Years ago when I worked at the same electronics retailer (whose name rhymes with *RADIO SHACK*) It wasn't approved by upper management-- wait, are the Regional and District managers considered "upper" ???-- but the manager at my store (and the District Manager and the Regional Manager) used to tell the employees to add the extended warranties AND the two-or-three boxes of extra floppies AND the modem AND the printer AND the paper AND anything else we could think of on the customer's bill without telling them. They said to do that and if the customer complained to take it off.
They held regular meetings at the District HQ to teach us all sorts of methods to make the sleazy, easy.
Touchscreen computing COULD be viable but not with the present day methodologies. One of the problems with the traditional desktop PC motif is it only has one (sometimes two, maybe three) DISPLAY screens. I emphasize the word "Display" because that's what they do and are designed to do-- display stuff. That seems obvious to be sure, but my point is that it is NOT designed for TOUCHING. Even if a "touch screen" is bolted onto the front of the thing, it is still not DESIGNED for touching in the same way the display is designed for DISPLAYING. Rather it is a display with a touchable surface that can be used as an auxillary input. Sometimes the required application is such that a touchscreen is sufficient, but most times it is not. What is needed is a touchable surface that is designed for TOUCHING. So this sounds like a lot of back and forth, what would constitute a suitable "touchable" motif? How about a computer system that has both displays for DISPLAYING _and_ surfaces for TOUCHING? While the primary displays COULD also be touchable, and thus used as _auxillary_ input, a better method would be (IMO) to have one or more purpose-driven touchable surfaces (touchscreens) just for touching. Display buttons or whatever on the thing and ONLY use it for touching. The principle display(s) continue to be used as displays. This is a similar idea as that nifty russian keyboard where each key can be individually controlled to display an image. That keyboard, in a way, is closer to being a "touch-able" computer (IMO) than the typical "touch-screen" computer of today is. Peripherals are developed all the time. Most of them fall away as cumbersome, not really all that usable, clunky, poorly-designed, costly, etc. Only the ones that manage to provide some unique functionality, are well-designed (both functionally and user-interface-wise), and are able to be cheaply manufactured are the ones that tend to stick around. Sure there are specialty devices for certain vertical applications, but for the mainstream, the mouse and keyboard have evolved to be the thing for the most part. Surely there's room for additional devices, but they have to offer a clear advantage to everyday people in everyday situations before they are likely to be adopted and spread widely. I don't think "touch-screen" computing, in its presently designed/defined form is quite it. Even if monitors are redesigned to include the "touchscreen" interface and included gratis in every implementation, I don't think that would quite do it-- although I'm sure it would raise the awareness for the device and increase the number of applications that are "touch-ready". But (IMO), the true touchscreen breakthrough will occur when the monitor (which may ALSO have a touchable display surface) gets _additional_ touch surfaces that are dedicated to "touching" (touch-pads).
How do they hope to use this in the wild where you WILL probably be smiling... especially if you're getting away with something (or think you are)...???
So why didn't Bush & Cheney use that as the excuse for their stupid war? Look, Saddaam Hussein is using his Navy to retrieve a 40-year old lost weapon of mass destruction.
Just start smoking and get your ten minutes of overtime too.
(Of course there is another way to look at it-- those 10 minutes are more like charity for people who are drastically reducing their lifespans by smoking...)
Sure they would. The tobacco company isn't THAT bad. I'm sure they'd piss on a fellow smoker if they were smoking their brand, was willing to sign an affidavit that they'd BEEN smoking that brand for 20 years or more, and could produce the STATE STAMPS from 50 or more packs of their brand of cigarettes as token proof.
Alternately, I'm sure they'd be willing to piss on just about anyone for a small fee. (A little more if you wanted it done in private.)
In a perverse twist, the former "General Consulate" of Nigeria received the following letter:
From: Steve Anthony Ballmer
Microsoft Building
Redmond Washington USA
RE: Business Proposal: Transfer of USD $400,000 (Four Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) immediate business investments partnership.
Dear Honorable Sir:
Good day to you.
You were introduced to us in confidence through the Chamber of Commerce, Foreign Trade Section. The reason for this letter is that your help is being sought in order to facilitate and successfully complete a profitable venture that is of immense benefit to you, and us the originators within a stipulated time frame.
