> As the trend goes to software being sold with nothing much besides the DVD we might very well just give people the jewel case and put an antitheft shell around it. And then we use bigger shells with the same locking mechanism for hardware. Bam, immediately training transfers between the music, software and hardware departments.
Exactly. And before anyone gets cute, we're not talking about putting an antitheft shell around a washer/dryer. This only applies for products which are perceived as a shoplifting risk -- small enough to more-or-less easily pocket.
The point is, packaging strategies exist that meet the needs of both a mail order company and a brick-and-mortar store which also have the happy side-effect of increasing consumer satisfaction, without the inventory nightmares of multi-packaging.
Taxes on wasteful packaging have little effect on the manufacturer because the cost is borne directly by the consumer, and as long as the consumer has no other packaging choices, the system never changes -- it just becomes more costly. This may make self-righteous people feel better about wasteful packaging, but the wasteful packaging continues.
So, how are manufacturers convinced to adopt more user-friendly packaging? This brings us full circle back to the original article.
>> So, you're saying that as consumers, we have to put up with annoying, wasteful packaging that we didn't ask for, which doesn't serve any direct purpose to us, and we should pay a tax on it to boot?
> Yes.
> Because then we don't buy the product as it's too expensive, which forces the manufacturer to cut those costs.
You voted for Obama, didn't you? Let's say I need a SD card for my camera. Every single brand comes in a blister pack, because of the perception that SD cards are too easy to steal and the stores can't get it together to find a different way to dispense them. (This is closer to what we're actually talking about. We can talk about milk delivery another time if you wish -- it's an interesting subject.) As a consumer, I detest this practice for its inconvenience and wastefulness. You're saying that nevertheless it's still my fault for having a need for a product that is only packaged in this fashion? And you're honestly suggesting that the manufacturer can be persuaded to change their packaging by a new tax on the consumer?
> Maybe then they should increase the price by putting a landfill tax on it.
So, you're saying that as consumers, we have to put up with annoying, wasteful packaging that we didn't ask for, which doesn't serve any direct purpose to us, and we should pay a tax on it to boot?
The odd thing is that even in situation where theft isn't an issue (like, behind the counter, or in a locked case) the products are still (often) clad in highly annoying, theft-proof, finger-slashing packaging.
In any case, the manufacturer could still use user-friendly packaging, and the stores (were it an issue) could use those reusable plastic lock-boxes you sometimes see software or videos in, which are cheap enough to buy in quantity but still need to be opened with a key at the register. One could make a case that this is even more secure than blister packaging (the anti-steal rfid is inside the locked box, instead of glued on the outside) and since the boxes are reused, much waste is eliminated.
That's it! That's exactly it. This has been boiling around in the back of my mind for some time -- the shift from passive watching-whatever-they-choose-to-show-me to a more aggressive approach -- if I'm going to sit and watch the damned thing, I'll watch what I want, when I want it, and with no damned commercials. Often I have a browser up on the big screen, watching streaming video that I have chosen to watch.
Breaking free of passive dependence on commercial TV is not easy at first, but the rewards are well worth it -- the quality of what you watch improves, you can watch a show in approximately 25% less time (sans commercials), and once you decide to cut out the dreck, you end up with a remarkable amount of free time for other activities. Who knows, you may even occasionally look up and notice the rest of the family.
Seriously, I wasn't aware that MTV still showed music videos. Last several times I tried to watch them -- admittedly a few years ago -- it was always some badly acted soap opera.
But given that they still do, why would anyone watch MTV when we can get music videos on demand from YouTube?
You might want to have a private word with an HR rep. Make it clear that it's private, and tell them that you've been asked to do something unethical and you're not sure how to proceed. In cases like this, a company will tend to err on the conservative side and put the skids on the project rather than take the chance on liability. That should solve the problem. How to do it without revealing you as the finger man might be difficult.
If you do have to walk, make sure you get some face time with an HR rep on your exit interview.
I'm sorry, these people are on crack. All cell phones do this to some extent. In my experience, Smartphones are worse, probably because they do more stuff. My daughter's Blackberry Curve is a particularly bad citizen. She can't wear it when she's on her computer without turning down the volume on the computer's speakers or putting the phone on the table across the room. My Treo is the same way to a slightly lesser extent.
If someone just discovered this phenomenon, and thinks it's limited to iphones, they're a moron. Yes, the iphone tends to stay connected. But so does any phone that's running push activesync or blackberry's push delivery, or running a jabber or messenger service in the background. This really looked like someone tried to manufacture a news item, but couldn't make anything out of what he dug up.
