There is enough blame to go around in these situations:
* Blame management for forcing tight deadlines on the developer who writes shoddy code, creating the bug.
* Blame management for limiting the time and resources for QA to develop and execute test cases which results in inadequate testing.
* Blame management for prioritizing new sales to support, thereby not accepting responsibility and getting it fixed ASAP.
* Blame management for structuring sales compensation so that marketing and account reps don't care about what happens after the sale, and so don't recognize this will hurt sales.
* Then, when you're almost done, blame the developers for needing food, clothing and shelter, and getting beat down when they say anything, which gives them lack of pride to not demand the right to fix their code.
While you CAN run old stuff on W2K, you can't buy W2K anymore AFAIK. Your only choice is WinXP. And WinXP will never touch any of my PC's.
I also am running W2K on a PII-366 laptop with 320MB RAM (PCG-Z505SX). After it takes 10 minutes to boot I can do things with it. Real usable. So I am giving you that.
My guess is that you don't use many old apps. I found a couple that don't run on W2K 10 minutes after installing it for the first time. So my newest machine (AMD XP2500+) is running Win98/Mandrake 9.2 dual boot. I have 3.5 machines running Windows (W98, WME, W2K*2), and 4.5 running Linux (Mdk).
"The first proof that what you describe likely won't happen is that it *didn't* when MS axed Win95."
This isn't true specifically because there was Win98 to upgrade to. The only difference between the two really is that Win98 required at least 16Meg of RAM to even install. From an end-user's point of view, the OS's were the same. However, without Win98, what is there? WinXP? YEah, and throw away every *old* application you have as well as the PC you were using and buy a new one just to get XP. That'll happen...sure.
Win98 and WinXP are not even close to the same OS from an end-user point of view. And they don't care about DOS vs. NT core; they just want to do what they've been doing.
In other words, you have to make a big investment in your education so you can have a piece of paper that no longer guarantees you that you will recoup the costs of that education, let alone bring a return on investment you can live on.
Welcome to the new world.
I agree completely. But my point is...why do we need high-definition radio when the only time I listen to the radio is in the car, and there's enough other noise there (tires, engine, other cars) that any benefits gained by high-def are drowned out by the noise?
If it weren't for the convenience and ubiquity of CD's, the same comment would apply here over cassettes. I used to argue this point too until I got a CD player in my car. But I still don't think the better sound from a CD is the reason to use it in the car.
Oh, and my car now has a MP3-CD player in it. 172 songs on one CD is very nice. All legal, since I ripped them off my original CD's...no downloaded or shared music here. Again, it's convenience..."better" sound quality is irrelevant in the car.
"Standing in the rain, with his head hung low. Couldn't get a ticket, it was a sold out show. Heard the roar of the crowd, he could picture the scene. Put an ear to the wall, and like a distant scream he heard one guitar. It just blew him away. He saw stars in his eyes, and the very next day..........He's a juke-box hero."
How many jukebox heros are the RIAA killing because of these tactics on kids?
that I have seen from several people I know. I suppose my alias has something to do with it.
This language is 2500 years old...before radio, telegraph, etc. What better way to communicate over long distances....you don't need to carry an instrument with you since your mouth and hands should always be with you, unless you run across an angry big animal.
I don't see any practical use for this today except for people who can't talk and need to shout. You can't shout in sign language...people can't see you at a distance without binoculars.
As for R2D2, there are some things he said that are perfectly understandable. For example, when R2D2 and C3P0 were left alone after meeting master Luke, R2D2 and C3P0 had the following conversation...
R2D2 (beeping): Do you think he likes me? C3P0: No, I don't think he likes you at all! R2D2 (beeping): Do you like me? C3P0: No, I don't like you either. R2D2: *SIGH*
Granted, without C3P0 it would be hard to understand R2D2, just like it's hard to understand Kenny on South Park.
As you can tell, this stuff interests me. I love geeking about this stuff.
Actually, I was thinking something different. Instead of America Online, it would be Germany Online. GOLllllllllllllly (in the best Gomer Pyle accent).
Re:Script language from command line? Hmmm.....
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 1
Please put your flame thrower away. I am not saying that my trash-80 was better suited to doing what current shells can do. All I am saying is that the idea of using scripting language commands on a command line is not a big deal, since I used to be able to do it 24 years ago, and current shells can do something like it now.
My, some people are touchy when you call their baby ugly.
Script language from command line? Hmmm.....
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
That sounds like what I used to be able to do in 1979 on my TRS-80 model I where I could type in a whole line of BASIC commands, separated by ":", press enter and have it executed immediately.