I am Steve Anthony Ballmer, Chief Executive Officer with Microsoft, Inc., a United States computer software manufacturer. This profitable venture involves the sum of USD $400,000 (Four Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) which is presently being held in an account at the New York office of the Federal Reserve Bank. We need your help as a foreigner to help transfer this sum to the Apex Bank, the Central Bank in Nigeria. We cannot make this transfer on our own or in our names for the fact that we are presently under scrutiny by the United States Justice Department. But you as a foreigner can assist us in the sense that the money to be transferred will be paid to you as a contract entitlement for a purported contract executed for my government. The money in question is ready for transfer into an overseas Nigerian account which we expect you to provide.
We have agreed that the money will be shared according to the ratio stated below:
a) 20% of the money will go to you for acting as the beneficiary of the fund.
b) 70% to Nigerian originators (which if possible we may enter into a partnership with you)
c) 10% for any expenses that both parties may incur in the course of this transaction
We will require from you:
a) Name and address of Company or Beneficiary.
b) Details of the account which you are the only signatory that the money will be transferred into.
The above requirements is to legalize the claim for payment and transfer of the money to your account. Be informed that the reason we are sending you this letter is because we know that the only way to succeed is to seek the help of a foreigner. Your professional status is not a matter of hindrance in this transaction. Please, your assistance is highly solicited. We have no Request for assistance received from a total stranger who insists on the recipient's instrumental role in the transaction.doubts at aIl that this money will be released and transferred if we get the necessary foreign partner to assist us in this deal.
Therefore, when the business is successfully concluded we shall through the same connections withdraw all documents used from all the concerned government ministries for 100% security. All expenses regarding the opening of an account if not already in existence shall be borne by you, all expensesThe sender specifies and insists that the transaction is perfectly safe (no risk involved). are however reimbursable on the conclusion of this business transaction. It is of high hope that you will consider this humble request and respond positively.
If you are still in doubt after the receipt of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact and ask any question(s) that may hinder your decision on this matter. If in the alternative you are indisposed, please an acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter will be appreciated stating such. For more details on this transaction, you can call me on my telephone number 1+ 425 706 8448. The telephone line be busy, please keep on trying till you get through.
While awaiting your early response, thank you in anticipation of your most valued assistance.
We've already proven that intelligence, reading, literacy, comprehension, competency, et al are not requirements for high office. Why bother with them for any lower office either? And let us all remind ourselves of Sam Clemens (Mark Twain's) gentle attempt to revise the art of spelling and grammar:
I have had a kindly feeling, a friendly feeling, a cousinly feeling toward Simplified Spelling, from the beginning of the movement three years ago, but nothing more inflamed than that.
It seemed to me to merely propose to substitute one inadequacy for another; a sort of patching and plugging poor old dental relics with cement and gold and porcelain paste; what was really needed was a new set of teeth. That is to say, a new ALPHABET.
The heart of our trouble is with our foolish alphabet. It doesn't know how to spell, and can't be taught. In this it is like all other alphabets except one--the phonographic. This is the only competent alphabet in the world. It can spell and correctly pronounce any word in our language.
That admirable alphabet, that brilliant alphabet, that inspired alphabet, can be learned in an hour or two. In a week the student can learn to write it with some little facility, and to read it with considerable ease. I know, for I saw it tried in a public school in Nevada forty-five years ago, and was so impressed by the incident that it has remained in my memory ever since.
I wish we could adopt it in place of our present written (and printed) character. I mean SIMPLY the alphabet; simply the consonants and the vowels--I don't mean any REDUCTIONS or abbreviations of them, such as the shorthand writer uses in order to get compression and speed. No, I would SPELL EVERY WORD OUT.
I will insert the alphabet here as I find it in Burnz's PHONIC SHORTHAND. [Figure 1] It is arranged on the basis of Isaac Pitman's PHONOGRAPHY. Isaac Pitman was the originator and father of scientific phonography. It is used throughout the globe. It was a memorable invention. He made it public seventy-three years ago. The firm of Isaac Pitman & Sons, New York, still exists, and they continue the master's work.
What should we gain?
First of all, we could spell DEFINITELY--and correctly--any word you please, just by the SOUND of it. We can't do that with our present alphabet. For instance, take a simple, every-day word PHTHISIS. If we tried to spell it by the sound of it, we should make it TYSIS, and be laughed at by every educated person.
Secondly, we should gain in REDUCTION OF LABOR in writing.
Simplified Spelling makes valuable reductions in the case of several hundred words, but the new spelling must be LEARNED. You can't spell them by the sound; you must get them out of the book.
But even if we knew the simplified form for every word in the language, the phonographic alphabet would still beat the Simplified Speller "hands down" in the important matter of economy of labor. I will illustrate:
PRESENT FORM: through, laugh, highland.
SIMPLIFIED FORM: thru, laff, hyland.