Caveat: I think the iphone is a brilliant gui running on a crappy phone, and when offered one for free (at work) I turned it down. But this is just silly.
> I thought the whole "Windows Server 2000" or "Office 2003" was a great marketing move. Look at the typical reaction: "Here I am in 2008, and I'm still using Visual Studio 2005 -- why haven't we upgraded to VS 2008 yet?"
I feel somewhat differently. I've been known to stop total strangers on the street and crow "I'm still using Office 2000! It works fine! There's no reason to upgrade! Hahahahahaha!".
Ok, maybe not, but seriously, there is some satisfaction in sticking with something that works and resisting the temptation to buy upgrades which are just an excuse to build another wing on the mansion. I'm willing to stipulate that it might be different for development tools.
IANAL, but the idea with these kind of laws is usually to create a lesser charge that can be used as leverage to prevent a greater crime for occurring. In this case, a sex offender can be taken offline for having their email address on a kid's forum, without having to wait for them to start a relationship with a minor. It's important to be very cautious about these kinds of laws, but in this case, I have to cautiously agree.
This is right up there with GPS controls that can not be operated while the car is moving. In the name of "safety" (read: liability) we have to assume that every driver is alone in the vehicle and doesn't have a brain in his or her head.
...ok, admittedly that's true in a lot of cases. But still.
A lot more important than the name, is what kind of godawful hardware is it going to take to run it?
We already know from the Vista experience that "Windows 7 ready" isn't going to mean anything, and that "minimum requirements" mean "yes, it'll boot". I own five PCs (not including the mac) and not one of them is fast enough to run Vista acceptably, not even my media center. I despair of ever catching up.
...which leads to another question -- eventually the chip manufacturers will reach some kind of performance limit as to what can reasonably be sold in a consumer PC. What happens when the requirements for a reasonable Windows experience surpasses what the market can reasonably provide (or the consumer can reasonably afford)?
Something else to natter at me. Does Microsoft realize that, when we were talking about new popups that Windows could defecate onto the screen, we were just kidding?
Slashdot Mirror
> As the trend goes to software being sold with nothing much besides the DVD we might very well just give people the jewel case and put an antitheft shell around it. And then we use bigger shells with the same locking mechanism for hardware. Bam, immediately training transfers between the music, software and hardware departments.
Exactly. And before anyone gets cute, we're not talking about putting an antitheft shell around a washer/dryer. This only applies for products which are perceived as a shoplifting risk -- small enough to more-or-less easily pocket.
The point is, packaging strategies exist that meet the needs of both a mail order company and a brick-and-mortar store which also have the happy side-effect of increasing consumer satisfaction, without the inventory nightmares of multi-packaging.
Taxes on wasteful packaging have little effect on the manufacturer because the cost is borne directly by the consumer, and as long as the consumer has no other packaging choices, the system never changes -- it just becomes more costly. This may make self-righteous people feel better about wasteful packaging, but the wasteful packaging continues.
So, how are manufacturers convinced to adopt more user-friendly packaging? This brings us full circle back to the original article.
>> So, you're saying that as consumers, we have to put up with annoying, wasteful packaging that we didn't ask for, which doesn't serve any direct purpose to us, and we should pay a tax on it to boot?
> Yes. > Because then we don't buy the product as it's too expensive, which forces the manufacturer to cut those costs.
You voted for Obama, didn't you? Let's say I need a SD card for my camera. Every single brand comes in a blister pack, because of the perception that SD cards are too easy to steal and the stores can't get it together to find a different way to dispense them. (This is closer to what we're actually talking about. We can talk about milk delivery another time if you wish -- it's an interesting subject.) As a consumer, I detest this practice for its inconvenience and wastefulness. You're saying that nevertheless it's still my fault for having a need for a product that is only packaged in this fashion? And you're honestly suggesting that the manufacturer can be persuaded to change their packaging by a new tax on the consumer?
> Maybe then they should increase the price by putting a landfill tax on it.
So, you're saying that as consumers, we have to put up with annoying, wasteful packaging that we didn't ask for, which doesn't serve any direct purpose to us, and we should pay a tax on it to boot?
The odd thing is that even in situation where theft isn't an issue (like, behind the counter, or in a locked case) the products are still (often) clad in highly annoying, theft-proof, finger-slashing packaging.
In any case, the manufacturer could still use user-friendly packaging, and the stores (were it an issue) could use those reusable plastic lock-boxes you sometimes see software or videos in, which are cheap enough to buy in quantity but still need to be opened with a key at the register. One could make a case that this is even more secure than blister packaging (the anti-steal rfid is inside the locked box, instead of glued on the outside) and since the boxes are reused, much waste is eliminated.
