the grease traps at Jack In The Box, schlepping lumber at Home Depot, driving a garbage truck, or even selling pharmaceuticals on street corners, without nosy school administrators trying to force them to "learn" or "go to college". Where are our priorities?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I really just thought of it right when I posted that.
Consider this: perhaps owing to the ubiquity of space combat in the Star Wars universe, every starship contains a synthesizer system combined with radar which senses ships in the vicinity, explosions, and blaster trails, and generates a surround-sound representation of all within the cockpit, to aid the pilot in dodging and maneuvering.
This explanation makes about as much sense as any other.
Thanks for your clarification, but don't bag on me for spreading FUD. I read what you posted several times before making my statement, because there's nothing I hate worse than accusing an innocent person. The statement which you quoted is completely ambiguous; it doesn't directly say "we're going to look into getting a license", and could be construed as "we're going to try to work out a legal loophole", or "we're going to try to work out a way to hack this without being caught".
I felt the need to point out this fact, since the lumpen proletariat of Slashdot think that Microsoft actually exercising their right to control access to servers which they own is somehow akin to being crushed under the heel of a totalitarian despot.
I'm glad to hear that you are in fact trying to achieve a mutually agreeable solution with Microsoft, rather than simply spreading FUD yourself. Bravo. Of course, as I implied in my previous post, if the licensing terms are simply too dear, I agree that you have the right to piss and moan about Microsoft.
I missed the part in this response where GAIM indicates that they even bothered to ask Microsoft about the licensing terms necessary to create an interoperable client. I mean, god forbid you should ask.
As far as I'm concerned, unless they've asked and found that the licensing terms are far too dear to consider a licensed client, they're failing their user community and attempting to set up Microsoft as a straw man to burn down for this failure.
It's like admiring a beautiful girl from afar, being too afraid to chat her up and ask her out, and then proceeding to assume that she's a stuck up stupid bitch who would never talk to you and probably a lesbian based on what? Fear?
Here is some more information on the vulnerability actually used to crash the train signalling network in Maryland.
I'm amazed that there isn't a single person on Slashdot who can figure this out. I hear plenty of conspiracy theories about how Microsoft wants to maintain their marketshare (for a free piece of software?) or that they don't want the protocol in the public domain (here's a hint: the APIs are all documented at MSDN Library) or that somehow this is some evil ploy to enslave all those people who couldn't just go use another FREE IM network. None of it withstands the test of logic.
The only thing, and I mean the ONLY THING this is about is preventing the sort of widespread IM Spam garbage that permeates other IM networks. Messenger has always been top notch at this in the past, but if they don't lock down the service to known, registered client programs, it's just a matter of time until someone creates a high volume IM spambot (if they haven't already).
It seems that once Microsoft starts tracking the behavior of individuals, you're asking for trouble. What about privacy?
I think it's a very important thing. And we have build NetScan to protect what I think are legitimate claims for privacy. Like a Net spider, NetScan takes publicly accessible documents off the Internet, and it respects metadata that says "Leave me alone!" There is the robots.txt file that says, "You can look at this but not that." With Usenet there is one that says "Leave my messages alone," and we respect that. We will not store your messages if you put that in them.
So tell me again why this is stuff that matters?
- Infected host sends exploit packet to IP address, which launches cmd shell and binds it to port 4444
- Worm sends command to this shell, using the TFTP.EXE utility available in NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 to connect back to the first infected host
- Worm listens for the callback on port 69, and has an extremely simple TFTP daemon built in to transfer its own executable to the new host (just starts firing packets of the binary)
- Worm sends command to remote shell to execute itself
- Lather, rinse, repeat.
The only way to find the source would be to collect the file creation times from the virus executable on every infected computer, and look for the oldest one. Then, try to find out who infected that computer.The only ones you are missing contain info that would let you figure out how to pirate games, and aren't necessary to understanding the bulk of the system.
Yes, but all the people who buy the Linux kit are only interested in figuring out how to pirate games, therefore it's crippled.
Google and Findlaw have a complete blank on Kitzmiller v. InterAmerica, but I'll take your word for this as true. If you are a lawyer, then you know that in contract law a contract (which a software or copyright license is) creates private law which often supercedes common law or precedent. Your rights are enumerated in the license agreement; you do not have any rights outside of these unless statute disallows some of the restrictions in the EULA, at which point the EULA would fall back on a enforceability clause and whatever right was asserted by statute would be granted, but the remainder of the EULA would be enforced. I don't know of any statutes disallowing a contract clause specifying that the copyright license for a piece of software only applies to one PC, so I doubt very much that you have the right to make arbitrary copies of Apple's intellectual property, unless this right was asserted in the original EULA. Also I also don't know of any statutes which guide construction of a refund agreement mandating that the refundee retains ownership of the chattel, but it would be up to the refunding party to specify in the refund agreement that the chattel ought to be recovered or destroyed, and that any original license agreement is annulled. Presumably in the case you mention, InterAmerica probably didn't make any of these sort of provisions in their initial license agreement or their refund agreement, so the plaintiff ended up both with his original purchase price in hand and a valid license agreement for the software, and InterAmerica got screwed because they didn't protect themselves. Judging from their website, they are a minority-owned company so they probably lost because they are a bunch of stupid spics and niggers. Presumably, since Steve Jobs is a white man, he will be intelligent enough to assert his right to recover the software CD and/or rescind the license agreement as a condition of receiving a full refund. So basically, you're doubly wrong.
