Granted, not the most un-biased source (thinksecret.com), but the indirect source (NPDTechworld) is more reliable:
"In the final quarter of 2002, the iPod was the top-selling player in terms of dollar market share at 27 percent, according to market research firm NPDTechworld. In terms of actual units sold, Apple placed third with a 11.2 percent market share."
So it sounds like it's not quite domination, but definitely not an also-ran.
Tim
Re:Sadly, some of us can't see beyound the gloss.
on
The Substance of Style
·
· Score: 1
"There has to be function before form, else you have just a facade. The arguments against HTML mail, are more than just asthetics. It consumes time and bandwith without adding much to the messasge. As for the list, why gussy something up that has the lifespan of a fruitfly? And of course the PC is for most of us hidden "out of sight, out of mind. Besides computers are headed toward pervasiveness, and subsuquently becoming invisable."
Why then, does art exist? If, in Mercedes Benz fashion, I always suggest that "form follows function," that's a perfectly valid view. That doesn't suggest that form has to be completely utilitarian to still be functional.
I know many people that make nice, bulleted to-do lists in word. Nobody else sees it. I have no idea why they do this, any more than why they insist on storing their grocery list on a PDA instead of writing it on a scrap of paper.
As for your arguments against HTML mail, the person using the pretty fonts and formatting is more concerned with the presentation of the information than you are! To them, it's worth the expenditure of the extra CPU cycles and message length to create a different impression. There are reasons for using something other than Courier in your resume!
"For those who remember our pre-windows history, computers were used by both geeks, and businesses that needed a tool to get the job done. Businesses have never really been about "pretty", preferring function, for "pretty" has never been percieved as adding to the bottom line. The same however can not be said for those goods and services that were directed toward the consumer."
This is somewhat true. The business users of computers were few and far between, and generally relied on data processing centers rather than interacting with the systems themselves. Only with the advent of Lotus 123 and Visicalc did non-techies really get with it, and then, they used the computers in very restricted specific ways.
I agree, business has never been focused on pretty. However, as your company's dress code probably attests, businesses also frequently care about the appearance of things that just don't make a difference. My company's "business casual" policy requires that I wear socks. Why do they care? Nobody knows, but my boss points it out whenever I wear deck shoes to the office.
The "No" response would also correlate strongly with the "I've only seen one in an Apple Store, and have the same kind of anti-Apple bias that's usually reserved for Microsoft" or the "I've never used one, and never want to start" responses.
Tim
Sadly, many of us just don't get the truth of this
on
The Substance of Style
·
· Score: 1
Oddly enough, those of us who are highly technology centered frequently forget that most of the rest of the world is not. As a result, the truly geeky among us probably don't use HTML e-mail, use plain text instead of a fancy font when building a to-do list, and probably don't worry a bit about how our PC looks. The rest of the world, however, want technology to be visually appealing and esthetically pleasing.
Before Windows, who was using computers? Those of us who are comfortable with plain, unvarnished technology. After the toaster-Mac and Windows 3.0 era began, we started to see more and more non-geeks sitting down to use computers. In part, this was the "user friendliness" of the technology, but I suspect it was also because the environment was something the user could modify into a style that was within their comfort zone.
The core tech-heads will always have a no-frills, performance first bias. However, as you look at the rest of the population, and sample the less and less geeky among us, you'll find less interest about pure performance, and more and more interest about style.
Now, before anyone comes slamming down on me as an anti-Mac command-line snob, realize that I find myself in that portion of humanity that DOES care about style issues, and am generally not willing to go for pure performance at the expense of appearance.
For this reason, I have no interest in the Subaru WRX Sti, and prefer the Honda S2000 (style over pure performance). In the case of my iMac, I feel I have a good compromise of style and performance. Even so, I'm pragmatic enough to also own a PC.
I probably represent a bit of a minority on Slashdot, but perhaps not. Consider the icons we show for various topics, and the thoughtful navigation. The layout and functionality of this site isn't just for the gearhead. It appeals to me from a stylistic and "community feel" point of view.
