Just because it's in your house/on your property doesn't mean you have absolute control over it. This is nothing new. Want to build an addition? You need a plan, - which has to be approved and will probably require multiple permits and their corresponding inspections. You can't just do what ever the hell you want even though you own it. If you live in a townhome and have a homeowners association, you have even less say over what you can do. You probably can't even paint it a different color. You don't like the rules? Move someplace else. You don't vandalize the whole complex.
Think you can make whatever mods you want to your car? Guess again. There are plenty that will run you afoul of the law.
Since these boxes of Sony's are connecting to their network with the power to negatively impact their other customers, they damn well better restrict the types of mods that can be made.
1. Not all organizations have the same security needs
2. For many people there aren't neat lines between work life and personal life
3. Turning this into a turf war doesn't do anyone any good.
I hope item 1 is self explanatory. There are places where I'd certainly hope that any type of personal device would be barred from connecting to the network. By the same token, there are organizations where it may not be nearly as important.
As far as item 2 goes my life isn't easily separated into work and personal. I'm sure I'm not alone. Policy at work is that company provided mobile phones cannot be used to make personal calls. They'll look the other way if it's a matter of a phone call here and there. Further a company mobile phone can be taken from me at any time. My calls can be tracked. Any data on the phone, no matter how personal, is available to them any time they want it. A calendar on my phone that only has my work schedule on it isn't adequate, but do I really want to have my marriage counseling appointments on there too?
Given that reality with a company provided mobile phone, who can blame an employee for wanting to use their own phone instead? As much as we IT folks see allowing personal phones to access our networks and house corporate data as a huge security risk, we have to understand that the desire to do so has a lot of legitimacy. Turning it into a turf war and just saying "No" isn't going to be good enough, even if we are certain it's in the company's best interest.
Far too often we in IT treat our users in a condescending manner and we move too slow. I overheard a sysadmin guy tell one of our Mac developers that he wouldn't get admin access to his own machine because we had to "protect him from himself". That's pretty much a direct quote. Never mind that the developer in question is far more qualified at configuring and maintaining a Mac than anyone on our sysadmin staff is. It's also very frustrating for staff to wait days or weeks for IT to get around to something that they themselves could take care of in a few minutes. So again, just saying "No" isn't good enough. Reasonable alternatives have to be considered and creative solutions are needed.
My family took the tour a couple of summers ago. Interesting history. They used to keep mules down there for months at a stretch. They were often in complete darkness. When brought back up to the surface they had to have their eyes covered until they were acclimated to light.
The original miners used candles and the mining company made them pay for each one so they wouldn't be wasted (and to recoup some of the already paltry wages they were paying).
If you are ever in that area it's definitely worth seeing, but frankly there's not too many reasons to visit that part of the state.
Whether you are a fan of the IOS App Store or not, you have to acknowledge that it has played a major role in the popularity of the iPhone. Without it there wouldn't be nearly as much software available for the platform, it would be harder to find and you'd be paying more for it.
iPhone developers don't need to worry as much about the expenses of marketing, packaging, and distributing their software. Apple takes care of that for them. As a user, there's only one place you need to go to track down software you're interested in. You can easily compare prices and see reviews. The App Store was a HUGE win for Apple which is why everybody is doing the same thing now.
So what about Mac software? Isn't that always been a criticism of the Mac vs Windows? Not as much software? If the Mac OS App Store has a fraction of the success that the IOS App Store has enjoyed, it'll be a huge win for Apple.
There are more choices than the two extremes of rigid control or the wild west.
Both Apple and Google could have an optional approval process which would certify that an app is safe for use on your phone. Maybe there would be some cost to the developer. Other apps could be submitted without certification. The marketplace or store would have to clearly identify which apps have been certified and which haven't. A user should be warned if they're downloading an app that hasn't been certified and given the option to permanently turn that warning off if they choose.
I much prefer that model than having to install some virus checker on my phone which takes up resources, costs money, has to be kept up to date and may misidentify a critical OS file as a virus and inadvertantly brick the phone.