And how is that different that the "while 1; do BLAH; done" in current shells?
I remember a few years ago a relative or friend of mine telling me about how you could search for book titles, etc, and how great it was. I was underwhelmed, and I asked, "does it let you read excerpts from the book like I can if I walked into a real bookstore?" The answer was no of course.
Well, now the answer seems to be yes. And they can patent this?
Easy...there are periods separating the numbers. Or, if entered on a keypad, asterisks. If each digit needs to be parsed individually because someone decides that we can't have people with cell phones using their asterisk key to type out a phone number, then the point of my post still exists...why do the numbers have to be in reverse, when the numbers are already organized the way DNS expects to see the address...from least specific to most?
The way they propose doing the phone number lookups doesn't make sense to me. The article explains that when the DNS looks up www.ibm.com, it needs to look up the ".com" first, then the ".ibm" then "www". This is understandable.
Then why would 1-888-867-5309 be looked up as 9.0.3.5.7.6.8.8.8.8.1.e164.arpa???? That isn't right. "www.ibm.com" is organized from most specific to least specific. 1-888-867-5309 is organized from least specific to most specific. Therefore, a more DNS-like way of looking this up would be 1.888.867.5309.e164.arpa.
Why does it make more sense to look up everyone who has a last digit of "9" in their phone number first? That would be about 10% of the world!
Perhaps the folks who wrote the RFC don't understant DNS? Perhaps I'm missing something?
Does it have something to do with the way phone numbers are recognized while they are dialled? I believe the answer to the last question is "perhaps, 20+ years ago, but not today."
Ummm....hasn't Usenet been doing this for the past 20+ years? The same post replicated through all its servers for anyone to read? Complete with moderation and cancelbots?
There's a BIG difference here. Your television viewing is being subsidized by the commercials you are being fed.
Tell me, when was the last time the telephone company offered you free telephone service if you would allow them to call you with telemarketing pitches?
The telemarketing you receive has nothing to do with your actual phone service. It has everything to do with taking advantage of that communication service to sell you more things. This is the same as junk mail, and the same as spam, but it is very different than your television viewing.
Hang on a second. The article you linked to states...
"This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications."
That last part is what I question. The patent covers only INTERACTIVE plugins. It doesn't say that Flash advertisements are covered in the patent, but only flash or other applications where you enter data or click on links are covered...sending data back to the sender (bidirectional).
So what exactly *DOES* the patent cover?
The article points out some interesting possibilities, though, such as Eolas giving license to the patent free to everyone except Microsoft. It could restart the web browser wars again.
You might have something here. Wouldn't the federal government be able to step in on this matter under the racketeering laws? That seems to be what SCO is doing...extortion.
They also said this about it in the 1980's when the automotive industry was heving their lunch eaten by the Japanese auto industry. The industry decided to modernize by putting robots on the assembly lines. In the high school where I went (western PA) everyone was concerned about how everyone was going to be out of work because of the robots. Well, it didn't happen.
The assembly lines are automated today, and people still had work...just different work. Today we are seeing a similar thing in technology, ironically, as ways of doing business cheaper are being used by companies. This time, though, the cheaper way isn't more automation, it's the cheaper cost of living outside the US. And that's a different kettle of fish.
Sorry, but a contract that rigid will get you shown the door, unless you already have a working prototype that the customer can touch and feel. Otherwise, the prospective customer thinks you are being heavy-handed with nothing to show for it. They will just turn to a competitor who is willing to work on a verbal contract, changing requirements as they want it, and delivering crap in short time.
Customers love holding companies over a fire to get things fixed/working. If there's a contract, they can't do that. Hungry companies that are willing to jump when the prospect says so will get more business than those that approach their prospects like they know everything and are not flexible. This has been my experience after working for large and small companies.
Julia Roberts' character pieced things together from public information and came up with a theory about something. She didn't know if it was right, but the dissertation made it to the gov't and suddenly she was on a hit list until she was able to get a reporter (Denzel Washington) to publish it.
No, it's not like saying that. It's like saying you want to buy PRINTS of the Mona Lisa and none of his other works that some company happens to be selling as a bundle of 12 PRINTS.
Of course, if the other 11 are good works of art themselves, you would want to buy the other 11, wouldn't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no they can't.
I got laid off recently, most likely because I raised issues to management, was told to "just shut up" and didn't.
Fortunately, I just got a new job, and a better offer at that.
