No, Apple wasn't and isn't perfect, but c'mon -- the point is, they've always placed a priority on the elegance and usability of the OS, and users have responded to both that tone and the resulting machines.
You're making a plausible argument, but your example isn't particularly accurate or true. "Safe mode" isn't all that analogous to booting without extensions, for one thing, and I'm not smelling "real" details elsewhere in your CD story. Sounds pretty unlikely to someone who supported these things for a while...
But leave the details alone: Nobody said the Mac OS was the infallible holy grail of computing. What the poster said was that the OS, and Apple, have consistently provided users with more simplicity and reliability than the competition. Um, forgive me for mentioning it, but that's what the users do say, you know? Kind of hard to miss it, actually. Your rebuttal is to post a specific example in which you gloss details about the Mac OS circa 1993 or so? Obviously extensions and Conflict Catcher are from a previous generation of the OS... which prominent competition of the same era would you like to make this comparison with?
And you may be right, partly it's that Apple gives a heck of a lot of thought to how their machines are set up on delivery and so on... but isn't that part of the package? I missed what your hypothetical example of the unformatted hard drive was supposed to tell me; wouldn't I just use the "Restore System" disks so thoughtfully provided by Apple to get to that same starting point quickly? And so on.
"Cognitive Dissonance" has to do with holding a belief that doesn't agree with one's own actions (or with evidence that seems to contradict the beliefs).
The idea is that a sort of tension or "pressure" builds up -- the cognitive dissonance -- until at some point you have a moment of head-slapping realization and revise your beliefs to match up with what you're seeing or doing.
I can see where it bears on brand loyalty in the face of adversity, but the term isn't an attempt to explain how the loyalty got there to start with.
The included remote will also prove useful here, and help it compete with stand alone DVD players.
This'll work on your computer and your TV, but it doesn't really join them up in any sense. You'd think they'd try to make it more of a bridge between one box and the other, the TV and the computer, rather than just a hybrid device at a price. Seems like the idea is using it separately as a stand-alone DVD player, with that remote and all. (They let you "configure the drive" with the remote hooked to a dumb monitor. Not sure what you'd be configuring.)
I dunno... Do you want to go upstairs and pull plugs behind the computer to watch a movie on the TV with this in the living room? I don't know anyone who plays DVDs on their PlayStation, and that's already hooked up. (Does anyone have their TV right next to the computer shrine? Outside of dorm rooms and those who already own video editing setups?)
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone;
You're right, this is kind of an interesting choice -- it's almost like it's a "safe" conspiracy to do glorious battle against because the moon landings don't carry a lot of ideological baggage. Political assassinations, or evolution or whatever, those are just too touchy, even though the level of self-deception and wishful thinking might be just as great. It's almost like a controlled study: Why do people insist on believing weird stuff? That's why I keep reading stories about this topic, anyway.
the way astronomers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing.
I dunno. Talk to an evolutionary biologist sometime. They're caught every which way; if they don't defend themselves against the ridiculous stuff they hear all the time, people with some pretty bizarre ideas about scientific knowledge are going to get their distorted curricula into high school classrooms. Is it crazy or obsessive to defend yourself against that?
Maybe this moon landing one shows us how scientists are caught between two impulses elsewhere, too. Get the tone wrong, start to argue for an audience rather than to convince the person you're debating, and you can spend your career fighting the tar baby of irrationality...
You don't have to be disabled in some way to think this'd be handy, do you? That's the story for this one person, okay. But if you hadn't heard of a PDA ever before, wouldn't this be one of the most likely functions you'd think of for them? It's a totally natural application for a handheld gadget like that, and one that really would have a natural market among all the middle manager types who made Palms so popular to start with. Right?
(Are there PDAs that can even read text in the other direction, though -- text to speech?)
"Nerds" I understood, yeah, okay. "News" I don't see in this post. There's been a Nemesis trailer on Apple's site for a long while now.
There's a poor ST movie every year and a half. When someone develops a way to set networked time agents based on the predictable arrival of yet another weak Star Trek movie, or if the next y2k scare is that the internet backbone may go down whenever there's every another good ST movie, that will be "news."
