A sword that reacts strongly to water doesn't sound too useful as a sword. Depending on what the reaction is, of course. Bursting into flames would be interesting, although fleeting.
Excuse me if I'm not understanding this. I read earlier that some of the original Java engineers are forking Java from a pre-Oracle open source distribution. Can a completely unencumbered distribution be created from that, to which the Java community could rally?
If you mandate that people change their passwords often, they will use weak passwords or write them down. The shorter the cycle, the more likely this happens.
> As consumers we want products we can afford that will do what we want for a reasonable amount of time. Because many costs are externalized, and credit is often expensive to the average person, it is usually the case that it is not affordable to buy a long term product.
Yes yes yes. The problem I have is this. I'm going to pick on Apple... just 'cause, but there are many other targets. The original iphone you bought in 2007 still works fine if you haven't physically abused it. Electronics don't wear out that fast. If you already had an iphone, there was no compelling reason to buy a 3G in 2008 and a 3GS in 2009 and a 4 in 2010. Yet people do this, waiting in line each time.
Again, it's not the iphone -- I know people who get a new Blackberry once a year. I'm sure that'll be true with Android phones also. And cameras -- a photographer friend of mine buys each new model of his particular camera as soon as it comes out to "keep up on technology". I consider myself a decent amateur, and have purchased three camera bodies total in the last 30 years. But I tend to buy expensive pro bodies and keep them for a long time.
Now, if your car or your washing machine or your phone actually wears out, (or your camera doesn't click) and it's something you really need, you have to fix it (if possible) or replace it. I also understand how the Economics of Quality work -- that rich people often end up paying less over time because they buy higher quality merchandise that lasts longer, whereas less rich people buy lower quality merchandise that lasts significantly less long. (Parenthetically, I'm far from rich, but I try to buy high quality things and keep them for a long time. The cost of credit is a factor, but there is little cost to saving up for it, except of course the loss of immediate gratification.) (Also parenthetically, price is not always an indication of quality. It can also be an indication of mere trendiness, which means you get high prices *and* low quality.)
I'm not talking about that. (although I'd like to sometime) I'm talking about dumping electronic devices not because they've worn out but because the next wizzy thing has come along.
Yeah, what's up with that? It's as if the naked scanner contractor won the bid over the bomb sniffing contractor. Or some senator had stock in naked scanning. Or in Dutch publishing companies.
I should also say, upgrades that can be done in software ought not to require a hardware swap. For instance, you shouldn't have to buy a new device in order to get a new app or an app upgrade that doesn't need new hardware.
I'm not saying we should whine until we get our way, I'm saying we should vote with our feet.
Is there something specific to printer cartridges that make it easier to hide bombs in them than any other object of approximately the same size? Or is this just another mindless reaction?
I hit submit too soon. I wanted to conclude with: As consumers, we need to be less affected by hype and spend more thought on what our actual requirements are and what they might be over the projected life of a device. We really need to lengthen the upgrade cycle, and companies need to get used to the fact that if they're going to come out with tiny incremental improvements every year, we'll only be buying their devices every fourth or fifth year.
...is a new paradigm, one not based on commodity electronic devices that you throw away when they cease working or upgrade bi-yearly to the next semi-greatest thing. Besides being extremely ecologically unfriendly, it's a scam participated on the consumer designed to maximize profits. (The consumer is as much at fault for falling for it, but that doesn't make it less a scam.)
As responsible consumers, we should be looking at devices designed to last significantly past the next design cycle, that are designed to have (at least) the parts replaced that are most likely to fail (screens, drives, batteries), and that meet our current needs, not just elevate our "cool". And then keep them for a long time.
Manufacturers will resist this because they've built their business model on regular forklift upgrades. They'd have to be different companies to evolve beyond this. Probably smaller companies.
eWaste eRecycling is not the answer. It mitigates the problem but does not solve it. Tossing your old device in a recycle bin is not an excuse to replace it at every incremental improvement.
This is like having to defend porn in order to stand for free speech. It's the right fight but you need a shower afterwards. Listen, I'd like to see Balmer lose copious amounts of money as much as anyone else, maybe more than some, but that bill would have created way too much collateral damage to regular people in Washington had it passed. It's like taking a hammer to a fly on your nose.
Agreed. My point was, in today's over-connected society, you can't make remarks in Mumbai and not expect them to show up on Youtube and Drudge. And, in a couple years, in your opposing candidate's ad spots.
