(At least in the US we wait until after a president is out of office or dead before we name public places for him, e.g. Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Not in Georgia. We have numerous highways, bridges and state roads named after SEATED members of the state board of transportation.
all the web pages were grey, the few image files to be found were all GIFs (and all HUGE), and there were no such things as scrolling marquees, banner ads, popup windows, and "you must provide an e-mail address to log into this site"?
While the interview does read a bit like an ambush, I got to admit it really pissed me off. For Mr. Gates to actually say " Luddites don't know how to use software properly" is just plain offensive to the point of absurdity.
Microsoft makes billions by designing software that doesn't require a degree in computer engineering to use. Their approach has always been one of "let's keep as much of this technical stuff out of the user's face as possible" (Hell, even the included "manuals" for Win9x and Win2K barely break 100 pages and most of that content is marketspeak along the lines of "What else do yuou want to do today"!), and the end result has been their near total dominance of the software market.
This approach has always been, and will probably continue to be their strongest marketing tactic. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Mr. Gates is beginning to learn that, as the complexity of the software increases, so does the need for some form of proper user education. Unfortunately, he does not seem to realize that he may himself be partly responsible for the absence of education that he decries.
Maybe a better question for Mr. Gates whould be: If you honestly think that "Luddites" don't know how to use software porperly, then why oh why are you working so hard to keep them in the dark?
"Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to "appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean." and...
"tech folk "would need both technical and interpersonal skills."
Over and over I hear end users whining about how difficult it is to understand computers, when the apparent total extent of their computer knowledge revolves around the top four commands on the file menu. Try to show them something new (i.e., Copy/Paste), and you're rewarded with a lengthy lecture on how things used to be, and how much better it was when ignorance was bliss. While that may have once been true, the age of Internet-everything demands at least some form of end user intellectual responsibility, or something or someone gets seriously hosed.
And it's not as if this stuff is difficult. The last time I looked, ALL of the computer manuals and help files in my office were written in bloody ENGLISH! What, in the name of Christ, is so difficult about reading?!?
I think its high time end users changed their attitudes and took a few steps towards learning how to deal with technical staff.
Geeks are continually being fed lines similar to those above at just about every stage of their careers, yet there is very little being said to end users about their attitudes to "techies". Part of the problem, as I see it, is that most end users are unwilling to take on any extra knowledge that doesn't directly apply to their defined job function. As a result, anything a "techie" offers in the way of improvement is viewed with either outright distrust, or cagey cynicism.
For many, it is far easier to marginalize technical staff ("Oh look, the techie's talking again. Isn't he cute?") than to make an attempt to approach them at a personal level ("Hey Bob, can you explain to me why a DDoS attack is a 'bad thing'?). Geeks, on the other hand, are constantly reduced to deconstructing just about every aspect of a computer's functionality down to terms that border on Seuss-ian simplicity. What the end users seem to be unwilling to grasp is the fact that, ultimately, there is really only so much dumbing down a geek can do. New technology requires a new vocabulary.
BTW. In the field where I work, "techies" are referred to as "Computer Responsible Persons" or "CRPs" for short. Anyone care to venture a guess on how THAT acronym gets pronounced?
This BSA business has been going on for awhile now, and is apparently proving very profitable to the BSA's member's. Here's a article from eWeek article that explains the tactics in a bit more detail.
Possibly the most misleading and offensive part of this whole mess is the active solicitation by the BSA of "disgruntled" employees willing to rat out their employers. What is hardly mentioned is that, should the BSA claim to have evidence provided by such a source, they must first prove the validity of that source before any legal warrant can be issued. No law enforcement agency will raid a business, big or small, on the uncorroborated word of a suspect source (although, with Ashcroft, you never know). As a few of the posts above have noted, there have already been instances where companies have ratted out rivals in an apparent attempt to gain an business edge from the disruption (Sometimes, you have just gotta love capitalism). If this is in fact happening, I imagine the risks of retaliatory lawsuits by the victimized is sky high, and I'll be willing to bet the dollar amounts awarded to folks unjustly accused will far outweigh any gains the BSA would have made on a few unlicensed copies of Win98.
Then, there's the extra expense of litigation. Whether necessary or not, businesses forced to litigate against the BSA will have no choice but to raise prices to cover the costs of both the case itself an the inevitable increase in insurance rates. Members of the BSA will also be faced with increases in legal spending, and this in turn will only serve to raise prices for their products. How can this be good for anyone?