This is a long trailer with lots of spoilers - you've been warned.
Two questions:
How does the preview of a movie rate a/. story? Hey, I'm gonna post the Apple quicktime area as a "story."
Since when is it possible to spoil a Star Trek plot? Oooh, tell me -- is it the time travel one, the evil-side-of-a-regular-character one, the evil-genius one, or the evil-empire one? Some combo platter of those?
I'm sorry, you are confident and think you know what you are talking about.
You, unfortunately, are doing exactly what you accuse the poster of. Our poster is referring, offhandedly, to the extensive posting on the topic of water level changes above -- on the very same Slashdot story. S/he didn't commit to one side in that argument or the other, if you'd kindly read the actual words rather than what you assumed they said. The rest of this post, the guts, is about temperate change, ocean currents, and potential effects on climate in places like Europe... or did you get that far?
You might want to read the message and respond thoughtfully to it -- rather than choosing to use an aside as a straw man to try to score debate points against. This is a pretty classic Usenet tactic, and all it does is expose your prejudices.
Ah yes, a detailed critique of Quicktime 4.0's "new" interface...
If the site was up-to-date, they'd be going after iCal 1.0, which came with Jaguar just lately. Tons of critiques on Macintouch of the immaturity of that interface. Apple's not perfect, but they take interface seriously, and the users' standards reflect that.
Re:IE and Office are already squabbling
on
Microsoft takes on PDF
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As Office evolves it will be more and more integrated into IE
I'm a Web developer, and the vacillating ways IE has handled links to Office documents have caused our department no end of headaches over the last three versions of IE we've used on our corporate WAN. We're wedded to framesets for some purposes, and IE and Office can't seem to work together.
They open Office docs inside framesets, with the app in the background, like Acrobat -- and printing is screwed up and users can't save the documents. They open a separate IE window with each Office document, including menu options that are sort of half-enabled, not allowing users to use obvious features. They give up on the IE-for-Office-docs idea altogether, opening separate Office app windows for each document, and it works... but it kind of makes one wonder whether they could have figured out that frameset thing to start with, rather than slowly lurching toward the workaround we'd already resorted to for their first hacked implementation.
Print to file from Excel 2000 sometime, and see if you get a Windows API save dialog. See if it looks like the same thing in Word, for example. Um, no.
More integrated over time? Seems to me like the MS departments for Word and Excel are warring factions, leave alone IE.
This is probably mostly for migrating your small office over? It sure can't be aimed at individuals in the slashdot audience; who here's intimidated by moving desktop images, you know? (Who even cares?) But I could see it if you were the IT guy, trying to make the move for your office.
This'd go in your grab-bag of tools with other utilities. The licensing packs hint at who they're really intending to sell to, too; it starts at a 5-user pack.
All these companies seem to think that the Web is like a magazine...
Yep -- just one more case where the PR flacks and execs don't understand that the Web is a point to point medium, not a broadcast or traditional publishing one.
(In related news, PR directors across the corporate world conceive of their Web sites as elaborate versions of print pamphlets, and are pushing the development of irritating Flash "splash pages" as a result.)
(1)...These constitutional provisions guarantee the rights of Americans to communicate and associate with one another without restriction, including unfettered communication and association via the Internet.
They're talking about Americans and the U.S. Consitution, not Chinese and North Koreans, in the bill's very first point. A sign that the authors know what they're about, here?
(8) Since the 1940s, the United States has deployed anti-jamming technologies to make Voice of America and other United States Government sponsored broadcasting available to people in nations with governments that seek to block news and information.
The precedent: Because we've had this sort of arms race, jamming and anti-jamming technologies, over the Voice of America, we should also in principle try to disable jamming technologies on the Web? But apparently only when we're trying to reach the communists with our messages of freedom and light?
The Voice of America is a broadcast message. Big difference between broadcast and point-to-point media: you can control the VoA's programming, but the reason the internet is "powerful engine for democratization and the free exchange of ideas" -- that's the bill talking again -- is because it isn't a controlled state broadcast, it's a bunch of individuals making choices. That's not some detail about the mechanics of the Web, it's what the Web is. If congress simultaneously puts censorware in schools and passes legislation to defeat it abroad, they just don't get how that cuts both ways.