I don't own an Android phone so I may not be the best person to comment but it seems to me they need two Marketplaces, - or at least 2 separate areas. One area would contain apps that have gone through some testing and approval process and another that's just wide open, - all bets are off.
Probably wouldn't prevent people from blaming the phone if their CC number gets stolen but at least people would know that there's an identifiable subset of apps that are malware free.
It doesn't happen to everyone. I have an iphone as well and don't see these large transmissions. In fact I used to have my wife's phone but I got a new one and gave her mine. Never had a problem like she's experiencing. She rarely does anything over 3G aside from reading email and some occasional web browsing. If you look at her usage there will be 3K here, 5K there, and then between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am on random days you'll see 72 MB, 30 MB, 50 MB.
A number of iPhone users have a had a similar problem including my wife though the transmissions are not daily. There are long threads on the topic in the Apple discussion forums. The transmissions are made at night while she's not using the phone. Even the phone is asleep, otherwise it would use our home wifi rather than the 3g connection.
Crash dumps are one suspect. I've walked through the steps to turn off reporting that data to Apple but the transmissions continue. Usually about one or two a week. Enough to push her over the limit for her data plan.
If it is diagnostic information, the usage should be charged to Apple and not the phone users.
Many of you have said that it's at least nice to have the option on Android which is true.
However, not allowing flash in iPhones/iPads/ITouches has forced content providers to use something other than Flash which actually has lead to having some options. Otherwise we'd all be stuck with Flash.
Here are some compelling reasons to install linux on the desktop:
1. Simple/free licensing
2. less susceptible to malware (?)
3. A multitude of freely available/downloadable software
4. Lower risk of vendor lock-in (depending on software choices)
Other than number 3, how many people REALLY care about these other than the people who've already adopted linux (or attempted to)
At best, linux provides a decent user experience but certainly no better and often worse than either Windows or OS X. And although there's all sorts of desktop and server goodies for linux, they're often harder to configure. Choosing linux also forces you to swim against the tide more so than OS X. With either linux or OS X it can be difficult to shed dependence on Microsoft in a world where.doc is the default standard for document exchange and an.mdb is an all too common means of sharing database info.
Most people I know only have occasional use for a spreadsheet and MS Word is overkill for their word processing needs. The problem is that MS Office owns the market and I constantly get documents sent to me in Word and Excel format. So what I want is something that's reasonably good at reading and writing MS Office documents, but I neither need or want MS Office itself.
I'm not opposed to paying for software, but I do have a limited budget for software purchases and I'd rather spend my money on something I really want. If my job revolved around writing proposals and creating spreadsheets, I'd be more inclined to purchase MS Office, but frankly I think $300 is a lot for what it gives you.
I'm not student or a teacher so I don't qualify for the $150 price but even at that price, it's not worth it to me. I consider word processing and simple spreadsheets to be basic functionality that I shouldn't have to pay extra for when I buy a computer. It's sort of like buying a car and having to pay extra for a heater.
There are a couple of reasons why women should be recruited, or more to the point why we should care that CS degrees are perceived as "for nerds only"
First of all, if people (women or otherwise) are staying away from CS because it's perceived as too nerdy that means that the field is losing potential talent to other fields. How can this be good? If a woman when asked what her major is has to mumble under breath "Umm, - Computer Science" because of some silly stigma then we have a problem and we should work to remove that stigma.
The second reason is a huge one. The article I saw listed after this one in Slashdot/IT is how customers dealing with IT support staff are often made to feal as if they are the problem, -not the software or the equipment that is acting up or poorly designed.
How many non-geeks do you know who look forward to interacting with software/hardware support or their IT Staff?
Communication is often the key to the success or failure of a software development project. If you've got some guy who's great at pounding out code, but can't or won't talk effectively to a user or his fellow coders, then that guy's value is limited. He may even be a detriment to a project.
I've met too many CS guys who avoid talking to non-technical people, - much preferring to sit in front of their computers. Even worse are those guys who treat anyone who they don't consider their equal in terms of geekiness as an idiot with nothing to offer.