Wow... I never thought of that. (insert sound of smacking forehead here)
Oops! That's because most of those mods have either been done by the manufacturer of a modern car already (upgraded internals and better breathing), or the manufacturer's standard config (with things like fuel injection and distributorless ignition) is better. (Don't bother arguing that a 4 bbl carb is better than computer controlled port injection. Simpler, yes, but not better.)
For example, take the F20C out of my car (Honda S2000), and see what you can improve. Outside of ECU reprogramming and forced injection, you're not going to do significantly better in terms of breathing and internals than the factory (120 normally aspirated horsepower per liter, and a 9000 RPM redline).
I've seen configurable (not just my own cars). Cars of today are not less so, it just takes more of a geek, and less of a grease monkey than it used to, because most of those changes have already been made, and by people who are smarter than you and I.
Now we can all pine for the good old days, when engines were simpler, and Goober and Gomer could fix the problem without knowing the OBDII codes. Unfortunately, we'll have to leave behind the dramatically improved spark advance curve, variable valve timing, and longer-lasting mechanicals of the modern era.
So how many crashes can you attribute to closed-source embedded-system failures? You surely love the shorter stopping distances of ABS brakes. You doubtless like the fuel efficiency of advanced ignition timing that's possible now that engine control computers have replaced the old "points & condenser" systems of years ago.
Ever wonder about the gibberish that your local import tuners (hot rodders with Hondas, Subaru's, etc) keep spewing about ECUs? They're reprogramming the air-fuel mixture at various points in the RPM curve. More accurately, they're gaining HP and performance by programming tables in an EPROM. Less software means less configurability.
Furthermore, if you think that a safety-related computer system doesn't get seriously tested, you obviously haven't tried to get a life-safety product UL-listed before. The system isn't perfect, but it's annoyingly comprehensive. Likewise, all safety-related systems for consumer products go through all sorts of validation steps AT THE DESIGN PHASE!
It's simply ignorant to think that your life isn't constantly being protected by numerous software systems. Product liability law being what it currently is (and it's not ALL bad), don't expect this to change anytime soon.
As for making such code open source... that's just a band-aid recommendation from someone who assumes that software engineers aren't capable of creating embedded systems without flaws. On the other hand, if WinCE or Embedded XP start seeing more applications in this space, you may have a point... <g>
At least the RIAA has given us the hysterical image of L.L. Cool J at the same desk with Jack Valenti. Given their recent track record for providing late-night TV with such opportunities for comedy, the RIAA's lawsuits are the next-best thing to "The Governator" when it comes to the laugh-factor.
WRT to applicability, in the same way that MultiVac was selecting Norman Muller as the "typical voter" (predictor of electoral trends) Google might want to find "Joe Typical" whose tastes are predictors of consumer trends.
I've forgotten the name of the story, but I recall one by Philip K. Dick or Arthur C. Clarke about opinion polls becoming more accurate by narrowing down the process to identifying "the truly average voter." Instead of bothering with the election, this single individual went into the polling place, and basically picked the next president, all by him/her-self.
This is a variation on the same theme, where we spot the trend-setter, or the person whose interests/tastes best reflect what will soon be percieved as those of "Joe Average." It may or may not be the most insightful person. It may just be the "most average," but who happens to stumble upon the "next big thing" first.
Arguably, being able to quickly form a useful google search (googling?) is pivotal in answering this question. A well formed search (returning less than 20 or so hits) can make the volumes of data surrounding a particular question into something manageable.
In contrast, a poorly formed search is likely to return so much irrelevant data and false hits that you might inadvertently give up before tracing all the links.
If they're that small, it might be interesting to protect them against the digestive system, and be able to track someome's movements (not THAT movement) for several hours.
Come to think of it, you could track THOSE movements too! What a waste of a good RFID...
...is that all of the managers on the mission, including Ms. Ham, have apparently been reassigned or they've retired. The behavior quoted in the article (assuming it's accurate), is inexcusable.