Nordea has acknowledged that parts of the report were mistakenly put on its Web site.
Two options: either (a)Nordea is using "content management" software that pushed this earnings report to production, based on its workflow tools, without any of the contextual links, or (b)the Web team decided to rely on a blind url in the place of real security because some clueless executive was in a big rush.
Ahlerup wouldn't comment on whether the company had made market-sensitive information available before it was released.
And we can't tell which.
I get requests all the time for demos to be put in "blind" directories on an existing server instance. Usually it's a rush presentation or something, a sales pitch that needs its own demo site in a hurry. There's no way in the world I'd do it with sensitive data on the splinter site, though. Not a chance. It'd be extremely negligent.
On the other hand, if the problem was with their "content management" environment, then someone's screwed up designing the publishing "workflows." The earnings report should have been contingent on the rest of the release, not a separate distribution. Some of that software is pretty bad about publishing date windows and contingent relationships, though, so I can see it happening.
"We want the authorities to test what can be considered to be private or public," Ahlerup said.
Floating a legal trial balloon is fine, okay. But it's time to revamp your web support team, not sue a news agency.
Not even close to a comparable situation.
...I'm sorry, but get another job.
The difference you're talking about has to do with the company behind the situation, not the person making the call or installing the cable. They're a working stiff, they got a canned list of stuff from the mothership. Similar deal, from their POV, which you don't seem to care much about.
There are lots of better ways to discourage telemarketing companies than being bitter toward the callers. What's your solution to road rage -- cussing at the other drivers to use their signals? That's about as effective as being rude to 21-year-old working mothers with crap jobs.
Telling them to "get another job" is really heartfelt advice, clearly. They know that, they're trying to get by. Who is it you think works those jobs, Enron CEOs trying to pay their debts to society?
Reads like an essay from an undergrad "futurism" class, yeah?
The examples aren't all that well-chosen, for one thing. The eBook isn't at a price point where people are going to adopt it -- and are there stable standards for files and so on yet? -- but it's not a great example of new technology that didn't "respect" the one it was trying to replace (or be an adjunct to, more like). The displays on those things got a ton of attention, because the designers knew they needed to be as easy on the eye as paper and ink. There are lots of tradeoffs between the two -- which is more "portable" if the one that can run out of batteries can also carry a large number of books in one small package? -- and the eBook just hasn't hit that sweet spot yet. But the companies behind its development, those were all big publishing companies, weren't they? They know books, they "respect" them. It's an okay point, but a shaky example.
Anyway, the question of why and when things will thing isn't nearly as interesting as the question of why and when people don't think...;)
Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it,
People use "politically correct" to mean just about anything they want to now, so can we come up with some variations that actually mean something again?
Every time I've seen "Enterprise" it's done a stupid "Perhaps one day we'll have a... a 'directive' to use in interacting with new civilizations..." thing that makes me just cringe, it's so predictable. It makes the history of the Federation look pat and boring. It's not that great a show, okay.
But "politically correct"? What does that mean? Does that mean the vulcan woman isn't wearing her form-fitting uniform any more? I have no idea. Basically the only meaning it has any more has to do with the person who says it, not the noun it's modifying...
No need to dump all the anti-corporate conspiracy theory bullshit on the poor joe who gets payed 10 bucks an hour to hookup peoples homes.
I agree. We're always bitching at the poor telemarketing sales reps, when they're not the ones who set their hours, you know? It's not the installer's fault he's got this list from the main office.
If you use a little common sense and explain yourself rather than going ballistic, the installer's going to maybe be won over and give other people options, too, rather than "just doing his job." Alienate him, and he'll start thinking of his customers as a bunch of hassles to be gotten through. That's no good for anyone.
(Seems like cable installers really run a range of attitudes, though. Companies hire out during big install promotions, so you could be dealing with anyone.)
Hey, extra points for turning on the five-year-old products, big hitter.
For what it's worth, I got one for a song about a month after they came out, as a promotional thing. Didn't take it seriously... but you know, it ended up on the kitchen counter and turned into virtually the only box that ever got turned on. The kids were on it constantly, we eventually installed the cable modem on it, and the shrine unto my other box has sort of been dismantled by now.