There is enough blame to go around in these situations:
* Blame management for forcing tight deadlines on the developer who writes shoddy code, creating the bug.
* Blame management for limiting the time and resources for QA to develop and execute test cases which results in inadequate testing.
* Blame management for prioritizing new sales to support, thereby not accepting responsibility and getting it fixed ASAP.
* Blame management for structuring sales compensation so that marketing and account reps don't care about what happens after the sale, and so don't recognize this will hurt sales.
* Then, when you're almost done, blame the developers for needing food, clothing and shelter, and getting beat down when they say anything, which gives them lack of pride to not demand the right to fix their code.
I'm sure this is what you meant to say, right?
While you CAN run old stuff on W2K, you can't buy W2K anymore AFAIK. Your only choice is WinXP. And WinXP will never touch any of my PC's.
I also am running W2K on a PII-366 laptop with 320MB RAM (PCG-Z505SX). After it takes 10 minutes to boot I can do things with it. Real usable. So I am giving you that.
My guess is that you don't use many old apps. I found a couple that don't run on W2K 10 minutes after installing it for the first time. So my newest machine (AMD XP2500+) is running Win98/Mandrake 9.2 dual boot. I have 3.5 machines running Windows (W98, WME, W2K*2), and 4.5 running Linux (Mdk).
"The first proof that what you describe likely won't happen is that it *didn't* when MS axed Win95."
This isn't true specifically because there was Win98 to upgrade to. The only difference between the two really is that Win98 required at least 16Meg of RAM to even install. From an end-user's point of view, the OS's were the same. However, without Win98, what is there? WinXP? YEah, and throw away every *old* application you have as well as the PC you were using and buy a new one just to get XP. That'll happen...sure.
Win98 and WinXP are not even close to the same OS from an end-user point of view. And they don't care about DOS vs. NT core; they just want to do what they've been doing.
In other words, you have to make a big investment in your education so you can have a piece of paper that no longer guarantees you that you will recoup the costs of that education, let alone bring a return on investment you can live on. Welcome to the new world.
I agree completely. But my point is...why do we need high-definition radio when the only time I listen to the radio is in the car, and there's enough other noise there (tires, engine, other cars) that any benefits gained by high-def are drowned out by the noise?
If it weren't for the convenience and ubiquity of CD's, the same comment would apply here over cassettes. I used to argue this point too until I got a CD player in my car. But I still don't think the better sound from a CD is the reason to use it in the car.
Oh, and my car now has a MP3-CD player in it. 172 songs on one CD is very nice. All legal, since I ripped them off my original CD's...no downloaded or shared music here. Again, it's convenience..."better" sound quality is irrelevant in the car.
And in the words of despair.com, paraphrased, you also miss 99% of the shots you do take.
"Standing in the rain, with his head hung low. ...He's a juke-box hero."
Couldn't get a ticket, it was a sold out show.
Heard the roar of the crowd, he could picture the scene.
Put an ear to the wall, and like a distant scream
he heard one guitar. It just blew him away.
He saw stars in his eyes, and the very next day.......
How many jukebox heros are the RIAA killing because of these tactics on kids?
that I have seen from several people I know. I suppose my alias has something to do with it.
This language is 2500 years old...before radio, telegraph, etc. What better way to communicate over long distances....you don't need to carry an instrument with you since your mouth and hands should always be with you, unless you run across an angry big animal.
I don't see any practical use for this today except for people who can't talk and need to shout. You can't shout in sign language...people can't see you at a distance without binoculars.
As for R2D2, there are some things he said that are perfectly understandable. For example, when R2D2 and C3P0 were left alone after meeting master Luke, R2D2 and C3P0 had the following conversation...
R2D2 (beeping): Do you think he likes me?
C3P0: No, I don't think he likes you at all!
R2D2 (beeping): Do you like me?
C3P0: No, I don't like you either.
R2D2: *SIGH*
Granted, without C3P0 it would be hard to understand R2D2, just like it's hard to understand Kenny on South Park.
As you can tell, this stuff interests me. I love geeking about this stuff.
Actually, I was thinking something different. Instead of America Online, it would be Germany Online. GOLllllllllllllly (in the best Gomer Pyle accent).
Please put your flame thrower away. I am not saying that my trash-80 was better suited to doing what current shells can do. All I am saying is that the idea of using scripting language commands on a command line is not a big deal, since I used to be able to do it 24 years ago, and current shells can do something like it now.
My, some people are touchy when you call their baby ugly.