The thing that really burns me is that, by operating on the assumption that the mere threat of an audit is often enough to make smaller companies roll over on command, the BSA membership demonstrates a callous disregard for their customer base, and an apparent gleeful willingness to offend just about anyone as long as they get the cash. If this is their idea of an acceptable new business model, we are in deep trouble in the days/years to come - UCITA or not.
Funny how the Republican "party" (which, let's face it, is not really a "party" now, is it?) preaches the gospel of small government and State's rights, but seems to be smitten with the idea of universal "observation" at the Federal level. It must be either REALLY boring in Washington these days, or, the firewalls are getting too efficient at blocking access to pr0n and E-Bay. Maybe this is their way of getting it back . . .
I'm beginning to feel that the Federal government is starting to consider itself more of a marketing agency, than a political entity. After all, with both this AND the Poindexter database, imagine the money that could be made in a budget pinch on re-selling some of the info.
. ..are a pretty good series to get one introduced to the nitty gritty parts of Linux administration that are often glossed over in some of the "beginners" books.
My single biggest complaint about learning Linux was it was extraordinarily difficult to get at the "why" of things rather than the "how". Telling a user to download Apache and type "make install" may get that user a web server, but it doesn't really teach him how it works. Too often, I've found that starter books take the "you just need to do this" approach without offering clear and precise reasons why. Usually, it only after consulting a slew of man pages, alternate books, and mailing list posts that most can finally be able to get a glimpse at the deeper connections and dependencies between the software and the OS.
What I like about this series is that it complements the man pages and the O'Reilly/Unleashed books by providing practical advice on basic system security, while also teaching the reader how to construct a system from the ground up in a manner that shows them how and why the different programs work with one another.
Slashdot Mirror
(At least in the US we wait until after a president is out of office or dead before we name public places for him, e.g. Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Not in Georgia. We have numerous highways, bridges and state roads named after SEATED members of the state board of transportation.
all the web pages were grey, the few image files to be found were all GIFs (and all HUGE), and there were no such things as scrolling marquees, banner ads, popup windows, and "you must provide an e-mail address to log into this site"?
"Cached Exchange" mode maintains a local replica of the mailbox and Favorites folders automatically, adjusting data retrieval to bandwidth
50-70% reduction in network traffic when running against Exchange "Titanium" with "cached Exchange" mode
Support for RPC over HTTP when running against Exchange "Titanium," eliminating the need for VPNs
Increase in maximum size of PST/OST files to a theoretical 33TB; administrator can control size with a policy
Status indicators -- in minutes and megabytes -- for downloads from Exchange
Now maybe its just me, but this looks as if MS is continuing to tailor their software to be fully optimized only for their architecture.
Isn't this what got them into trouble with the anti-monopolists?
While the interview does read a bit like an ambush, I got to admit it really pissed me off. For Mr. Gates to actually say " Luddites don't know how to use software properly" is just plain offensive to the point of absurdity.
Microsoft makes billions by designing software that doesn't require a degree in computer engineering to use. Their approach has always been one of "let's keep as much of this technical stuff out of the user's face as possible" (Hell, even the included "manuals" for Win9x and Win2K barely break 100 pages and most of that content is marketspeak along the lines of "What else do yuou want to do today"!), and the end result has been their near total dominance of the software market.
This approach has always been, and will probably continue to be their strongest marketing tactic. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Mr. Gates is beginning to learn that, as the complexity of the software increases, so does the need for some form of proper user education. Unfortunately, he does not seem to realize that he may himself be partly responsible for the absence of education that he decries.
Maybe a better question for Mr. Gates whould be: If you honestly think that "Luddites" don't know how to use software porperly, then why oh why are you working so hard to keep them in the dark?
Then again, I was a defensive lineman and used to stuff bullies into lockers . . .
qANQR1DBwU4DFRm5nWRHfUAQCACvS5Q/HAkmsluEsbKSFhwvo
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
No.
Thus speaketh the pundits:
"Techies, professors conclude, must act more like psychoanalysts; they must learn to "appreciate the difference between what people say and what they mean."
and...
"tech folk "would need both technical and interpersonal skills."
