That should be #1 bit of Vaporware. Something promised for years but has yet to be delivered.
I mean, c'mon. How can something that's never been announced be considered vaporware? There is no promise of Diablo III; however there was promises of Starcraft:Ghost and Dungeon Keeper III.
And because Samsung won't update their phone it's vaporware? Why not say that Windows 98 is vaporware because Microsoft refuses to upgrade it to use IE7? Reason to be upset, sure. Vaporware, no.
And a perpetual motion machine, isn't vaporware. It's just crackpot.
I would differ on that hypothesis. A text editor is a tool for editing text; nothing more. The documents created do not need to be used for engineering so it doesn't follow that all editors are engineering tools. They can be, but it is not a given. Text editors are not uni-taskers and so a blanket statement of "An editor is an engineering tool." is not accurate.
And most recent typewriters *can* edit; even if it's just whiting-out as you hit backspace. Even a pencil has an eraser. Editing does not equal engineering.
Why software engineers seem to think intuitivity is something worth striving for in their tools is beyond me, very few other engineering tools strive for intuitivity.
Your first mistake was considering vi(m) an "engineering tool". It's a text editor, plain and simple. AutoCAD has a very specific focus and will only be used by those needing it's features. I can use a TI calculator to figure out how much to tip, and how little is left in my bank account because it's basic interface is intuitive. If I wanted to perform calculus on it, I would first need to learn calculus and then I would have the foundation to understanding all the other keys.
vi(m) on the other hand is first and foremost a text editor. And every other text editor I've used, from notepad.exe to EditPlus to EMACS to the text editor on my C64 allowed me to load it up and just start typing. vi(m) on the other hand requires me to tell it, "Hey, I'm going to type now."
When people decide on what tools they are going to use it is based on two main principles: easy-of-use and getting the job done. So when people start looking for a text editor, they will think about those key factors. If it's not intuitive for how to start writing a document, edit a document, and save a document then you've lost the easy-of-use battle and people will move on. No matter how powerful the application is, or how much better it will be for future use, it's too late. I would rather just use MSPaint or IrfanView for image editing than try to learn all the commands within Photoshop. Will that limit me in the future? Of course! But every time I try to perform even the simplest of tasks in Photoshop, I end up frustrated and give up.
An "engineer" would look for specialized tools, like an IDE for software development. There, it's not so much about how it works, but getting work done. Does it have CVS or Subversion controls built-in? Auto-completion? Function/Class recognition? With those tools, the software engineer can write the intuitive software for everyone else.
There are a few times where I've spent a month or so just simulating coding. It usually stems from getting projects like "Your next project will be making a module that will interface with this e-commerce website another team building." End Of Line.
So I spend my days writing notes about probable requirements, designing theoretical databases, creating unknown API standards, and dreaming of writing makeshift documentation.
Now, my marble[1] is in place, and when I get finalized software requirement docs, I can just remove everything that isn't my "elephant". That is until the final docs say that I'm really writing something to convert PriceLine.com into an RSS feed.
I end up with a lot of really clean code that the world will never see.
[1] Old saying, "How do you sculpt an elephant? You take a big block of marble and remove everything that isn't an elephant."
Fundamentals are more important than learning a specific program. So show them how both applications work so that they are equipped to handle ANY software they encounter in the "real world".
With the commercial software, you have a finite number of licenses (assuming you are also going to teach about not pirating software). Install the commercial software you have on how many machines you can. Install the OSS on all the systems, including those that already have the matching commercial software.
When you start teaching, give examples using both applications. This will teach the students not to assume that the goal they want to accomplish is always named the same and in the same menu. "So Photoshop calls it this, but if you look at GIMP, it's called this. They both work the same and here is how it works."
And as long as there is not assigned seating, you'll find certain students will gravitate to the machines that have the commercial apps, while some will just go where ever. Those that don't care will be the ones that will end up more capable as they can just sit down at any app (even custom designed ones) and be up and running quicker because they know the goal they are trying to accomplish and not just the buttons they need to push.
And why won't you? They are still a perfectly good company. Why stop buying from them JUST because they are suing companies over a patent?