That sounds like what I used to be able to do in 1979 on my TRS-80 model I where I could type in a whole line of BASIC commands, separated by ":", press enter and have it executed immediately.
And how is that different that the "while 1; do BLAH; done" in current shells?
I remember a few years ago a relative or friend of mine telling me about how you could search for book titles, etc, and how great it was. I was underwhelmed, and I asked, "does it let you read excerpts from the book like I can if I walked into a real bookstore?" The answer was no of course.
Well, now the answer seems to be yes. And they can patent this?
Easy...there are periods separating the numbers. Or, if entered on a keypad, asterisks. If each digit needs to be parsed individually because someone decides that we can't have people with cell phones using their asterisk key to type out a phone number, then the point of my post still exists...why do the numbers have to be in reverse, when the numbers are already organized the way DNS expects to see the address...from least specific to most?
The way they propose doing the phone number lookups doesn't make sense to me. The article explains that when the DNS looks up www.ibm.com, it needs to look up the ".com" first, then the ".ibm" then "www". This is understandable.
Then why would 1-888-867-5309 be looked up as 9.0.3.5.7.6.8.8.8.8.1.e164.arpa???? That isn't right. "www.ibm.com" is organized from most specific to least specific. 1-888-867-5309 is organized from least specific to most specific. Therefore, a more DNS-like way of looking this up would be 1.888.867.5309.e164.arpa.
Why does it make more sense to look up everyone who has a last digit of "9" in their phone number first? That would be about 10% of the world!
Perhaps the folks who wrote the RFC don't understant DNS? Perhaps I'm missing something?
Does it have something to do with the way phone numbers are recognized while they are dialled? I believe the answer to the last question is "perhaps, 20+ years ago, but not today."
Yep... the brain on the memory chip is called "Pinky".
Ummm....hasn't Usenet been doing this for the past 20+ years? The same post replicated through all its servers for anyone to read? Complete with moderation and cancelbots?
There's a BIG difference here. Your television viewing is being subsidized by the commercials you are being fed.
Tell me, when was the last time the telephone company offered you free telephone service if you would allow them to call you with telemarketing pitches?
The telemarketing you receive has nothing to do with your actual phone service. It has everything to do with taking advantage of that communication service to sell you more things. This is the same as junk mail, and the same as spam, but it is very different than your television viewing.
Hang on a second. The article you linked to states...
"This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications."
That last part is what I question. The patent covers only INTERACTIVE plugins. It doesn't say that Flash advertisements are covered in the patent, but only flash or other applications where you enter data or click on links are covered...sending data back to the sender (bidirectional).
So what exactly *DOES* the patent cover?
The article points out some interesting possibilities, though, such as Eolas giving license to the patent free to everyone except Microsoft. It could restart the web browser wars again.
My first thought on this was that it's great, but the train only has one car. I'll wait until it's a real train.
You might have something here. Wouldn't the federal government be able to step in on this matter under the racketeering laws? That seems to be what SCO is doing...extortion.
They also said this about it in the 1980's when the automotive industry was heving their lunch eaten by the Japanese auto industry. The industry decided to modernize by putting robots on the assembly lines. In the high school where I went (western PA) everyone was concerned about how everyone was going to be out of work because of the robots. Well, it didn't happen. The assembly lines are automated today, and people still had work...just different work. Today we are seeing a similar thing in technology, ironically, as ways of doing business cheaper are being used by companies. This time, though, the cheaper way isn't more automation, it's the cheaper cost of living outside the US. And that's a different kettle of fish.
Sorry, but a contract that rigid will get you shown the door, unless you already have a working prototype that the customer can touch and feel. Otherwise, the prospective customer thinks you are being heavy-handed with nothing to show for it. They will just turn to a competitor who is willing to work on a verbal contract, changing requirements as they want it, and delivering crap in short time.
Customers love holding companies over a fire to get things fixed/working. If there's a contract, they can't do that. Hungry companies that are willing to jump when the prospect says so will get more business than those that approach their prospects like they know everything and are not flexible. This has been my experience after working for large and small companies.
Julia Roberts' character pieced things together from public information and came up with a theory about something. She didn't know if it was right, but the dissertation made it to the gov't and suddenly she was on a hit list until she was able to get a reporter (Denzel Washington) to publish it.
It would seem that life is imitating art here.
No, it's not like saying that. It's like saying you want to buy PRINTS of the Mona Lisa and none of his other works that some company happens to be selling as a bundle of 12 PRINTS.
Of course, if the other 11 are good works of art themselves, you would want to buy the other 11, wouldn't you?