Over and over I hear end users whining about how difficult it is to understand computers, when the apparent total extent of their computer knowledge revolves around the top four commands on the file menu. Try to show them something new (i.e., Copy/Paste), and you're rewarded with a lengthy lecture on how things used to be, and how much better it was when ignorance was bliss. While that may have once been true, the age of Internet-everything demands at least some form of end user intellectual responsibility, or something or someone gets seriously hosed.
And it's not as if this stuff is difficult. The last time I looked, ALL of the computer manuals and help files in my office were written in bloody ENGLISH! What, in the name of Christ, is so difficult about reading?!?
I think its high time end users changed their attitudes and took a few steps towards learning how to deal with technical staff.
Geeks are continually being fed lines similar to those above at just about every stage of their careers, yet there is very little being said to end users about their attitudes to "techies". Part of the problem, as I see it, is that most end users are unwilling to take on any extra knowledge that doesn't directly apply to their defined job function. As a result, anything a "techie" offers in the way of improvement is viewed with either outright distrust, or cagey cynicism.
For many, it is far easier to marginalize technical staff ("Oh look, the techie's talking again. Isn't he cute?") than to make an attempt to approach them at a personal level ("Hey Bob, can you explain to me why a DDoS attack is a 'bad thing'?). Geeks, on the other hand, are constantly reduced to deconstructing just about every aspect of a computer's functionality down to terms that border on Seuss-ian simplicity. What the end users seem to be unwilling to grasp is the fact that, ultimately, there is really only so much dumbing down a geek can do. New technology requires a new vocabulary.
BTW. In the field where I work, "techies" are referred to as "Computer Responsible Persons" or "CRPs" for short. Anyone care to venture a guess on how THAT acronym gets pronounced?
This BSA business has been going on for awhile now, and is apparently proving very profitable to the BSA's member's. Here's a article from eWeek article that explains the tactics in a bit more detail.
Possibly the most misleading and offensive part of this whole mess is the active solicitation by the BSA of "disgruntled" employees willing to rat out their employers. What is hardly mentioned is that, should the BSA claim to have evidence provided by such a source, they must first prove the validity of that source before any legal warrant can be issued. No law enforcement agency will raid a business, big or small, on the uncorroborated word of a suspect source (although, with Ashcroft, you never know). As a few of the posts above have noted, there have already been instances where companies have ratted out rivals in an apparent attempt to gain an business edge from the disruption (Sometimes, you have just gotta love capitalism). If this is in fact happening, I imagine the risks of retaliatory lawsuits by the victimized is sky high, and I'll be willing to bet the dollar amounts awarded to folks unjustly accused will far outweigh any gains the BSA would have made on a few unlicensed copies of Win98.
Then, there's the extra expense of litigation. Whether necessary or not, businesses forced to litigate against the BSA will have no choice but to raise prices to cover the costs of both the case itself an the inevitable increase in insurance rates. Members of the BSA will also be faced with increases in legal spending, and this in turn will only serve to raise prices for their products. How can this be good for anyone?
The thing that really burns me is that, by operating on the assumption that the mere threat of an audit is often enough to make smaller companies roll over on command, the BSA membership demonstrates a callous disregard for their customer base, and an apparent gleeful willingness to offend just about anyone as long as they get the cash. If this is their idea of an acceptable new business model, we are in deep trouble in the days/years to come - UCITA or not.
. . . but maybe Microsoft thought those particular servers were still running BSD . . .
I'm beginning to feel that the Federal government is starting to consider itself more of a marketing agency, than a political entity. After all, with both this AND the Poindexter database, imagine the money that could be made in a budget pinch on re-selling some of the info.
. . .are a pretty good series to get one introduced to the nitty gritty parts of Linux administration that are often glossed over in some of the "beginners" books.
My single biggest complaint about learning Linux was it was extraordinarily difficult to get at the "why" of things rather than the "how". Telling a user to download Apache and type "make install" may get that user a web server, but it doesn't really teach him how it works. Too often, I've found that starter books take the "you just need to do this" approach without offering clear and precise reasons why. Usually, it only after consulting a slew of man pages, alternate books, and mailing list posts that most can finally be able to get a glimpse at the deeper connections and dependencies between the software and the OS.
What I like about this series is that it complements the man pages and the O'Reilly/Unleashed books by providing practical advice on basic system security, while also teaching the reader how to construct a system from the ground up in a manner that shows them how and why the different programs work with one another.
For the curious, here's a link:
http://www.openna.com/products/books/books.php