PHONOGRAPHIC FORM: [Figure 2]
To write the word "through," the pen has to make twenty-one strokes.
To write the word "thru," then pen has to make twelve strokes-- a good saving.
To write that same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "laugh," the pen has to make FOURTEEN strokes.
To write "laff," the pen has to make the SAME NUMBER of strokes--no labor is saved to the penman.
To write the same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only THREE strokes.
To write the word "highland," the pen has to make twenty-two strokes.
To write "hyland," the pen has to make eighteen strokes.
To write that word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make only FIVE strokes. [Figure 3]
To write the words "phonographic alphabet," the pen has to make fifty-three strokes.
To write "fonografic alfabet," the pen has to make fifty strokes. To th
Pay 'em with DRM'd money. Put the bucks in a plastic bag with a EULA on the outside they can read that tells them under what conditions they can use the money you're sending in exchange for their DRM'd game.
When they receive enough DRM'd bucks they'll get the message.
In fact, I propose paying for all DRM'd media that way.
Fuck 'em. If they can do it to us, we can do it right back.
Hey bozo- he was fired for not giving up the passwords. Apparently the lack of documentation and whatnot didn't faze anybody and according to the articles was (is) standard practice there.
So, thanks for contributing to the conversation even though you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
True story-- my boss and I were interviewing a candidate for an applications developer position-- the interview was on a Friday afternoon and lasted for a couple of hours-- the candidate seemed really perfect-- probably mid-30's, poised, professional, well-spoken, good background & references (we checked her out), understood the duties and seemed capable/competent to carry them out-- we were really impressed-- we gave her an offer letter on the spot-- she said verbally she wanted to work for us-- she was supposed to get back to us the following Monday-- she didn't so my boss called her up to see what was up-- she was SLOSHED! Stinking drunk. My boss is a pretty laid-back individual so he talked to her awhile, had a good time chatting her up-- and truthfully, other than the obvious humor value, I don't think he was even counting it against her-- but it was the next day when she called him back sloshed again and started discussing his ancestry back to the caveman days that he decided he'd had enough of her and rescinded the offer. That was about five years ago and we've been shaking our heads over it ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
Years ago when I worked at the same electronics retailer (whose name rhymes with *RADIO SHACK*) It wasn't approved by upper management-- wait, are the Regional and District managers considered "upper" ???-- but the manager at my store (and the District Manager and the Regional Manager) used to tell the employees to add the extended warranties AND the two-or-three boxes of extra floppies AND the modem AND the printer AND the paper AND anything else we could think of on the customer's bill without telling them. They said to do that and if the customer complained to take it off.
They held regular meetings at the District HQ to teach us all sorts of methods to make the sleazy, easy.
Isn't it interesting that China, one of the net's biggest censorship proponents is out there on the forefront of high-speed technology.
Why not just skip the Ipod altogether and instead use your bucks to vote for a company that isn't such a dick.
Touchscreen computing COULD be viable but not with the present day methodologies. One of the problems with the traditional desktop PC motif is it only has one (sometimes two, maybe three) DISPLAY screens. I emphasize the word "Display" because that's what they do and are designed to do-- display stuff. That seems obvious to be sure, but my point is that it is NOT designed for TOUCHING. Even if a "touch screen" is bolted onto the front of the thing, it is still not DESIGNED for touching in the same way the display is designed for DISPLAYING. Rather it is a display with a touchable surface that can be used as an auxillary input. Sometimes the required application is such that a touchscreen is sufficient, but most times it is not. What is needed is a touchable surface that is designed for TOUCHING. So this sounds like a lot of back and forth, what would constitute a suitable "touchable" motif? How about a computer system that has both displays for DISPLAYING _and_ surfaces for TOUCHING? While the primary displays COULD also be touchable, and thus used as _auxillary_ input, a better method would be (IMO) to have one or more purpose-driven touchable surfaces (touchscreens) just for touching. Display buttons or whatever on the thing and ONLY use it for touching. The principle display(s) continue to be used as displays. This is a similar idea as that nifty russian keyboard where each key can be individually controlled to display an image. That keyboard, in a way, is closer to being a "touch-able" computer (IMO) than the typical "touch-screen" computer of today is. Peripherals are developed all the time. Most of them fall away as cumbersome, not really all that usable, clunky, poorly-designed, costly, etc. Only the ones that manage to provide some unique functionality, are well-designed (both functionally and user-interface-wise), and are able to be cheaply manufactured are the ones that tend to stick around. Sure there are specialty devices for certain vertical applications, but for the mainstream, the mouse and keyboard have evolved to be the thing for the most part. Surely there's room for additional devices, but they have to offer a clear advantage to everyday people in everyday situations before they are likely to be adopted and spread widely. I don't think "touch-screen" computing, in its presently designed/defined form is quite it. Even if monitors are redesigned to include the "touchscreen" interface and included gratis in every implementation, I don't think that would quite do it-- although I'm sure it would raise the awareness for the device and increase the number of applications that are "touch-ready". But (IMO), the true touchscreen breakthrough will occur when the monitor (which may ALSO have a touchable display surface) gets _additional_ touch surfaces that are dedicated to "touching" (touch-pads).