If you want to perpetuate stereotypes then it seems to me that the stereotypical woman as "a good communicator" is something that CS and IT badly need.
CFLs give off less heat but the electronics in the ballast, just like in your computer, will fail sooner if not kept sufficiently cool.
I've had CFLs in an enclosed fixture and they get plenty warm.
Unfortunately what's in the people's best interest is often obscured or hidden by those who just want to make a sale.
People often make purchase decisions based on advertising and cost. Neither of these necessarily work towards the consumer's best interest.
The role of government is something reasonable people can disagree on.
I would guess that most people in my state don't know that the majority of electricity generated here comes from coal, -one of the dirtiest sources still in use. The local utility actively opposes legislation that would make that information more readily available.
"Perception of brightness depends upon wattage and color. To make sure you are purchasing a CFL with equivalent light output to your existing incandescent, divide the incandescent wattage by four (ie. 100-watt incandescent = 25-watt CFL). To match the color of an incandescent look for CFLs that say "Warm White" or "Soft White". CFL colors may also be defined by Color Rendering Index (CRI) and Kelvin temperature. To replicate an incandescent buy a bulb with a CRI higher than 80 and a Kelvin temperature of 2700K. The higher the CRI and Kelvin temperature, the "cooler" the light feels and the bluer the effect. The highest CRI and Kelvin temperatures replicate daylight."
I agree that taxes can't solve all problems but I know from experience that many people balk at buying CFLs because the initial cost is so much higher relative to incandescents. Even if they do buy some CFLs, they tend not to keep spares around so when a CFL does go bad, it often gets replaced with an incandescent that they have handy (because they are cheap enough that people will keep extras).
If incandescents weren't so damn cheap, this problem wouldn't be so pronounced.
I don't have a problem with tax incentives for making better products but there's a lot more bureaucracy and red tape around setting up and administering something like that vs a simple sales tax.
If you wanted to ban them (which I don't think is a good idea), you'd have to prevent them from being sold.
I wouldn't bother trying to enforce it on the consumption side. Now I'm sure people could if they really wanted to just drive to Nevada or Arizona, maybe even buy them online but I doubt many people would bother.
I work for an organization that promotes energy efficiency and we encourage people to replace standard bulbs with CFLs. The new ones are much better in terms of the quality of light, ability to fit inside common fixtures, reduced flicker and noise.
There are, however, still many applications where CFLs just aren't a good choice.
1. There are dimmable CFLs but they only dim so much and not very smoothly
2. Not recommended for enclosed fixtures (trapped heat shortens life of electronics)
3. Not recommended for use with photocells
Another problem with CFLs is that quality is very uneven and people tend to buy the cheap ones. They should avoid CFLs without an Energy Star label.
One good thing about CFLs is that they can produce quite a wide variety of light from a soft warm light to something very close to daylight. People often end up disappointed though because they don't know what to look for and they end up with a light that's too harsh or too dim looking for their tastes.
A ban on incandescents doesn't make sense. You can't really ban them because they are still needed for certain applications. You could however tax them which would make CFLs seem more attractive.
Because the consequences of a bridge failing, a botched heart surgery, and a collapsed high rise are usually far more serious than Microsoft Word crashing.
I agree that if you're working on a Space Shuttle navigation system, you need to follow a process/documentation heavy methodology. On the other hand if you're working on a website for "Joe's Bait shop", you probably can get more than satisfactory results on a budget and schedule that Joe can actually afford and will work for him if you don't go through all the same steps.
The fact is that in many cases software that's lacking in some important features is still better than no software at all. Even software that's got some bugs can be better than not having it available for those willing to put up with the quirks.
Right now I'm working on a website that needs to be up pronto or a real opportunity will pass. It's painful knowing that we'll have to leave off some things we'd really like on it. It's also painful knowing that some of the code I write today will be likely be thrown out down the road, but that's better than not getting the site up when it needs to be up.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it's in your house/on your property doesn't mean you have absolute control over it. This is nothing new. Want to build an addition? You need a plan, - which has to be approved and will probably require multiple permits and their corresponding inspections. You can't just do what ever the hell you want even though you own it. If you live in a townhome and have a homeowners association, you have even less say over what you can do. You probably can't even paint it a different color. You don't like the rules? Move someplace else. You don't vandalize the whole complex.