I mean.. I get it. "Information wants to be free! Or at least able to see other people." But if it's a real patent and SanDisk wants compensation for time and money invested developing the patent... Why do you people insist on boycotting them?
Does a business become evil the moment it tries to protect an investment?
Most of the problems we're talking about would go away if we just used descriptive content phrases instead of a one-size-fits-one rating system. What I consider "AO" and what others consider "AO" can be very different.
"The thumb is not a very dexterous part of the hand," Hedge tells WebMD. "It is really designed as a stabilizer for pinch gripping with a finger. That is why you only have two of them, not eight. It is the fingers that have dexterity, not the thumb."
The full-size keyboard was designed with this in mind. One uses one's dexterous fingers for lightning strikes on the letter keys. One reserves one's relatively clumsy thumbs for the humble task of striking the spacebar.
It's only in more recent times that the thumb has been asked to become more dexterous--With phone-texting, more and smaller buttons on game controllers, and so forth. Since thumbs were not made for precision, people blamed the trackball for bad ergonomics and faulty controls. Mice allowed for "pixel perfect" placement and gained dominance.
How do you think new words happen? People define them.
I don't consider "open" or "source" to be new words. They've been around for quite some time. They are well defined. Instead, what you are doing is perverting existing words to a new/different. Just like "gay" used to mean happy and now it's become a slur, trying to change "open source" to also include an 'approved' license is very pretentious. Should we also change the definition of a computer from "an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations" to "an electronic device running a Microsoft OS designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations"?
History is full of people that took authority... Very rarely did it really help.
A television "station" is also just a tool for viewing media. Programming, commercials, and Ron Popeil are the media. Actually, the relations would go like this
Television = Computer = Device for viewing media Station = OS = Software for controlling the media to be shown TV Programming = Computer Programs = The media itself
Of course, given that reasoning, we could think of our televisions as booting 500 OS's; Most of which is just MS drivel with the occasional good *NIX.
Yes.. there is a big difference between a television station and an "OS". But isn't Microsoft trying to worm it's way into the entertainment industry? There is a Microsoft Windows Media Center edition based on XP. Would a Vista-based version of Media Center (meant to be played/viewed/used on a home television) infringe on the other guys patent?
So if Microsoft sticks with just making an OS, or what they call an OS, then it's all good. But if they make an OS that integrates into your home entertainment center (TV) then it's could be competing and thus making the lawsuit slightly less frivolous.
You can sue the crap out of someone for using your image/likeness (thats why TV shows always have those waivers) especially if its for a commercial purpose.
Isn't this Google tool a commercial purpose? They're making money off of it (via the ads). And the page views are being enhanced because of your image being there--The whole "Check out this address because you can totally see a cat in the window."
Therefore, anyone who is photographed can sue because their image is being used for a commercial purpose without their written consent. While a few hundred lawsuit payouts won't damage Google's bottom line, it might become enough of an annoyance to make them stop.
Michael Bay made the Star Wars prequels? I thought that was George Lucas..?? You ever see them together in the same room?
Yes, well no. I mean, when I first looked there was no Michael Bay, but when I watched the video again I saw Michael in the background along with some ewoks and a some lanky guy with a snout and long ears.
What if it's not a conversation you're involved in until later?
Too many times at work I'll be forwarded a week long conversation from my boss that says (at the top) "Please fix the issue mentioned below." Now I have to scroll through 7-8 pages of messages from 4 different people; three of which top post and only one bottom posts.
It usually takes longer to read the email to find out what the bug is and how they want fixed then it takes to fix the bug itself.
Had everyone bottom posted I would be able to read it as a normal document and get my work done. Even if they all top posted it would require large amounts of scrolling up to get to the top of each message then scrolling down to read the whole message. Two steps forward, one step back.
Most common items don't explode. They spark, they pop, they burn, they shatter; but big booms with infernos and visible concussion waves are few and far between.
Meetings are going to happen. It's really tough to avoid them so you might as well have a plan for when they occur.