Take a look at that school setup again, and ask yourself what yahoo decided on all the trappings. The volunteer computer guy who works as a corporate LAN guy, is what the answer was at my kids' school. Lately the same yutz has decided to move all the old iMacs into the classrooms, because he doesn't know how to network them or something.
They actually work quite well in schools, as other all-in-one designs do. The no-floppies thing was supposed to be trouble. Wasn't.
That's just idiotic. In fact it's the opposite -- because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.
My stars! The scales have fallen from my eyes! The problem with popular music in America is that there's just too much diversity, too much out there, for me to find anything decent to listen to!
Uh, no...
From my point of view, the problem before was that no record stores would carry anything interesting. All they had was stacks of the latest Michael Jackson hit or whatever. Gee, I notice since the internet came around I hear a lot more. Just the default radio streams in iTunes have far more range than my horrible Minneapolis radio scene.
From the point of view of the "artist" what you're saying makes some sense. Producers in whatever form would be the thing that helps them rise above the "noise," okay, though I don't see that that's the "opposite" of what Janis Ian said. From the POV of the consumer, though, the record companies at this point are spending a lot of money to keep me from hearing their music.
Really? My 17" iMac must have one too, then... I've never noticed it, not even once, not in a month or so.
(Hooking up my sister's old firewire external drive the other day, it was amazing to realize how obnoxious a fan really is. I'm spoiled by the silent computer now.)
Apple has always had a very positive history of supporting homeschoolers
A history for which you're rewarding them with your enduring good faith in return, seemingly.
Out of curiosity, how does someone who home schools work things like tax exemption? Do you have to get it all back in April every year, or what? Do you have any ID that certifies your status as a home schooler? I'm not trying to explain this Aplpe thing away, just asking.
I was in an Apple store on saturday; someone was trying to get an educator's discount on something with no real documentation, and I wondered how that worked. Sure seemed like the employee was trying to do right by the person.
Although network technology is much newer, it seems it has managed to progress faster than battery technology sofar.
New industries, once they take off, nearly always progress much more rapidly than established ones. People (Bill Gates for one person) say stuff like this comparing airlines and computers: "If airlines had improved as fast as computers in the last X years, we'd be traveling from New York to California for a dime in three minutes." Not a fair comparison.
Similar progress lines showup with you too. Learn to play tennis or something. At first you suck, but if you're trying at all you can get basic strokes and so on down quickly -- you'll get better pretty fast for a while. Then you hit a sort of lull, where you level off and it's frustrating how little progress you seem to make. Every now and again you'll get a little burst of progress for one reason or another -- often sparked by an external source like a new racket or something -- but there's no way the rate of change will go back to that early one. Ask a pro tennis player how much work it takes to dramatically improve her game at that level. There's a point of diminishing returns thing going on.
> But they do have better focus on
> ease-of-use than almost any software
> company out there.
Ease of use? No. AOL's interface gets credit for being newby-friendly, but it's not because the software's easy to use, it's because it's incredibly restrictive. Everything's hardwired into the thick (bloated, rigid) client; it's impossible to change anything much. AOL is for people who like it when there's only one way to do anything. The elderly, for one group, can handle that. They find it comforting.
The contrast with something like the iApps that come with OS X couldn't be more dramatic. AOL's cluttered but gives you no options; iTunes looks simple but is robust and gives you many ways to accomplish what you want, depending on your working style. No comparison.
Brzzzt! -- does not compute. From the Times article:
Jackson acknowledges that "many judges -- perhaps most -- believe the canon imposes a virtual code of omerta [silence] forbidding any public commentary while a case remains unfinished in any respect, quite possibly forever. . . . The ostensible reason is that anything said informally, but publicly, about a case must perforce detract from the court's 'appearance of impartiality.' "
"So interpreted, the canon represents a variant of that dubious maxim of leadership: Never apologize; never explain," Jackson said. "It also suggests that the judiciary is more concerned with appearances than with actuality."