Think you can make whatever mods you want to your car? Guess again. There are plenty that will run you afoul of the law.
Since these boxes of Sony's are connecting to their network with the power to negatively impact their other customers, they damn well better restrict the types of mods that can be made.
War? Sounds like some people have a very distorted sense of what's important.
1. Not all organizations have the same security needs
2. For many people there aren't neat lines between work life and personal life
3. Turning this into a turf war doesn't do anyone any good.
I hope item 1 is self explanatory. There are places where I'd certainly hope that any type of personal device would be barred from connecting to the network. By the same token, there are organizations where it may not be nearly as important.
As far as item 2 goes my life isn't easily separated into work and personal. I'm sure I'm not alone. Policy at work is that company provided mobile phones cannot be used to make personal calls. They'll look the other way if it's a matter of a phone call here and there. Further a company mobile phone can be taken from me at any time. My calls can be tracked. Any data on the phone, no matter how personal, is available to them any time they want it. A calendar on my phone that only has my work schedule on it isn't adequate, but do I really want to have my marriage counseling appointments on there too?
Given that reality with a company provided mobile phone, who can blame an employee for wanting to use their own phone instead? As much as we IT folks see allowing personal phones to access our networks and house corporate data as a huge security risk, we have to understand that the desire to do so has a lot of legitimacy. Turning it into a turf war and just saying "No" isn't going to be good enough, even if we are certain it's in the company's best interest.
Far too often we in IT treat our users in a condescending manner and we move too slow. I overheard a sysadmin guy tell one of our Mac developers that he wouldn't get admin access to his own machine because we had to "protect him from himself". That's pretty much a direct quote. Never mind that the developer in question is far more qualified at configuring and maintaining a Mac than anyone on our sysadmin staff is. It's also very frustrating for staff to wait days or weeks for IT to get around to something that they themselves could take care of in a few minutes. So again, just saying "No" isn't good enough. Reasonable alternatives have to be considered and creative solutions are needed.
Besides, two moderately sized monitors are often cheaper than one huge one. In any case more screen real estate is definitely helpful.
It's an old iron mine.
My family took the tour a couple of summers ago. Interesting history. They used to keep mules down there for months at a stretch. They were often in complete darkness. When brought back up to the surface they had to have their eyes covered until they were acclimated to light. The original miners used candles and the mining company made them pay for each one so they wouldn't be wasted (and to recoup some of the already paltry wages they were paying). If you are ever in that area it's definitely worth seeing, but frankly there's not too many reasons to visit that part of the state.
Whether you are a fan of the IOS App Store or not, you have to acknowledge that it has played a major role in the popularity of the iPhone. Without it there wouldn't be nearly as much software available for the platform, it would be harder to find and you'd be paying more for it. iPhone developers don't need to worry as much about the expenses of marketing, packaging, and distributing their software. Apple takes care of that for them. As a user, there's only one place you need to go to track down software you're interested in. You can easily compare prices and see reviews. The App Store was a HUGE win for Apple which is why everybody is doing the same thing now.
So what about Mac software? Isn't that always been a criticism of the Mac vs Windows? Not as much software? If the Mac OS App Store has a fraction of the success that the IOS App Store has enjoyed, it'll be a huge win for Apple.
But is that clear to users?
There are more choices than the two extremes of rigid control or the wild west. Both Apple and Google could have an optional approval process which would certify that an app is safe for use on your phone. Maybe there would be some cost to the developer. Other apps could be submitted without certification. The marketplace or store would have to clearly identify which apps have been certified and which haven't. A user should be warned if they're downloading an app that hasn't been certified and given the option to permanently turn that warning off if they choose. I much prefer that model than having to install some virus checker on my phone which takes up resources, costs money, has to be kept up to date and may misidentify a critical OS file as a virus and inadvertantly brick the phone.