When I am in charge of making a meeting happen I try to use this little trick: Everyone has X amount of time before the meeting, usually in days. At that meeting be ready with 3 solutions to the problem, and rebuttal arguments for why #1 and (hopefully) #2 were mentally scrapped by the time you figured out option #3.
Now the meeting rolls around and I have say 5 people all ready to go with up to 15 different answers, but before we've even started most of those have been rejected.
We'll still cover all the solutions so we can weed out duplicates, shoot down people's third choice that someone else already thought of and realized a shop stopper ("...And that's why this idea will work." "Well, it would work, but where are we going to get tights in our size at this time of night?"), and correct any assumptions for people's self-realized blockers. ("At first I thought we could do this, but we need Marketing's help and they're buried." "Actually, Marketing just finished our last major project so we have a few days breathing room to help out.")
This keeps the "group think" out of the process until later in the process when the playing field has already narrowed down to 2-3 solid ideas.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but I love paying "Devil's Advocate". Who's up for a game?
The central issue revolves around can someone request money after the transaction has taken place. Generally speaking, once a transaction has occurred it is done and over with. A restaurant cannot deduct more from your credit card just because you left a mess at the table once you sign the bill. The bookstore cannot add additional fees because on your way out you took stacks and stacks of their free papers. So we work on the premise that what's done is done.
Now let's say you go to the grocery store because they are having a sale on Top Ramen. If you use a 'club card' you can get 30 for a dollar instead of the normal 20 for a dollar. So you load up on Ramen, peanut butter, Red Bull, and an orange to ward off scurvy. You enter your phone number for your club card... Well, you enter *a* phone number for *someone's* club card and take your purchase home. You head to the basement and find that even though the card worked and everything else was discounted, the Ramen was still full price. Damn them! That's cutting into your WoW fund. But do you accept that what's done is done? No, you get someone to drive you back to the store and demand the store give you back your money (cash or crediting your credit card). So in this case, the store was able to go back and change a completed transaction. They advertised a deal and did not keep up their end of the agreement. So now we've established a precedent for modifying a transaction after the fact due to one party not fulfilling their part of the exchange.
Many online store have been caught advertising an incorrect price (decimal moved in the wrong direction, wrong price entered, no price entered, etc) and get hammered from people trying to take advantage of that. Normally the store catches it before anything gets sent out, refunds the money and puts up a big "Opps and sorry" page. They take a PR dive for a while then life goes on. But in these cases, nothing has been sent so perhaps the FTC does not consider the transaction complete and StoreX is within their rights to refuse to make a sale even though money has been exchanged. It's just like you can't shove a money order under the door of Best Buy and expect them to give you a Wii when they find your money. Just because you gave them money does not mean a sale is happening.
However Amazon went so far as to actually send out a number of these DVD sets; that brings more laws into play. According to the FTC, if someone sends you something in the mail that you did not request, "You can't be forced to pay for the item or return it." So from a purely high level look at this, the consumers that did not pay for the product (or at least some got away without any payment) so therefore the DVDs are gifts and Amazon.com cannot later charge the consumer. Point of note; companies CAN sent you something that requires your payment to use such as the brazillion AOL CDs--The disks are free but in order to make anything other than coaster or a chair you need to give them a credit card.
So let's recap...
In this case, Amazon said "Buy one, get one free." That's the deal. That's the terms of the agreement. Someone found out that the ordering system was flawed and told people how to exploit that flaw. Online transactions were made, at zero to little money, and Amazon.com mailed out the DVDs fulfilling their end of the agreement. But did the consumers fulfill theirs? Did they really "buy one" in order to get a second item free? Can Amazon sue to get their money because most of the consumers made the transaction in bad faith? Breach of contract?
This should have nothing to do with big, bad corporation vs poor, little guy. These laws apply to Ma & Pa's Used Movies too. What if they screwed up orders due to Pa's Alzheimers? Would people feel so justified, proud
Slashdot Mirror
Google has introduced a new service where it will automatically share all your WHOIS requests to your "friends" on your contact list.
That should be #1 bit of Vaporware. Something promised for years but has yet to be delivered.
I mean, c'mon. How can something that's never been announced be considered vaporware? There is no promise of Diablo III; however there was promises of Starcraft:Ghost and Dungeon Keeper III.