We shouldn't be surprised at the level of expertise we see from the outsourcing companies. It's built into the business paradigm. The objective of the outsourcing company is to make money, and they do that by "right sizing" both the numbers and the salary level of the workforce assigned to you.
Added to this the very important factor that you can't easily insource after you've pulled the ripcord, and the outsourcing company is very aware of this.
So if you're not a top tier company, you get farmers and street sweepers to start with, then the outsourcing company grudgingly gears up to the point where you still don't have anywhere near what was promised but you have enough to keep the company alive.
If you are a top tier company, you may get the outsourcing company's "A" team initially, which they will gradually "right size" until you can just barely keep the company alive.
The outcome is the same -- $$Profit$$ for the outsourcing company at the expense of being able to do business.
You're promised "best of breed" and you get farmers. It's not just that outsourcing takes away jobs in the US, it also takes away expertise from the company. The Mark first demands the level of performance he was promised, and eventually settles for a level of performance that just barely keeps his business alive. Because the alternative, insourcing, is frightfully expensive and would almost certainly cause the sudden "seeking of new challenges" amongst the higher-ups who made the outsourcing decision in the first place. A CIO faced with that kind of decision will tend to ride it out and hope the company survives.
Meanwhile, the people who had the expertise to do the job are on their eighth month of unemployment, or they've been hired by a competitor who decided not to make the same mistake you did.
The outsourcing company has some easy wins if they have any expertise at all. Suggestions made for years internally and rejected, suddenly become shiny and desirable when made by outsiders. But in my experience this doesn't outweigh the sheer incompetence of most of the workforce. You try to make it work because you have to, but trying to deal with *NIX "best of breed"s who don't know how to use "su" to acquire root access is hard to take.
I understand that given his audience he had to say that, but I suspect soundbites will come back to haunt him later. Even were it true (which I tend to doubt) that outsourcing is balanced by some kind of equal trade from India that create jobs here, (I'd like to see some specifics on that) there's one heck of a lot of unemployed IT professionals who might disagree that their standard of living has been raised.
Slashdot Mirror
A sword that reacts strongly to water doesn't sound too useful as a sword. Depending on what the reaction is, of course. Bursting into flames would be interesting, although fleeting.
Exactly!
The guy's nuts. Apple is more like number 4. 3 tops.
Everyone download the latest Fedora.
Isn't .NET confined to the Windows platform?
Excuse me if I'm not understanding this. I read earlier that some of the original Java engineers are forking Java from a pre-Oracle open source distribution. Can a completely unencumbered distribution be created from that, to which the Java community could rally?
If you mandate that people change their passwords often, they will use weak passwords or write them down. The shorter the cycle, the more likely this happens.
Only less believable.
> As consumers we want products we can afford that will do what we want for a reasonable amount of time. Because many costs are externalized, and credit is often expensive to the average person, it is usually the case that it is not affordable to buy a long term product.
Yes yes yes. The problem I have is this. I'm going to pick on Apple... just 'cause, but there are many other targets. The original iphone you bought in 2007 still works fine if you haven't physically abused it. Electronics don't wear out that fast. If you already had an iphone, there was no compelling reason to buy a 3G in 2008 and a 3GS in 2009 and a 4 in 2010. Yet people do this, waiting in line each time.
Again, it's not the iphone -- I know people who get a new Blackberry once a year. I'm sure that'll be true with Android phones also. And cameras -- a photographer friend of mine buys each new model of his particular camera as soon as it comes out to "keep up on technology". I consider myself a decent amateur, and have purchased three camera bodies total in the last 30 years. But I tend to buy expensive pro bodies and keep them for a long time.
Now, if your car or your washing machine or your phone actually wears out, (or your camera doesn't click) and it's something you really need, you have to fix it (if possible) or replace it. I also understand how the Economics of Quality work -- that rich people often end up paying less over time because they buy higher quality merchandise that lasts longer, whereas less rich people buy lower quality merchandise that lasts significantly less long. (Parenthetically, I'm far from rich, but I try to buy high quality things and keep them for a long time. The cost of credit is a factor, but there is little cost to saving up for it, except of course the loss of immediate gratification.) (Also parenthetically, price is not always an indication of quality. It can also be an indication of mere trendiness, which means you get high prices *and* low quality.)