I don't own an Android phone so I may not be the best person to comment but it seems to me they need two Marketplaces, - or at least 2 separate areas. One area would contain apps that have gone through some testing and approval process and another that's just wide open, - all bets are off. Probably wouldn't prevent people from blaming the phone if their CC number gets stolen but at least people would know that there's an identifiable subset of apps that are malware free.
It doesn't happen to everyone. I have an iphone as well and don't see these large transmissions. In fact I used to have my wife's phone but I got a new one and gave her mine. Never had a problem like she's experiencing. She rarely does anything over 3G aside from reading email and some occasional web browsing. If you look at her usage there will be 3K here, 5K there, and then between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am on random days you'll see 72 MB, 30 MB, 50 MB.
A number of iPhone users have a had a similar problem including my wife though the transmissions are not daily. There are long threads on the topic in the Apple discussion forums. The transmissions are made at night while she's not using the phone. Even the phone is asleep, otherwise it would use our home wifi rather than the 3g connection. Crash dumps are one suspect. I've walked through the steps to turn off reporting that data to Apple but the transmissions continue. Usually about one or two a week. Enough to push her over the limit for her data plan. If it is diagnostic information, the usage should be charged to Apple and not the phone users.
Many of you have said that it's at least nice to have the option on Android which is true. However, not allowing flash in iPhones/iPads/ITouches has forced content providers to use something other than Flash which actually has lead to having some options. Otherwise we'd all be stuck with Flash.
Here are some compelling reasons to install linux on the desktop: 1. Simple/free licensing 2. less susceptible to malware (?) 3. A multitude of freely available/downloadable software 4. Lower risk of vendor lock-in (depending on software choices) Other than number 3, how many people REALLY care about these other than the people who've already adopted linux (or attempted to) At best, linux provides a decent user experience but certainly no better and often worse than either Windows or OS X. And although there's all sorts of desktop and server goodies for linux, they're often harder to configure. Choosing linux also forces you to swim against the tide more so than OS X. With either linux or OS X it can be difficult to shed dependence on Microsoft in a world where .doc is the default standard for document exchange and an .mdb is an all too common means of sharing database info.
Most people I know only have occasional use for a spreadsheet and MS Word is overkill for their word processing needs. The problem is that MS Office owns the market and I constantly get documents sent to me in Word and Excel format. So what I want is something that's reasonably good at reading and writing MS Office documents, but I neither need or want MS Office itself.
I'm not opposed to paying for software, but I do have a limited budget for software purchases and I'd rather spend my money on something I really want. If my job revolved around writing proposals and creating spreadsheets, I'd be more inclined to purchase MS Office, but frankly I think $300 is a lot for what it gives you.
I'm not student or a teacher so I don't qualify for the $150 price but even at that price, it's not worth it to me. I consider word processing and simple spreadsheets to be basic functionality that I shouldn't have to pay extra for when I buy a computer. It's sort of like buying a car and having to pay extra for a heater.
There are a couple of reasons why women should be recruited, or more to the point why we should care that CS degrees are perceived as "for nerds only"
First of all, if people (women or otherwise) are staying away from CS because it's perceived as too nerdy that means that the field is losing potential talent to other fields. How can this be good? If a woman when asked what her major is has to mumble under breath "Umm, - Computer Science" because of some silly stigma then we have a problem and we should work to remove that stigma.
The second reason is a huge one. The article I saw listed after this one in Slashdot/IT is how customers dealing with IT support staff are often made to feal as if they are the problem, -not the software or the equipment that is acting up or poorly designed. How many non-geeks do you know who look forward to interacting with software/hardware support or their IT Staff? Communication is often the key to the success or failure of a software development project. If you've got some guy who's great at pounding out code, but can't or won't talk effectively to a user or his fellow coders, then that guy's value is limited. He may even be a detriment to a project.
I've met too many CS guys who avoid talking to non-technical people, - much preferring to sit in front of their computers. Even worse are those guys who treat anyone who they don't consider their equal in terms of geekiness as an idiot with nothing to offer.