Freedom?
Justice?
The American Way?
Upholding the law?
The 4th Ammendment?
Patriotism?
This makes sense actually when you think about it.
Glasses for people who need them.
White canes and seeing eye dogs for people that need them.
And a GREAT BIG red-letter MORON tattooed right across the forehead for 99% of the assholes on the road.
How do they hope to use this in the wild where you WILL probably be smiling... especially if you're getting away with something (or think you are)...???
This is an excellent point. MOD this guy up.
Oh, and by the way:
* FUCK EMI
* FUCK Sony Music Entertainment
* FUCK Universal Music Group
* FUCK Warner Music Group
Boycott ALL of them and TO HELL with the RIAA
Fuck the RIAA too, just for good measure. They may not have anything to sell but they're slimy bastard assholes all the same.
So why didn't Bush & Cheney use that as the excuse for their stupid war? Look, Saddaam Hussein is using his Navy to retrieve a 40-year old lost weapon of mass destruction.
At least it would have been sort-of true.
Uh, you used it twice...
Stop whining, the solution is simple here bud...
Just start smoking and get your ten minutes of overtime too.
(Of course there is another way to look at it-- those 10 minutes are more like charity for people who are drastically reducing their lifespans by smoking...)
Sure they would. The tobacco company isn't THAT bad. I'm sure they'd piss on a fellow smoker if they were smoking their brand, was willing to sign an affidavit that they'd BEEN smoking that brand for 20 years or more, and could produce the STATE STAMPS from 50 or more packs of their brand of cigarettes as token proof.
Alternately, I'm sure they'd be willing to piss on just about anyone for a small fee. (A little more if you wanted it done in private.)
Serious question-- no prevarication or trolling--
WHY do you think Linux is crap? What specific things make it crap-ish to you???
No, not new, but let's say the veil just lifted... :)
Apparently there are quite a number of folks here who are not smarter than a 1-1/2 year old...
Of course he wasn't, you dolt. Sam Clemens was a very funny man.
Sheesh.
Why don't they just post Mile Marker: "665 + 1" ???
We've already proven that intelligence, reading, literacy, comprehension, competency, et al are not requirements for high office. Why bother with them for any lower office either? And let us all remind ourselves of Sam Clemens (Mark Twain's) gentle attempt to revise the art of spelling and grammar:
I'm changing my TV channel to CSPAN and leaving it there.
Wonder how they would have reacted if you said "What besides 'echo star'?" :)
Ditto ditto.
Pay 'em with DRM'd money. Put the bucks in a plastic bag with a EULA on the outside they can read that tells them under what conditions they can use the money you're sending in exchange for their DRM'd game.
When they receive enough DRM'd bucks they'll get the message.
In fact, I propose paying for all DRM'd media that way.
Fuck 'em. If they can do it to us, we can do it right back.
Hey bozo- he was fired for not giving up the passwords. Apparently the lack of documentation and whatnot didn't faze anybody and according to the articles was (is) standard practice there.
So, thanks for contributing to the conversation even though you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
True story-- my boss and I were interviewing a candidate for an applications developer position-- the interview was on a Friday afternoon and lasted for a couple of hours-- the candidate seemed really perfect-- probably mid-30's, poised, professional, well-spoken, good background & references (we checked her out), understood the duties and seemed capable/competent to carry them out-- we were really impressed-- we gave her an offer letter on the spot-- she said verbally she wanted to work for us-- she was supposed to get back to us the following Monday-- she didn't so my boss called her up to see what was up-- she was SLOSHED! Stinking drunk. My boss is a pretty laid-back individual so he talked to her awhile, had a good time chatting her up-- and truthfully, other than the obvious humor value, I don't think he was even counting it against her-- but it was the next day when she called him back sloshed again and started discussing his ancestry back to the caveman days that he decided he'd had enough of her and rescinded the offer. That was about five years ago and we've been shaking our heads over it ever since.