Wow! Justice Jackson strikes a grand blow against the supposedly tactful silence that's intended to shield justices from the world!... But later:
"As a rule, judges should not speak ill of other judges personally, whether on or off the bench," Jackson concluded his essay. "Personal attacks on judges by other judges also undermine respect for and confidence in the judiciary."
Er, Justice Jackson strikes a blow in favor of politic silence, because criticism undermines the respect people have toward the judiciary?
I'm a reasonable person. Jackson's constant interviews during the MS process sure struck me as biased. He spoke much too often, and much too candidly, to the media for any semblance of impartiality to be left. Maybe MS's conduct deserved contempt from the presiding judge, okay, but he couldn't direct that reaction appropriately. Now he feels personally attacked by the appeals court. In self-justification he's started sliding over obvious distinctions: that "quite possibly forever" in the first quote is a fudge meant to blur the stark rule not to talk about pending cases in particular.
He should've written this article, if he wanted to write it, before the case. If he wanted to float this trial balloon about judicial conduct, was a case of this importance the place to do it? No way.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Apple wasn't and isn't perfect, but c'mon -- the point is, they've always placed a priority on the elegance and usability of the OS, and users have responded to both that tone and the resulting machines.
You're making a plausible argument, but your example isn't particularly accurate or true. "Safe mode" isn't all that analogous to booting without extensions, for one thing, and I'm not smelling "real" details elsewhere in your CD story. Sounds pretty unlikely to someone who supported these things for a while...
But leave the details alone: Nobody said the Mac OS was the infallible holy grail of computing. What the poster said was that the OS, and Apple, have consistently provided users with more simplicity and reliability than the competition. Um, forgive me for mentioning it, but that's what the users do say, you know? Kind of hard to miss it, actually. Your rebuttal is to post a specific example in which you gloss details about the Mac OS circa 1993 or so? Obviously extensions and Conflict Catcher are from a previous generation of the OS... which prominent competition of the same era would you like to make this comparison with?
And you may be right, partly it's that Apple gives a heck of a lot of thought to how their machines are set up on delivery and so on... but isn't that part of the package? I missed what your hypothetical example of the unformatted hard drive was supposed to tell me; wouldn't I just use the "Restore System" disks so thoughtfully provided by Apple to get to that same starting point quickly? And so on.
The idea is that a sort of tension or "pressure" builds up -- the cognitive dissonance -- until at some point you have a moment of head-slapping realization and revise your beliefs to match up with what you're seeing or doing.
I can see where it bears on brand loyalty in the face of adversity, but the term isn't an attempt to explain how the loyalty got there to start with.
The included remote will also prove useful here, and help it compete with stand alone DVD players.
This'll work on your computer and your TV, but it doesn't really join them up in any sense. You'd think they'd try to make it more of a bridge between one box and the other, the TV and the computer, rather than just a hybrid device at a price. Seems like the idea is using it separately as a stand-alone DVD player, with that remote and all. (They let you "configure the drive" with the remote hooked to a dumb monitor. Not sure what you'd be configuring.)
I dunno... Do you want to go upstairs and pull plugs behind the computer to watch a movie on the TV with this in the living room? I don't know anyone who plays DVDs on their PlayStation, and that's already hooked up. (Does anyone have their TV right next to the computer shrine? Outside of dorm rooms and those who already own video editing setups?)
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone;
You're right, this is kind of an interesting choice -- it's almost like it's a "safe" conspiracy to do glorious battle against because the moon landings don't carry a lot of ideological baggage. Political assassinations, or evolution or whatever, those are just too touchy, even though the level of self-deception and wishful thinking might be just as great. It's almost like a controlled study: Why do people insist on believing weird stuff? That's why I keep reading stories about this topic, anyway.
the way astronomers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing.
I dunno. Talk to an evolutionary biologist sometime. They're caught every which way; if they don't defend themselves against the ridiculous stuff they hear all the time, people with some pretty bizarre ideas about scientific knowledge are going to get their distorted curricula into high school classrooms. Is it crazy or obsessive to defend yourself against that?
Maybe this moon landing one shows us how scientists are caught between two impulses elsewhere, too. Get the tone wrong, start to argue for an audience rather than to convince the person you're debating, and you can spend your career fighting the tar baby of irrationality...