If you want to perpetuate stereotypes then it seems to me that the stereotypical woman as "a good communicator" is something that CS and IT badly need.
CFLs give off less heat but the electronics in the ballast, just like in your computer, will fail sooner if not kept sufficiently cool. I've had CFLs in an enclosed fixture and they get plenty warm.
Unfortunately what's in the people's best interest is often obscured or hidden by those who just want to make a sale.
People often make purchase decisions based on advertising and cost. Neither of these necessarily work towards the consumer's best interest.
The role of government is something reasonable people can disagree on.
I would guess that most people in my state don't know that the majority of electricity generated here comes from coal, -one of the dirtiest sources still in use. The local utility actively opposes legislation that would make that information more readily available.
From our FAQ:
"Perception of brightness depends upon wattage and color. To make sure you are purchasing a CFL with equivalent light output to your existing incandescent, divide the incandescent wattage by four (ie. 100-watt incandescent = 25-watt CFL). To match the color of an incandescent look for CFLs that say "Warm White" or "Soft White". CFL colors may also be defined by Color Rendering Index (CRI) and Kelvin temperature. To replicate an incandescent buy a bulb with a CRI higher than 80 and a Kelvin temperature of 2700K. The higher the CRI and Kelvin temperature, the "cooler" the light feels and the bluer the effect. The highest CRI and Kelvin temperatures replicate daylight."
What you say is true, but how much do we need to save and who's gonna decide that?
I agree that taxes can't solve all problems but I know from experience that many people balk at buying CFLs because the initial cost is so much higher relative to incandescents. Even if they do buy some CFLs, they tend not to keep spares around so when a CFL does go bad, it often gets replaced with an incandescent that they have handy (because they are cheap enough that people will keep extras). If incandescents weren't so damn cheap, this problem wouldn't be so pronounced. I don't have a problem with tax incentives for making better products but there's a lot more bureaucracy and red tape around setting up and administering something like that vs a simple sales tax.
If you wanted to ban them (which I don't think is a good idea), you'd have to prevent them from being sold. I wouldn't bother trying to enforce it on the consumption side. Now I'm sure people could if they really wanted to just drive to Nevada or Arizona, maybe even buy them online but I doubt many people would bother.
I work for an organization that promotes energy efficiency and we encourage people to replace standard bulbs with CFLs. The new ones are much better in terms of the quality of light, ability to fit inside common fixtures, reduced flicker and noise.
There are, however, still many applications where CFLs just aren't a good choice.
1. There are dimmable CFLs but they only dim so much and not very smoothly
2. Not recommended for enclosed fixtures (trapped heat shortens life of electronics)
3. Not recommended for use with photocells
Another problem with CFLs is that quality is very uneven and people tend to buy the cheap ones. They should avoid CFLs without an Energy Star label.
One good thing about CFLs is that they can produce quite a wide variety of light from a soft warm light to something very close to daylight. People often end up disappointed though because they don't know what to look for and they end up with a light that's too harsh or too dim looking for their tastes.
A ban on incandescents doesn't make sense. You can't really ban them because they are still needed for certain applications. You could however tax them which would make CFLs seem more attractive.
Because the consequences of a bridge failing, a botched heart surgery, and a collapsed high rise are usually far more serious than Microsoft Word crashing. I agree that if you're working on a Space Shuttle navigation system, you need to follow a process/documentation heavy methodology. On the other hand if you're working on a website for "Joe's Bait shop", you probably can get more than satisfactory results on a budget and schedule that Joe can actually afford and will work for him if you don't go through all the same steps. The fact is that in many cases software that's lacking in some important features is still better than no software at all. Even software that's got some bugs can be better than not having it available for those willing to put up with the quirks. Right now I'm working on a website that needs to be up pronto or a real opportunity will pass. It's painful knowing that we'll have to leave off some things we'd really like on it. It's also painful knowing that some of the code I write today will be likely be thrown out down the road, but that's better than not getting the site up when it needs to be up.