And because Samsung won't update their phone it's vaporware? Why not say that Windows 98 is vaporware because Microsoft refuses to upgrade it to use IE7? Reason to be upset, sure. Vaporware, no.
And a perpetual motion machine, isn't vaporware. It's just crackpot.
I would differ on that hypothesis. A text editor is a tool for editing text; nothing more. The documents created do not need to be used for engineering so it doesn't follow that all editors are engineering tools. They can be, but it is not a given. Text editors are not uni-taskers and so a blanket statement of "An editor is an engineering tool." is not accurate.
And most recent typewriters *can* edit; even if it's just whiting-out as you hit backspace. Even a pencil has an eraser. Editing does not equal engineering.
Your first mistake was considering vi(m) an "engineering tool". It's a text editor, plain and simple. AutoCAD has a very specific focus and will only be used by those needing it's features. I can use a TI calculator to figure out how much to tip, and how little is left in my bank account because it's basic interface is intuitive. If I wanted to perform calculus on it, I would first need to learn calculus and then I would have the foundation to understanding all the other keys.
vi(m) on the other hand is first and foremost a text editor. And every other text editor I've used, from notepad.exe to EditPlus to EMACS to the text editor on my C64 allowed me to load it up and just start typing. vi(m) on the other hand requires me to tell it, "Hey, I'm going to type now."
When people decide on what tools they are going to use it is based on two main principles: easy-of-use and getting the job done. So when people start looking for a text editor, they will think about those key factors. If it's not intuitive for how to start writing a document, edit a document, and save a document then you've lost the easy-of-use battle and people will move on. No matter how powerful the application is, or how much better it will be for future use, it's too late. I would rather just use MSPaint or IrfanView for image editing than try to learn all the commands within Photoshop. Will that limit me in the future? Of course! But every time I try to perform even the simplest of tasks in Photoshop, I end up frustrated and give up.
An "engineer" would look for specialized tools, like an IDE for software development. There, it's not so much about how it works, but getting work done. Does it have CVS or Subversion controls built-in? Auto-completion? Function/Class recognition? With those tools, the software engineer can write the intuitive software for everyone else.
There are a few times where I've spent a month or so just simulating coding. It usually stems from getting projects like "Your next project will be making a module that will interface with this e-commerce website another team building." End Of Line.
So I spend my days writing notes about probable requirements, designing theoretical databases, creating unknown API standards, and dreaming of writing makeshift documentation.
Now, my marble[1] is in place, and when I get finalized software requirement docs, I can just remove everything that isn't my "elephant". That is until the final docs say that I'm really writing something to convert PriceLine.com into an RSS feed.
I end up with a lot of really clean code that the world will never see.
[1] Old saying, "How do you sculpt an elephant? You take a big block of marble and remove everything that isn't an elephant."
Fundamentals are more important than learning a specific program. So show them how both applications work so that they are equipped to handle ANY software they encounter in the "real world".
With the commercial software, you have a finite number of licenses (assuming you are also going to teach about not pirating software). Install the commercial software you have on how many machines you can. Install the OSS on all the systems, including those that already have the matching commercial software.
When you start teaching, give examples using both applications. This will teach the students not to assume that the goal they want to accomplish is always named the same and in the same menu. "So Photoshop calls it this, but if you look at GIMP, it's called this. They both work the same and here is how it works."
And as long as there is not assigned seating, you'll find certain students will gravitate to the machines that have the commercial apps, while some will just go where ever. Those that don't care will be the ones that will end up more capable as they can just sit down at any app (even custom designed ones) and be up and running quicker because they know the goal they are trying to accomplish and not just the buttons they need to push.
Reminds me of the George Carlin line...
"I've never been with a 10, but once I was with five 2's"
No... Michael Crichton got it right. Which isn't that surprising considering his scientific background.
Yes, this is a Wikipedia entry, but it still gives out reasonably good idea of his education.
Please stop giving Spielberg credit for another mans educated guess.
And why won't you? They are still a perfectly good company. Why stop buying from them JUST because they are suing companies over a patent?
