"turning cats from territorial and antisocial creatures into the lovable furballs we know today."
Really? Have you ever shared a home with a cat? They're pretty much the definition of territorial, and I'd substitute "sociopathic" for "antisocial". It's like TFA was written by a cat. No really, we're lovable furballs. Really. Lovable. Furballs. Now feed me immediately, or I'll wiz in your shoes. I might anyway.
What, they had no DR strategy? This type of incident is just what DR is for. Your data is a smoking hole in the ground. Now, rebuild. You have 24 hours.
When I hear of stories like this, I'm reminded of the disposable gadgets in blister packs displayed at the register. Made to buy, use for a short time, and then throw away. Kind-of the opposite of innovative or boutique. That's ok, I didn't want one anyway.
> "There are some really good [evidence-based] guidelines out there" on how to design user-friendly buildings, says Ruth Dalton, who studies both architecture and cognitive science at Northumbria University in Newcastle. "A lot of architects choose to ignore them. Why is that?"
For the same reason anything gets fragmented and unusable. Differentiation. The often vain attempt of a designer (or company) to make something different for the sole purpose of making it easily identifiable as belonging to said designer (or company). To such thinking, standardization is the enemy, and usability is not a top priority.
This can be true for most any product design, not just architecture. When one wants to *be* the standard, one tends to avoid following existing standards where possible.
A good (and often funny) book to read on this subject is "From Bauhaus to Our House" by Tom Wolfe. Although one could argue with some of his points, the observation that Modern Architecture (now superceded by the arguably more livable Postmodern Architecture) tended to do things badly -- like narrow halls, flat roofs (which tended to collapse in snowy climates) tightly cordoned "proletariat" floor plans, acrophobia-inducing floor-to-ceiling windows in skyscrapers, and other attempts at doing something different for the sake of difference, were dead on target.
I'm aware of that, thanks. I have a laptop running Mint on a silicon drive, and it's really fast and reliable. I wanted to get Lightroom working under Wine so I could have something handy in the field for post-processing. But there's something wrong with the way it does transparencies under Wine, making it generally unusable. This was version 5. I've read elsewhere that there are additional issues with Lightroom CC under Wine that Adobe has flatly refused to fix. So for now, I'm stuck with Windows.
I regularly use exactly two programs for which I still need Windows. (I don't consider Apple a contender because of hardware lock-in and boutique pricing.) Neither of them are Office -- there are already reasonable alternatives for that. The moment Lightroom and Photoshop are available on Chrome or Mint, Microsoft has seen the last of me. (There are things called "lightroom" and "photoshop" on Android, but they're still mostly toys.) Apple saw the last of me some years ago, when I finally retired the G4.
I'm not trying to imply that they have technology that samsung or apple might actually want. I'm saying it might be worth buying them out to eliminate them as a player. And maybe to acqhire new talent.
Of course, the converse is also true -- we need to show support for companies that keep their IT in-house, or have insourced recently. (Because even companies are allowed a chance at redemption.)
Although I applaud what he's trying to do, realistically, his company will be bought out and dismantled by one or the other. He and a few others will get big payouts and that'll be the end of it. If Samsung or Apple doesn't do it, maybe Microsoft will buy them out and ruin them.
To answer someone else's observation, that this is an android/ios issue not a Samsung/apple issue, it really isn't. This is not a philosophical war, it's an economic one. Samsung and Apple are the strongest players, and that transcends whatever OS or GUI they happen to be using. The point is to break up the vendor duopoly, not to provide yet another incompatible garden.
We have that in common. I also worked for a baby bell, which will remain nameless because I still know people who worked for the company they became. They invested in this new thing called cellular, and did quite well.
I didn't say that companies never fail on their projects, (it must be nice to see things only in black and white?) just that in my perception, government projects are more likely to fail. Consider -- a few big time failures, or sometimes even one, can sink a company (and have). You have to be the size and have the inertia of a government to survive multiple large failures. (Point examples of "too big to fail" are the exceptions that prove the rule.) The other part of this is that companies are generally making decisions involving spending earned cash that presumably takes some effort to acquire. That same connection between the funds and the people making the decisions doesn't exist, or at least to the same degree, in government. Certainly you've heard the term "other people's money".
I let the metaphor get away from me intentionally because I see it as part of an overall attitude. The administration would prefer to enrich a handful of self interested corporations at the expense of government workers and consumers. This attitude is typical, the same approach they take to regulations, health care, social safety net, etc.
The thing is, a federal entity being years into an upgrade that goes way over budget and over time and ultimately fails is also a way to enrich a handful of self interested corporations at the expense of government workers and consumers. And taxpayers. The methods aren't even that different.
Slashdot Mirror
"turning cats from territorial and antisocial creatures into the lovable furballs we know today."
Really? Have you ever shared a home with a cat? They're pretty much the definition of territorial, and I'd substitute "sociopathic" for "antisocial". It's like TFA was written by a cat. No really, we're lovable furballs. Really. Lovable. Furballs. Now feed me immediately, or I'll wiz in your shoes. I might anyway.
What, they had no DR strategy? This type of incident is just what DR is for. Your data is a smoking hole in the ground. Now, rebuild. You have 24 hours.