You don't have to be disabled in some way to think this'd be handy, do you? That's the story for this one person, okay. But if you hadn't heard of a PDA ever before, wouldn't this be one of the most likely functions you'd think of for them? It's a totally natural application for a handheld gadget like that, and one that really would have a natural market among all the middle manager types who made Palms so popular to start with. Right?
(Are there PDAs that can even read text in the other direction, though -- text to speech?)
"Nerds" I understood, yeah, okay. "News" I don't see in this post. There's been a Nemesis trailer on Apple's site for a long while now.
There's a poor ST movie every year and a half. When someone develops a way to set networked time agents based on the predictable arrival of yet another weak Star Trek movie, or if the next y2k scare is that the internet backbone may go down whenever there's every another good ST movie, that will be "news."
Two questions:
How does the preview of a movie rate a /. story? Hey, I'm gonna post the Apple quicktime area as a "story."
Since when is it possible to spoil a Star Trek plot? Oooh, tell me -- is it the time travel one, the evil-side-of-a-regular-character one, the evil-genius one, or the evil-empire one? Some combo platter of those?
You, unfortunately, are doing exactly what you accuse the poster of. Our poster is referring, offhandedly, to the extensive posting on the topic of water level changes above -- on the very same Slashdot story. S/he didn't commit to one side in that argument or the other, if you'd kindly read the actual words rather than what you assumed they said. The rest of this post, the guts, is about temperate change, ocean currents, and potential effects on climate in places like Europe... or did you get that far?
You might want to read the message and respond thoughtfully to it -- rather than choosing to use an aside as a straw man to try to score debate points against. This is a pretty classic Usenet tactic, and all it does is expose your prejudices.
If the site was up-to-date, they'd be going after iCal 1.0, which came with Jaguar just lately. Tons of critiques on Macintouch of the immaturity of that interface. Apple's not perfect, but they take interface seriously, and the users' standards reflect that.
I'm a Web developer, and the vacillating ways IE has handled links to Office documents have caused our department no end of headaches over the last three versions of IE we've used on our corporate WAN. We're wedded to framesets for some purposes, and IE and Office can't seem to work together.
They open Office docs inside framesets, with the app in the background, like Acrobat -- and printing is screwed up and users can't save the documents. They open a separate IE window with each Office document, including menu options that are sort of half-enabled, not allowing users to use obvious features. They give up on the IE-for-Office-docs idea altogether, opening separate Office app windows for each document, and it works... but it kind of makes one wonder whether they could have figured out that frameset thing to start with, rather than slowly lurching toward the workaround we'd already resorted to for their first hacked implementation.
Print to file from Excel 2000 sometime, and see if you get a Windows API save dialog. See if it looks like the same thing in Word, for example. Um, no.
More integrated over time? Seems to me like the MS departments for Word and Excel are warring factions, leave alone IE.
This is probably mostly for migrating your small office over? It sure can't be aimed at individuals in the slashdot audience; who here's intimidated by moving desktop images, you know? (Who even cares?) But I could see it if you were the IT guy, trying to make the move for your office.
This'd go in your grab-bag of tools with other utilities. The licensing packs hint at who they're really intending to sell to, too; it starts at a 5-user pack.
Yep -- just one more case where the PR flacks and execs don't understand that the Web is a point to point medium, not a broadcast or traditional publishing one.
(In related news, PR directors across the corporate world conceive of their Web sites as elaborate versions of print pamphlets, and are pushing the development of irritating Flash "splash pages" as a result.)
(1) ...These constitutional provisions guarantee the rights of Americans to communicate and associate with one another without restriction, including unfettered communication and association via the Internet.
They're talking about Americans and the U.S. Consitution, not Chinese and North Koreans, in the bill's very first point. A sign that the authors know what they're about, here?
(8) Since the 1940s, the United States has deployed anti-jamming technologies to make Voice of America and other United States Government sponsored broadcasting available to people in nations with governments that seek to block news and information.
The precedent: Because we've had this sort of arms race, jamming and anti-jamming technologies, over the Voice of America, we should also in principle try to disable jamming technologies on the Web? But apparently only when we're trying to reach the communists with our messages of freedom and light?