I mean.. I get it. "Information wants to be free! Or at least able to see other people." But if it's a real patent and SanDisk wants compensation for time and money invested developing the patent... Why do you people insist on boycotting them?
Does a business become evil the moment it tries to protect an investment?
You really should have googled to find out that it's a common practice.
...But thanks to their roll-over minutes you can keep using that time for up to a year.
Yes.. and more so.
Most of the problems we're talking about would go away if we just used descriptive content phrases instead of a one-size-fits-one rating system. What I consider "AO" and what others consider "AO" can be very different.
Per an article on WebMD
"The thumb is not a very dexterous part of the hand," Hedge tells WebMD. "It is really designed as a stabilizer for pinch gripping with a finger. That is why you only have two of them, not eight. It is the fingers that have dexterity, not the thumb." The full-size keyboard was designed with this in mind. One uses one's dexterous fingers for lightning strikes on the letter keys. One reserves one's relatively clumsy thumbs for the humble task of striking the spacebar.It's only in more recent times that the thumb has been asked to become more dexterous--With phone-texting, more and smaller buttons on game controllers, and so forth. Since thumbs were not made for precision, people blamed the trackball for bad ergonomics and faulty controls. Mice allowed for "pixel perfect" placement and gained dominance.
Props given for an obscure reference, however reversal of stance for lack of credit for group that wrote the song.
Offering of better reference in form of a wiki article and song lyrics.
Self-righteous closing
--Witty, yet non-relevant tagline
I don't consider "open" or "source" to be new words. They've been around for quite some time. They are well defined. Instead, what you are doing is perverting existing words to a new/different. Just like "gay" used to mean happy and now it's become a slur, trying to change "open source" to also include an 'approved' license is very pretentious. Should we also change the definition of a computer from "an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations" to "an electronic device running a Microsoft OS designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations"?
History is full of people that took authority... Very rarely did it really help.
Soooo.... That would be 100%?
Well to pick nits..
A television "station" is also just a tool for viewing media. Programming, commercials, and Ron Popeil are the media. Actually, the relations would go like this
Television = Computer = Device for viewing media
Station = OS = Software for controlling the media to be shown
TV Programming = Computer Programs = The media itself
Of course, given that reasoning, we could think of our televisions as booting 500 OS's; Most of which is just MS drivel with the occasional good *NIX.
Because it's not worth the other penny.
Yes.. there is a big difference between a television station and an "OS". But isn't Microsoft trying to worm it's way into the entertainment industry? There is a Microsoft Windows Media Center edition based on XP. Would a Vista-based version of Media Center (meant to be played/viewed/used on a home television) infringe on the other guys patent?
So if Microsoft sticks with just making an OS, or what they call an OS, then it's all good. But if they make an OS that integrates into your home entertainment center (TV) then it's could be competing and thus making the lawsuit slightly less frivolous.
Isn't this Google tool a commercial purpose? They're making money off of it (via the ads). And the page views are being enhanced because of your image being there--The whole "Check out this address because you can totally see a cat in the window."
Therefore, anyone who is photographed can sue because their image is being used for a commercial purpose without their written consent. While a few hundred lawsuit payouts won't damage Google's bottom line, it might become enough of an annoyance to make them stop.
Yes, well no. I mean, when I first looked there was no Michael Bay, but when I watched the video again I saw Michael in the background along with some ewoks and a some lanky guy with a snout and long ears.
That's really going to cut down the Slashdot replies
What if it's not a conversation you're involved in until later?
Too many times at work I'll be forwarded a week long conversation from my boss that says (at the top) "Please fix the issue mentioned below." Now I have to scroll through 7-8 pages of messages from 4 different people; three of which top post and only one bottom posts.
It usually takes longer to read the email to find out what the bug is and how they want fixed then it takes to fix the bug itself.
Had everyone bottom posted I would be able to read it as a normal document and get my work done. Even if they all top posted it would require large amounts of scrolling up to get to the top of each message then scrolling down to read the whole message. Two steps forward, one step back.