They didn't give it away in any legal sense. If you avail yourself of the refund (which I'm sure rescinds your license to the software, and probably you have to agree to destroy the CD), but continue to use the software without a license, you're just as much of a thief as millions of MP3 downloaders. Just because you have a CD in your hand doesn't mean you have the right to make an arbitrary number of copies of it, especially if the copyright holder has rescinded your right to use it.
What happens when you've got 50 people waiting in the lobby, four elevators to service them all, they're all going to a different floor and hear a *ding?* Who's elevator is it? Do people want to have to stop and look to see if the elevator door that just opened is going to their floor?
Presumably this can be communicated back to the cellphone, so that it says "go to door #5". Perhaps it'll be in a LED ticker over the elevator door "destinations: 5, 12, 15". Whatever (obviously) makes more sense. For what it's worth, having 50 people in the Lobby all waiting to go up isn't really a highly likely traffic pattern, and isn't something where this is meant to add value. This adds value to cases where, in a skyscraper, mis-scheduling of an elevator leads to people waiting for many minutes. Ever play SimTower?
Assuming that the utility value is higher than the production value, what is best for the consumer is to pay as close to the production value as possible, whereas what is best for the vendor is for them to pay as close to the utility value as possible.
This sort of economic philosophy doesn't foment economic growth. If we live in a world where everyone nickels and dimes each other to the point where the total profit through the supply chain is on the order of pennies on the dollar, then it drags down the whole system. I don't want to get into an Econ 101 example here, but if Consumer A doesn't want to pay for the utility value of Product X made by Company Y, and thus forces the price point to have no built-in profit, this impacts the ability of Y and all its vertically integrated vendors to reinvest profits in new technologies to increase productivity (in the interest of decreasing production value/costs), and also prevents Consumer B, who works for Y, from getting a year-end bonus. Consequently, Consumer B doesn't have enough disposable income to consider buying Product I from Company J, who Consumer A happens to work for, ergo A ends up in the same position with respect to his disposable income.
The net-net of this is that the economy remains in stasis. There's no profit motive, little growth of life-saving or bettering technology, and no opportunity for individuals to profit. It's almost communist.
So to complete the thought, people should actually be willing to pay close to the full utility value, or the value which it personally brings to their lives, for the good of the economy. If owning this "thing" will save me $10,000 -- or an equivalent amount of time/frustration -- a year (ipso facto, not "according to advertising"), I should be willing to pay any asking price up to say $9,999, even if it only cost $1 to produce.
The matter of the producer's profit is immaterial to me; it's the net positive value (realized value - price paid) to me that matters. Behaving as though the producer has no right to profit is fundamentally more selfish than rampant profiteering.
Price differentiation basically allows companies to maximise profits from ill-informed consumers when there isn't much competition or comparison shopping to undercut the inflated prices
I would daresay that a smart Company C would use price differentiation to present the more competitive price to the informed, cost-conscious Consumer D; they would be motivated to buy the product since they would save time shopping around -- they would come to trust that Company C has the best prices, and would buy again. The less competitive, but still fair price is presented to Consumer E, who is independently wealthy and doesn't give a shit about clipping coupons. E requires a different overall marketing strategy, since they might be more swayed by advertising punch, fads, etc. The extra profit can be used to further growth in E's market.
They are merely trying to ensure that they get the best value for their dollars.
Of course they are, but the way you put it reminds me of my grandfather demanding I give him the fucking 4 cents change left over when I go to the store to buy a loaf of bread for him.
To wit: imagine the "Preferred List" technique, where you and Mr. Jones receive a catalog. There is a product which normally lists for $700, but Mr. J's catalog has it for $500, where your catalog has it for $600. This is unfair. However, imagine being in an online auction for the same product. He bids $500, you bid $600. You win, AND you save money.
The only difference is that you feel superior in the auction method due to beating a number of people, whereas in the Preferred list method, you feel inferior due to being excluded from a perceived "gift".
Well...that was reasonable analysis there, but it still comes down to the fact that if Clippy was a good idea, one has to explain why Microsoft is throwing it out.