The Voice of America is a broadcast message. Big difference between broadcast and point-to-point media: you can control the VoA's programming, but the reason the internet is "powerful engine for democratization and the free exchange of ideas" -- that's the bill talking again -- is because it isn't a controlled state broadcast, it's a bunch of individuals making choices. That's not some detail about the mechanics of the Web, it's what the Web is. If congress simultaneously puts censorware in schools and passes legislation to defeat it abroad, they just don't get how that cuts both ways.
Nordea has acknowledged that parts of the report were mistakenly put on its Web site.
Two options: either (a)Nordea is using "content management" software that pushed this earnings report to production, based on its workflow tools, without any of the contextual links, or (b)the Web team decided to rely on a blind url in the place of real security because some clueless executive was in a big rush.
Ahlerup wouldn't comment on whether the company had made market-sensitive information available before it was released.
And we can't tell which.
I get requests all the time for demos to be put in "blind" directories on an existing server instance. Usually it's a rush presentation or something, a sales pitch that needs its own demo site in a hurry. There's no way in the world I'd do it with sensitive data on the splinter site, though. Not a chance. It'd be extremely negligent.
On the other hand, if the problem was with their "content management" environment, then someone's screwed up designing the publishing "workflows." The earnings report should have been contingent on the rest of the release, not a separate distribution. Some of that software is pretty bad about publishing date windows and contingent relationships, though, so I can see it happening.
"We want the authorities to test what can be considered to be private or public," Ahlerup said.
Floating a legal trial balloon is fine, okay. But it's time to revamp your web support team, not sue a news agency.
...I'm sorry, but get another job.
The difference you're talking about has to do with the company behind the situation, not the person making the call or installing the cable. They're a working stiff, they got a canned list of stuff from the mothership. Similar deal, from their POV, which you don't seem to care much about.
There are lots of better ways to discourage telemarketing companies than being bitter toward the callers. What's your solution to road rage -- cussing at the other drivers to use their signals? That's about as effective as being rude to 21-year-old working mothers with crap jobs.
Telling them to "get another job" is really heartfelt advice, clearly. They know that, they're trying to get by. Who is it you think works those jobs, Enron CEOs trying to pay their debts to society?
The examples aren't all that well-chosen, for one thing. The eBook isn't at a price point where people are going to adopt it -- and are there stable standards for files and so on yet? -- but it's not a great example of new technology that didn't "respect" the one it was trying to replace (or be an adjunct to, more like). The displays on those things got a ton of attention, because the designers knew they needed to be as easy on the eye as paper and ink. There are lots of tradeoffs between the two -- which is more "portable" if the one that can run out of batteries can also carry a large number of books in one small package? -- and the eBook just hasn't hit that sweet spot yet. But the companies behind its development, those were all big publishing companies, weren't they? They know books, they "respect" them. It's an okay point, but a shaky example. Anyway, the question of why and when things will thing isn't nearly as interesting as the question of why and when people don't think... ;)
People use "politically correct" to mean just about anything they want to now, so can we come up with some variations that actually mean something again?
Every time I've seen "Enterprise" it's done a stupid "Perhaps one day we'll have a... a 'directive' to use in interacting with new civilizations..." thing that makes me just cringe, it's so predictable. It makes the history of the Federation look pat and boring. It's not that great a show, okay.
But "politically correct"? What does that mean? Does that mean the vulcan woman isn't wearing her form-fitting uniform any more? I have no idea. Basically the only meaning it has any more has to do with the person who says it, not the noun it's modifying...
I agree. We're always bitching at the poor telemarketing sales reps, when they're not the ones who set their hours, you know? It's not the installer's fault he's got this list from the main office.
If you use a little common sense and explain yourself rather than going ballistic, the installer's going to maybe be won over and give other people options, too, rather than "just doing his job." Alienate him, and he'll start thinking of his customers as a bunch of hassles to be gotten through. That's no good for anyone.
(Seems like cable installers really run a range of attitudes, though. Companies hire out during big install promotions, so you could be dealing with anyone.)
Hey, extra points for turning on the five-year-old products, big hitter.