I'm not talking about that. (although I'd like to sometime) I'm talking about dumping electronic devices not because they've worn out but because the next wizzy thing has come along.
Yeah, what's up with that? It's as if the naked scanner contractor won the bid over the bomb sniffing contractor. Or some senator had stock in naked scanning. Or in Dutch publishing companies.
I should also say, upgrades that can be done in software ought not to require a hardware swap. For instance, you shouldn't have to buy a new device in order to get a new app or an app upgrade that doesn't need new hardware.
I'm not saying we should whine until we get our way, I'm saying we should vote with our feet.
Thanks. That's really scary.
I'd submit that geeks are the worst abusers of the device-of-the-month club. It should start with us.
Is there something specific to printer cartridges that make it easier to hide bombs in them than any other object of approximately the same size? Or is this just another mindless reaction?
I hit submit too soon. I wanted to conclude with: As consumers, we need to be less affected by hype and spend more thought on what our actual requirements are and what they might be over the projected life of a device. We really need to lengthen the upgrade cycle, and companies need to get used to the fact that if they're going to come out with tiny incremental improvements every year, we'll only be buying their devices every fourth or fifth year.
As responsible consumers, we should be looking at devices designed to last significantly past the next design cycle, that are designed to have (at least) the parts replaced that are most likely to fail (screens, drives, batteries), and that meet our current needs, not just elevate our "cool". And then keep them for a long time.
Manufacturers will resist this because they've built their business model on regular forklift upgrades. They'd have to be different companies to evolve beyond this. Probably smaller companies.
eWaste eRecycling is not the answer. It mitigates the problem but does not solve it. Tossing your old device in a recycle bin is not an excuse to replace it at every incremental improvement.
Drill 'em out.
That's .054% of the fuel the US uses in a year, but I guess it's a start.
Steroids. There's science in that. I think.
This is like having to defend porn in order to stand for free speech. It's the right fight but you need a shower afterwards. Listen, I'd like to see Balmer lose copious amounts of money as much as anyone else, maybe more than some, but that bill would have created way too much collateral damage to regular people in Washington had it passed. It's like taking a hammer to a fly on your nose.
That's why the primary is often more important than the general election.
Agreed. My point was, in today's over-connected society, you can't make remarks in Mumbai and not expect them to show up on Youtube and Drudge. And, in a couple years, in your opposing candidate's ad spots.
We shouldn't be surprised at the level of expertise we see from the outsourcing companies. It's built into the business paradigm. The objective of the outsourcing company is to make money, and they do that by "right sizing" both the numbers and the salary level of the workforce assigned to you.
Added to this the very important factor that you can't easily insource after you've pulled the ripcord, and the outsourcing company is very aware of this.
So if you're not a top tier company, you get farmers and street sweepers to start with, then the outsourcing company grudgingly gears up to the point where you still don't have anywhere near what was promised but you have enough to keep the company alive.
If you are a top tier company, you may get the outsourcing company's "A" team initially, which they will gradually "right size" until you can just barely keep the company alive.
The outcome is the same -- $$Profit$$ for the outsourcing company at the expense of being able to do business.
You're promised "best of breed" and you get farmers. It's not just that outsourcing takes away jobs in the US, it also takes away expertise from the company. The Mark first demands the level of performance he was promised, and eventually settles for a level of performance that just barely keeps his business alive. Because the alternative, insourcing, is frightfully expensive and would almost certainly cause the sudden "seeking of new challenges" amongst the higher-ups who made the outsourcing decision in the first place. A CIO faced with that kind of decision will tend to ride it out and hope the company survives.
Meanwhile, the people who had the expertise to do the job are on their eighth month of unemployment, or they've been hired by a competitor who decided not to make the same mistake you did.
The outsourcing company has some easy wins if they have any expertise at all. Suggestions made for years internally and rejected, suddenly become shiny and desirable when made by outsiders. But in my experience this doesn't outweigh the sheer incompetence of most of the workforce. You try to make it work because you have to, but trying to deal with *NIX "best of breed"s who don't know how to use "su" to acquire root access is hard to take.
I understand that given his audience he had to say that, but I suspect soundbites will come back to haunt him later. Even were it true (which I tend to doubt) that outsourcing is balanced by some kind of equal trade from India that create jobs here, (I'd like to see some specifics on that) there's one heck of a lot of unemployed IT professionals who might disagree that their standard of living has been raised.