For those UI apps, you're far better off using Delphi, or if Object Pascal throws you off, C++Builder. Delphi brings all of the ease-of-use and UI facilities that VB brags about, and adds to it all the benefits of OOP, and a more easily extensible library.
Come to think of it, you could go on and use Delphi/C++Builder for the server-side as well.
Sadly, many higher-ups see the solution in CMM, or other quality programs that produce reams of paper, but those same top-level managers ignore the economics of trying to develop too much, in too little time, with too little money. I manage the development of custom software projects for a Fortune 100 company, and at the end of the day, the sales dweeb sells whatever he has to to make his commission, and the engineering group is left with impossible constraints. CMM would probably work well if the entire company bought into it, but I've not seen that yet.
Likewise, NASA sees us (the public) crying about cost overruns and the return on our investment. Ultimately, that comes back down to the line-level managers at NASA, where no matter what the good intentions, the pressures of $$$ and time will always apply.
We need to decide if space travel is worth the cost (done properly, and left to engineering minds to decide what "properly" means), or worth the risks of doing it at lower cost. Like my company, NASA has squeaked by on luck for quite some time.
In my experience, the luck ALWAYS runs out.
Tim
Re:"An Universe"? (with apologies to Monty Python)
on
The Death of A Universe
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Announcer: "Today, in our studios, we have an Elk, I mean, an expert..."
Anne Elk: "Not Anne Expert, Anne Elk!"
Announcer: "Yes. Sorry. Today we have a-n expert, not a-n-n-e Expert on... the Universe..."
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, not the most un-biased source (thinksecret.com), but the indirect source (NPDTechworld) is more reliable:
"In the final quarter of 2002, the iPod was the top-selling player in terms of dollar market share at 27 percent, according to market research firm NPDTechworld. In terms of actual units sold, Apple placed third with a 11.2 percent market share."
So it sounds like it's not quite domination, but definitely not an also-ran.
Tim
"There has to be function before form, else you have just a facade. The arguments against HTML mail, are more than just asthetics. It consumes time and bandwith without adding much to the messasge. As for the list, why gussy something up that has the lifespan of a fruitfly? And of course the PC is for most of us hidden "out of sight, out of mind. Besides computers are headed toward pervasiveness, and subsuquently becoming invisable."
Why then, does art exist? If, in Mercedes Benz fashion, I always suggest that "form follows function," that's a perfectly valid view. That doesn't suggest that form has to be completely utilitarian to still be functional.
I know many people that make nice, bulleted to-do lists in word. Nobody else sees it. I have no idea why they do this, any more than why they insist on storing their grocery list on a PDA instead of writing it on a scrap of paper.
As for your arguments against HTML mail, the person using the pretty fonts and formatting is more concerned with the presentation of the information than you are! To them, it's worth the expenditure of the extra CPU cycles and message length to create a different impression. There are reasons for using something other than Courier in your resume!
"For those who remember our pre-windows history, computers were used by both geeks, and businesses that needed a tool to get the job done. Businesses have never really been about "pretty", preferring function, for "pretty" has never been percieved as adding to the bottom line. The same however can not be said for those goods and services that were directed toward the consumer."
This is somewhat true. The business users of computers were few and far between, and generally relied on data processing centers rather than interacting with the systems themselves. Only with the advent of Lotus 123 and Visicalc did non-techies really get with it, and then, they used the computers in very restricted specific ways.
I agree, business has never been focused on pretty. However, as your company's dress code probably attests, businesses also frequently care about the appearance of things that just don't make a difference. My company's "business casual" policy requires that I wear socks. Why do they care? Nobody knows, but my boss points it out whenever I wear deck shoes to the office.
Go figure.
Tim
The "No" response would also correlate strongly with the "I've only seen one in an Apple Store, and have the same kind of anti-Apple bias that's usually reserved for Microsoft" or the "I've never used one, and never want to start" responses.
Tim
Oddly enough, those of us who are highly technology centered frequently forget that most of the rest of the world is not. As a result, the truly geeky among us probably don't use HTML e-mail, use plain text instead of a fancy font when building a to-do list, and probably don't worry a bit about how our PC looks. The rest of the world, however, want technology to be visually appealing and esthetically pleasing.