For what it's worth, I got one for a song about a month after they came out, as a promotional thing. Didn't take it seriously... but you know, it ended up on the kitchen counter and turned into virtually the only box that ever got turned on. The kids were on it constantly, we eventually installed the cable modem on it, and the shrine unto my other box has sort of been dismantled by now.
Take a look at that school setup again, and ask yourself what yahoo decided on all the trappings. The volunteer computer guy who works as a corporate LAN guy, is what the answer was at my kids' school. Lately the same yutz has decided to move all the old iMacs into the classrooms, because he doesn't know how to network them or something.
They actually work quite well in schools, as other all-in-one designs do. The no-floppies thing was supposed to be trouble. Wasn't.
My stars! The scales have fallen from my eyes! The problem with popular music in America is that there's just too much diversity, too much out there, for me to find anything decent to listen to!
Uh, no...
From my point of view, the problem before was that no record stores would carry anything interesting. All they had was stacks of the latest Michael Jackson hit or whatever. Gee, I notice since the internet came around I hear a lot more. Just the default radio streams in iTunes have far more range than my horrible Minneapolis radio scene.
From the point of view of the "artist" what you're saying makes some sense. Producers in whatever form would be the thing that helps them rise above the "noise," okay, though I don't see that that's the "opposite" of what Janis Ian said. From the POV of the consumer, though, the record companies at this point are spending a lot of money to keep me from hearing their music.
(Hooking up my sister's old firewire external drive the other day, it was amazing to realize how obnoxious a fan really is. I'm spoiled by the silent computer now.)
A history for which you're rewarding them with your enduring good faith in return, seemingly.
Out of curiosity, how does someone who home schools work things like tax exemption? Do you have to get it all back in April every year, or what? Do you have any ID that certifies your status as a home schooler? I'm not trying to explain this Aplpe thing away, just asking.
I was in an Apple store on saturday; someone was trying to get an educator's discount on something with no real documentation, and I wondered how that worked. Sure seemed like the employee was trying to do right by the person.
New industries, once they take off, nearly always progress much more rapidly than established ones. People (Bill Gates for one person) say stuff like this comparing airlines and computers: "If airlines had improved as fast as computers in the last X years, we'd be traveling from New York to California for a dime in three minutes." Not a fair comparison.
Similar progress lines showup with you too. Learn to play tennis or something. At first you suck, but if you're trying at all you can get basic strokes and so on down quickly -- you'll get better pretty fast for a while. Then you hit a sort of lull, where you level off and it's frustrating how little progress you seem to make. Every now and again you'll get a little burst of progress for one reason or another -- often sparked by an external source like a new racket or something -- but there's no way the rate of change will go back to that early one. Ask a pro tennis player how much work it takes to dramatically improve her game at that level. There's a point of diminishing returns thing going on.
Ease of use? No. AOL's interface gets credit for being newby-friendly, but it's not because the software's easy to use, it's because it's incredibly restrictive. Everything's hardwired into the thick (bloated, rigid) client; it's impossible to change anything much. AOL is for people who like it when there's only one way to do anything. The elderly, for one group, can handle that. They find it comforting.
The contrast with something like the iApps that come with OS X couldn't be more dramatic. AOL's cluttered but gives you no options; iTunes looks simple but is robust and gives you many ways to accomplish what you want, depending on your working style. No comparison.
Wow! Justice Jackson strikes a grand blow against the supposedly tactful silence that's intended to shield justices from the world!... But later:
Er, Justice Jackson strikes a blow in favor of politic silence, because criticism undermines the respect people have toward the judiciary?
I'm a reasonable person. Jackson's constant interviews during the MS process sure struck me as biased. He spoke much too often, and much too candidly, to the media for any semblance of impartiality to be left. Maybe MS's conduct deserved contempt from the presiding judge, okay, but he couldn't direct that reaction appropriately. Now he feels personally attacked by the appeals court. In self-justification he's started sliding over obvious distinctions: that "quite possibly forever" in the first quote is a fudge meant to blur the stark rule not to talk about pending cases in particular.
He should've written this article, if he wanted to write it, before the case. If he wanted to float this trial balloon about judicial conduct, was a case of this importance the place to do it? No way.