Dear Most People,
Most common items don't explode. They spark, they pop, they burn, they shatter; but big booms with infernos and visible concussion waves are few and far between.
Sincerely,
Reality
Meetings are going to happen. It's really tough to avoid them so you might as well have a plan for when they occur.
When I am in charge of making a meeting happen I try to use this little trick: Everyone has X amount of time before the meeting, usually in days. At that meeting be ready with 3 solutions to the problem, and rebuttal arguments for why #1 and (hopefully) #2 were mentally scrapped by the time you figured out option #3.
Now the meeting rolls around and I have say 5 people all ready to go with up to 15 different answers, but before we've even started most of those have been rejected.
We'll still cover all the solutions so we can weed out duplicates, shoot down people's third choice that someone else already thought of and realized a shop stopper ("...And that's why this idea will work." "Well, it would work, but where are we going to get tights in our size at this time of night?"), and correct any assumptions for people's self-realized blockers. ("At first I thought we could do this, but we need Marketing's help and they're buried." "Actually, Marketing just finished our last major project so we have a few days breathing room to help out.")
This keeps the "group think" out of the process until later in the process when the playing field has already narrowed down to 2-3 solid ideas.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but I love paying "Devil's Advocate". Who's up for a game?
The central issue revolves around can someone request money after the transaction has taken place. Generally speaking, once a transaction has occurred it is done and over with. A restaurant cannot deduct more from your credit card just because you left a mess at the table once you sign the bill. The bookstore cannot add additional fees because on your way out you took stacks and stacks of their free papers. So we work on the premise that what's done is done.
Now let's say you go to the grocery store because they are having a sale on Top Ramen. If you use a 'club card' you can get 30 for a dollar instead of the normal 20 for a dollar. So you load up on Ramen, peanut butter, Red Bull, and an orange to ward off scurvy. You enter your phone number for your club card... Well, you enter *a* phone number for *someone's* club card and take your purchase home. You head to the basement and find that even though the card worked and everything else was discounted, the Ramen was still full price. Damn them! That's cutting into your WoW fund. But do you accept that what's done is done? No, you get someone to drive you back to the store and demand the store give you back your money (cash or crediting your credit card). So in this case, the store was able to go back and change a completed transaction. They advertised a deal and did not keep up their end of the agreement. So now we've established a precedent for modifying a transaction after the fact due to one party not fulfilling their part of the exchange.
Many online store have been caught advertising an incorrect price (decimal moved in the wrong direction, wrong price entered, no price entered, etc) and get hammered from people trying to take advantage of that. Normally the store catches it before anything gets sent out, refunds the money and puts up a big "Opps and sorry" page. They take a PR dive for a while then life goes on. But in these cases, nothing has been sent so perhaps the FTC does not consider the transaction complete and StoreX is within their rights to refuse to make a sale even though money has been exchanged. It's just like you can't shove a money order under the door of Best Buy and expect them to give you a Wii when they find your money. Just because you gave them money does not mean a sale is happening.
However Amazon went so far as to actually send out a number of these DVD sets; that brings more laws into play. According to the FTC, if someone sends you something in the mail that you did not request, "You can't be forced to pay for the item or return it." So from a purely high level look at this, the consumers that did not pay for the product (or at least some got away without any payment) so therefore the DVDs are gifts and Amazon.com cannot later charge the consumer. Point of note; companies CAN sent you something that requires your payment to use such as the brazillion AOL CDs--The disks are free but in order to make anything other than coaster or a chair you need to give them a credit card.
So let's recap...
In this case, Amazon said "Buy one, get one free." That's the deal. That's the terms of the agreement. Someone found out that the ordering system was flawed and told people how to exploit that flaw. Online transactions were made, at zero to little money, and Amazon.com mailed out the DVDs fulfilling their end of the agreement. But did the consumers fulfill theirs? Did they really "buy one" in order to get a second item free? Can Amazon sue to get their money because most of the consumers made the transaction in bad faith? Breach of contract?
This should have nothing to do with big, bad corporation vs poor, little guy. These laws apply to Ma & Pa's Used Movies too. What if they screwed up orders due to Pa's Alzheimers? Would people feel so justified, proud