Before Windows, who was using computers? Those of us who are comfortable with plain, unvarnished technology. After the toaster-Mac and Windows 3.0 era began, we started to see more and more non-geeks sitting down to use computers. In part, this was the "user friendliness" of the technology, but I suspect it was also because the environment was something the user could modify into a style that was within their comfort zone.
The core tech-heads will always have a no-frills, performance first bias. However, as you look at the rest of the population, and sample the less and less geeky among us, you'll find less interest about pure performance, and more and more interest about style.
Now, before anyone comes slamming down on me as an anti-Mac command-line snob, realize that I find myself in that portion of humanity that DOES care about style issues, and am generally not willing to go for pure performance at the expense of appearance.
For this reason, I have no interest in the Subaru WRX Sti, and prefer the Honda S2000 (style over pure performance). In the case of my iMac, I feel I have a good compromise of style and performance. Even so, I'm pragmatic enough to also own a PC.
I probably represent a bit of a minority on Slashdot, but perhaps not. Consider the icons we show for various topics, and the thoughtful navigation. The layout and functionality of this site isn't just for the gearhead. It appeals to me from a stylistic and "community feel" point of view.
Tim
Wow... I never thought of that. (insert sound of smacking forehead here)
Oops! That's because most of those mods have either been done by the manufacturer of a modern car already (upgraded internals and better breathing), or the manufacturer's standard config (with things like fuel injection and distributorless ignition) is better. (Don't bother arguing that a 4 bbl carb is better than computer controlled port injection. Simpler, yes, but not better.)
For example, take the F20C out of my car (Honda S2000), and see what you can improve. Outside of ECU reprogramming and forced injection, you're not going to do significantly better in terms of breathing and internals than the factory (120 normally aspirated horsepower per liter, and a 9000 RPM redline).
I've seen configurable (not just my own cars). Cars of today are not less so, it just takes more of a geek, and less of a grease monkey than it used to, because most of those changes have already been made, and by people who are smarter than you and I.
Now we can all pine for the good old days, when engines were simpler, and Goober and Gomer could fix the problem without knowing the OBDII codes. Unfortunately, we'll have to leave behind the dramatically improved spark advance curve, variable valve timing, and longer-lasting mechanicals of the modern era.
Tim
So how many crashes can you attribute to closed-source embedded-system failures? You surely love the shorter stopping distances of ABS brakes. You doubtless like the fuel efficiency of advanced ignition timing that's possible now that engine control computers have replaced the old "points & condenser" systems of years ago.
Ever wonder about the gibberish that your local import tuners (hot rodders with Hondas, Subaru's, etc) keep spewing about ECUs? They're reprogramming the air-fuel mixture at various points in the RPM curve. More accurately, they're gaining HP and performance by programming tables in an EPROM. Less software means less configurability.
Furthermore, if you think that a safety-related computer system doesn't get seriously tested, you obviously haven't tried to get a life-safety product UL-listed before. The system isn't perfect, but it's annoyingly comprehensive. Likewise, all safety-related systems for consumer products go through all sorts of validation steps AT THE DESIGN PHASE!
It's simply ignorant to think that your life isn't constantly being protected by numerous software systems. Product liability law being what it currently is (and it's not ALL bad), don't expect this to change anytime soon.
As for making such code open source... that's just a band-aid recommendation from someone who assumes that software engineers aren't capable of creating embedded systems without flaws. On the other hand, if WinCE or Embedded XP start seeing more applications in this space, you may have a point... <g>
Tim
Give them a break!
At least the RIAA has given us the hysterical image of L.L. Cool J at the same desk with Jack Valenti. Given their recent track record for providing late-night TV with such opportunities for comedy, the RIAA's lawsuits are the next-best thing to "The Governator" when it comes to the laugh-factor.
Tim
In related news, ruthless dictators neglect the human rights of their people.
Phlegm at 11.