I'm sure they have a better explanation, but I thought I just gave one: it caused a few more people to "understand" the UI than before, but it's obviously not the optimal solution.
QUOTED FROM MR. 0x0d0a, USER ID 568518 (I didn't say it): If someone shoves a big, fleshy thing into *your* mouth, is *your* first reaction "Hmm, I think I'll suck hard on this for a while"?
I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole.
Umm, you pre-order the elevator already, when you press the button in the waiting area. The only problem is that you're only telling the micro-processor that controls it "up or down". If I'm on the 5th, and going to the 10th, and there's an elevator on the 4th floor which already has 5 people in it who are going to the 10th, and 2 others for the 15th, it would make sense for that elevator to stop, rather than another elevator at the 4th which has 3 people destined for the 11th and 12th. Right now your average elevator just says "people who want to go up should get on elevators that are already going up, and vice versa". Now, we could have the same capability by just having the floor number buttons in the elevator waiting atrium, but the cell-phone capability has two potentials:
But what about clippy! that's a big innovation! it's so hard to think of keywords like "margins" and search for them, I like to type in "how do I change the margins?" instead. It's so much quicker!
Clippy is definitely not for geeks. However, there is a large segment population that wouldn't know what the help menu was if it bit their ass, and who also don't look at things in terms of "input keyword - get results". They think in terms of "ask a question, get an answer." Also, bear in mind that clippy was a combination of two pieces; online help with "natural language" search, as well as a bayesian reasoning piece (the whole "It looks like you're writing a letter..." bit). The suggestion piece also doesn't go very far with geeks, since they generally know (or think they know) what they're doing, whereas that other segment of the population welcomes the help in many cases.
Also, bear in mind that as annoying as Clippy and the pop-up bits are, there are still some people who just can't grasp the concept of "asking Clippy" before they go elsewhere. I'd imagine because it still isn't "personable" enough to engage these novice users in the same way a helpful person would.
There's something about the paradigm of text on a screen, and the psychological experience of using a computer that just hasn't been understood yet in interface design. It's something more than a tool-using experience, but less than a "person to person" experience. Hence, the whole argument about "the only intuitive interface is the nipple".
You've been able to do that ever since Win NT4, maybe even 3.51. Here ya go. Another great innovation, only from Microsoft.
Thank you for the useful link to this page detailing Microsoft's operating systems. Without your help I would be left wondering: "What operating systems does this Microsoft company make? Do they make the Lunix?"
Again, thank you.
Just to stay on-topic, the meeting robot reminds me of an anecdote by Richard Feynman I believe, where he was talking to a Danish princess after winning the Nobel Prize. Noticing all the people shaking hands at the event, he mused about a "hand-shaking robot" to save time and hand fatigue. He then further postulated that if one person had a hand-shaking robot, all the other hand-shakers would want one too, so at ceremonies such as the Nobel Prize Awarding, one dignitary would send his robot to go shake all the other robot hands waiting in a line.
I'm visualizing 10 robots sitting at a conference table, while the whole board of directors is sitting at home, naked, drinking their morning coffee, etc.
They'll get around to you eventually. John Tesh and David Hasselhoff remixes are just rather low on their hit-list right now.
So are we going to see an article/ad about people selling your Mouse Doilies on slashdot next week? Wait a minute, that doesn't have enough marketing cache... how about the Logitech Optical Mouse Nappy Pro EXTREME - For Gamers!!!
An American diplomat was at a dinner party in a Japanese home when he excused himself to go to the bathroom. He did his business, stood up and realized he didn't have a clue about how to flush the toilet.
Everyone knows that in Japan you don't flush your shit down the toilet. You get a schoolgirl to eat it out of your ass.
I don't know, maybe all these people have small hands, but I just lightly grasp the mouse with my fingertips. Thumb holds the left side of the mouse, ring and pinky on the right, and index and middle over the buttons and wheel.
I move mostly with my forearm (to avoid carpal tunnel problems) but that works fine. I find that if I do rest my palm on the mouse for a few moments, it does get sweaty, but that's why I don't do it.
I'd rather not. In the first century BC, a Roman boy donned the toga virilis shortly after puberty, carried a sword, and had the right to join the army or start a family. However, in those times, or in the 1800s for that matter, if you fucked up and didn't take responsibility, your family starved and you died.
Nowadays if you drop out of school and knock up your girlfriend, if you fuck up, my tax dollars end up paying for your welfare, your kids, your child tax credits.
The basic entry level of society has changed. You need more than a sword and a toga to participate.
This is terrible. Our kids should be free to drop out of school and seek their own path in life, whether it's cleaning out the grease traps at Jack In The Box, schlepping lumber at Home Depot, driving a garbage truck, or even selling pharmaceuticals on street corners, without nosy school administrators trying to force them to "learn" or "go to college". Where are our priorities?