Because it's more non-repairable junk destined to be toxic landfill in a few months. I for one decline to participate in that process.
When I hear of stories like this, I'm reminded of the disposable gadgets in blister packs displayed at the register. Made to buy, use for a short time, and then throw away. Kind-of the opposite of innovative or boutique. That's ok, I didn't want one anyway.
Is there a correlation with country of origin? Is the manufacture of baby food one of the things we've outsourced to China, for instance?
Thanks, I've seen it. But it was worth watching again.
> "There are some really good [evidence-based] guidelines out there" on how to design user-friendly buildings, says Ruth Dalton, who studies both architecture and cognitive science at Northumbria University in Newcastle. "A lot of architects choose to ignore them. Why is that?"
For the same reason anything gets fragmented and unusable. Differentiation. The often vain attempt of a designer (or company) to make something different for the sole purpose of making it easily identifiable as belonging to said designer (or company). To such thinking, standardization is the enemy, and usability is not a top priority.
This can be true for most any product design, not just architecture. When one wants to *be* the standard, one tends to avoid following existing standards where possible.
A good (and often funny) book to read on this subject is "From Bauhaus to Our House" by Tom Wolfe. Although one could argue with some of his points, the observation that Modern Architecture (now superceded by the arguably more livable Postmodern Architecture) tended to do things badly -- like narrow halls, flat roofs (which tended to collapse in snowy climates) tightly cordoned "proletariat" floor plans, acrophobia-inducing floor-to-ceiling windows in skyscrapers, and other attempts at doing something different for the sake of difference, were dead on target.
I'm aware of that, thanks. I have a laptop running Mint on a silicon drive, and it's really fast and reliable. I wanted to get Lightroom working under Wine so I could have something handy in the field for post-processing. But there's something wrong with the way it does transparencies under Wine, making it generally unusable. This was version 5. I've read elsewhere that there are additional issues with Lightroom CC under Wine that Adobe has flatly refused to fix. So for now, I'm stuck with Windows.
I regularly use exactly two programs for which I still need Windows. (I don't consider Apple a contender because of hardware lock-in and boutique pricing.) Neither of them are Office -- there are already reasonable alternatives for that. The moment Lightroom and Photoshop are available on Chrome or Mint, Microsoft has seen the last of me. (There are things called "lightroom" and "photoshop" on Android, but they're still mostly toys.) Apple saw the last of me some years ago, when I finally retired the G4.
"No known ransomware works against Windows 10 S."
Until the moment ransomware gets snuck into the Windows Store. Which, if it hasn't happened already, will probably be next Thursday.
I'm not trying to imply that they have technology that samsung or apple might actually want. I'm saying it might be worth buying them out to eliminate them as a player. And maybe to acqhire new talent.
Of course, the converse is also true -- we need to show support for companies that keep their IT in-house, or have insourced recently. (Because even companies are allowed a chance at redemption.)
Note to self: Don't call Lowe's and expect a useful or coherent answer.
Although I applaud what he's trying to do, realistically, his company will be bought out and dismantled by one or the other. He and a few others will get big payouts and that'll be the end of it. If Samsung or Apple doesn't do it, maybe Microsoft will buy them out and ruin them.
To answer someone else's observation, that this is an android/ios issue not a Samsung/apple issue, it really isn't. This is not a philosophical war, it's an economic one. Samsung and Apple are the strongest players, and that transcends whatever OS or GUI they happen to be using. The point is to break up the vendor duopoly, not to provide yet another incompatible garden.
Are you saying the FAA is not managing the project? If not, why?? It's our tax money -- we're entitled to oversight.
"too important to fail" is an aberration that should never have happened.
We have that in common. I also worked for a baby bell, which will remain nameless because I still know people who worked for the company they became. They invested in this new thing called cellular, and did quite well.
I didn't say that companies never fail on their projects, (it must be nice to see things only in black and white?) just that in my perception, government projects are more likely to fail. Consider -- a few big time failures, or sometimes even one, can sink a company (and have). You have to be the size and have the inertia of a government to survive multiple large failures. (Point examples of "too big to fail" are the exceptions that prove the rule.) The other part of this is that companies are generally making decisions involving spending earned cash that presumably takes some effort to acquire. That same connection between the funds and the people making the decisions doesn't exist, or at least to the same degree, in government. Certainly you've heard the term "other people's money".
's ok. I've done that. There should be a way to delete one's own postings.
I let the metaphor get away from me intentionally because I see it as part of an overall attitude. The administration would prefer to enrich a handful of self interested corporations at the expense of government workers and consumers. This attitude is typical, the same approach they take to regulations, health care, social safety net, etc.
The thing is, a federal entity being years into an upgrade that goes way over budget and over time and ultimately fails is also a way to enrich a handful of self interested corporations at the expense of government workers and consumers. And taxpayers. The methods aren't even that different.
Or maybe someone re-discovered that you can't outsource content creation without also losing control over the confidentiality of said content.
Good point, but we would presumably get two or three seasons that weren't lame, before the inevitable fall to mediocrity.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about air traffic control. I guess that's the problem with metaphors.
Or, like many government-backed and -funded projects, it'll never complete in its current form, under current management.