Tim
Yup. Those dang manager types... expecting us to actually do something besides /. and get paid for it!
Tim
"What could you use this for?"
I don't know, but if you hum a few more bars, I'll fake it.
This begs the question: If John Williams gets an MRI, does he immediately become a super conductor?
Tim
Thank you!
WRT to applicability, in the same way that MultiVac was selecting Norman Muller as the "typical voter" (predictor of electoral trends) Google might want to find "Joe Typical" whose tastes are predictors of consumer trends.
Has Google become MultiVac?
Tim
I've forgotten the name of the story, but I recall one by Philip K. Dick or Arthur C. Clarke about opinion polls becoming more accurate by narrowing down the process to identifying "the truly average voter." Instead of bothering with the election, this single individual went into the polling place, and basically picked the next president, all by him/her-self.
This is a variation on the same theme, where we spot the trend-setter, or the person whose interests/tastes best reflect what will soon be percieved as those of "Joe Average." It may or may not be the most insightful person. It may just be the "most average," but who happens to stumble upon the "next big thing" first.
Tim
Are you suggesting that college professors in MS are "half-fast"?
(say it aloud)
Tim
I wonder what would happen if you watched a speed-reading course from Evelyn Wood this way. Would you finish before you even started?
It reminds me of the limerick:
There once was a lady named Bright,
Who could travel far faster than light
She set out one day
In a relative way
And came back the previous night
Tim
Arguably, being able to quickly form a useful google search (googling?) is pivotal in answering this question. A well formed search (returning less than 20 or so hits) can make the volumes of data surrounding a particular question into something manageable.
In contrast, a poorly formed search is likely to return so much irrelevant data and false hits that you might inadvertently give up before tracing all the links.
Tim
...in their armor
Tim
If they're that small, it might be interesting to protect them against the digestive system, and be able to track someome's movements (not THAT movement) for several hours.
Come to think of it, you could track THOSE movements too! What a waste of a good RFID...
Tim
Clicking on the links with the hord of teens hadn't had an enlargement effect?
Tim
...is that all of the managers on the mission, including Ms. Ham, have apparently been reassigned or they've retired. The behavior quoted in the article (assuming it's accurate), is inexcusable.
Tim
...anti-swap by virtue of it's content (with or without copy-protection)?
Tim
For those UI apps, you're far better off using Delphi, or if Object Pascal throws you off, C++Builder. Delphi brings all of the ease-of-use and UI facilities that VB brags about, and adds to it all the benefits of OOP, and a more easily extensible library.
Come to think of it, you could go on and use Delphi/C++Builder for the server-side as well.
Tim
Starting? When was this article written 1993?
Tonight they're going to party like it's 1993...
Tim
"We call ourselves Homo Sapiens Spaiens.Our true name should be Hom[o] Stupidus"
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Sadly, many higher-ups see the solution in CMM, or other quality programs that produce reams of paper, but those same top-level managers ignore the economics of trying to develop too much, in too little time, with too little money. I manage the development of custom software projects for a Fortune 100 company, and at the end of the day, the sales dweeb sells whatever he has to to make his commission, and the engineering group is left with impossible constraints. CMM would probably work well if the entire company bought into it, but I've not seen that yet.
Likewise, NASA sees us (the public) crying about cost overruns and the return on our investment. Ultimately, that comes back down to the line-level managers at NASA, where no matter what the good intentions, the pressures of $$$ and time will always apply.
We need to decide if space travel is worth the cost (done properly, and left to engineering minds to decide what "properly" means), or worth the risks of doing it at lower cost. Like my company, NASA has squeaked by on luck for quite some time.
In my experience, the luck ALWAYS runs out.
Tim
Announcer: "Today, in our studios, we have an Elk, I mean, an expert..."
Anne Elk: "Not Anne Expert, Anne Elk!"
Announcer: "Yes. Sorry. Today we have a-n expert, not a-n-n-e Expert on... the Universe..."
Anne Elk: "That's right Chris, I am."
Announcer: "An Expert?"
Anne Elk: "No... Anne Elk"
Tim