> I just can't sit down and "watch TV" anymore.
That's it! That's exactly it. This has been boiling around in the back of my mind for some time -- the shift from passive watching-whatever-they-choose-to-show-me to a more aggressive approach -- if I'm going to sit and watch the damned thing, I'll watch what I want, when I want it, and with no damned commercials. Often I have a browser up on the big screen, watching streaming video that I have chosen to watch.
Breaking free of passive dependence on commercial TV is not easy at first, but the rewards are well worth it -- the quality of what you watch improves, you can watch a show in approximately 25% less time (sans commercials), and once you decide to cut out the dreck, you end up with a remarkable amount of free time for other activities. Who knows, you may even occasionally look up and notice the rest of the family.
Seriously, I wasn't aware that MTV still showed music videos. Last several times I tried to watch them -- admittedly a few years ago -- it was always some badly acted soap opera.
But given that they still do, why would anyone watch MTV when we can get music videos on demand from YouTube?
You might want to have a private word with an HR rep. Make it clear that it's private, and tell them that you've been asked to do something unethical and you're not sure how to proceed. In cases like this, a company will tend to err on the conservative side and put the skids on the project rather than take the chance on liability. That should solve the problem. How to do it without revealing you as the finger man might be difficult.
If you do have to walk, make sure you get some face time with an HR rep on your exit interview.
Good luck.
I'm sorry, these people are on crack. All cell phones do this to some extent. In my experience, Smartphones are worse, probably because they do more stuff. My daughter's Blackberry Curve is a particularly bad citizen. She can't wear it when she's on her computer without turning down the volume on the computer's speakers or putting the phone on the table across the room. My Treo is the same way to a slightly lesser extent.
If someone just discovered this phenomenon, and thinks it's limited to iphones, they're a moron. Yes, the iphone tends to stay connected. But so does any phone that's running push activesync or blackberry's push delivery, or running a jabber or messenger service in the background. This really looked like someone tried to manufacture a news item, but couldn't make anything out of what he dug up.
Caveat: I think the iphone is a brilliant gui running on a crappy phone, and when offered one for free (at work) I turned it down. But this is just silly.
> I thought the whole "Windows Server 2000" or "Office 2003" was a great marketing move. Look at the typical reaction: "Here I am in 2008, and I'm still using Visual Studio 2005 -- why haven't we upgraded to VS 2008 yet?"
I feel somewhat differently. I've been known to stop total strangers on the street and crow "I'm still using Office 2000! It works fine! There's no reason to upgrade! Hahahahahaha!".
Ok, maybe not, but seriously, there is some satisfaction in sticking with something that works and resisting the temptation to buy upgrades which are just an excuse to build another wing on the mansion. I'm willing to stipulate that it might be different for development tools.
IANAL, but the idea with these kind of laws is usually to create a lesser charge that can be used as leverage to prevent a greater crime for occurring. In this case, a sex offender can be taken offline for having their email address on a kid's forum, without having to wait for them to start a relationship with a minor. It's important to be very cautious about these kinds of laws, but in this case, I have to cautiously agree.
Stpid wieless keybard kees droppng charaters
This is right up there with GPS controls that can not be operated while the car is moving. In the name of "safety" (read: liability) we have to assume that every driver is alone in the vehicle and doesn't have a brain in his or her head.
"One of the 2%"
A lot more important than the name, is what kind of godawful hardware is it going to take to run it?
We already know from the Vista experience that "Windows 7 ready" isn't going to mean anything, and that "minimum requirements" mean "yes, it'll boot". I own five PCs (not including the mac) and not one of them is fast enough to run Vista acceptably, not even my media center. I despair of ever catching up.
Especially during an economic downturn...
Something else to natter at me. Does Microsoft realize that, when we were talking about new popups that Windows could defecate onto the screen, we were just kidding?
Will the client side work (well) on a variety of platforms?
What are the back-end requirements? Do they lock you into a particular vendor, architecture, OS?
Is there support for handheld devices? For a variety of operating systems? On cheap phones or only (expensive) smart phones?
Support is important, but the relative need for support is also important. What have user's experiences been for these products?
Give it another year.
Does it matter?
That dock thingy on the left side of my taskbar is now illegal?
The little one is followed by a great big one. Panic!
> Congress will ban it as the 2-D left-right paradigm suits their purposes quite well.
Libertarian?
> And if they got it in 3D... It'd be just like you're there!
But why would you want to be?
All it needs is nuclear power and a cool shape...