The "chip wagon" was the other thing that caught our eyes. My co-workers told us that there were trucks that would go around and cook fries to order, but we didn't believe them until we saw a blue panel truck in downtown Ottawa that advertised "Fresh, Fast, French Fries" (or something along those lines).
The notion of driving around with a huge deep fryer out back seems a bit scary. However, upon seeing the truck, the American with me started looking at the back end. I asked what he was looking for.
He said, "I'm looking for the trailer hitch."
"Trailer hitch?" I replied?
"Yeah... to tow the gravy boat."
That's when I first felt frustration about Canada's concealed carry laws.
Yes, gravy on fries in Ottawa. Try the poutine at the downtown McD's, or most any of the restaurants near the airport. My Canadian co-workers warned me to specify "no gravy" when ordering a meal, and sure enough, it was a standard at just about every chain, with the exception of an Outback steakhouse.
Tim
P.S. Poutine at KFC? I can't imagine how the awful (IMHO) KFC gravy would taste in poutine. The Colonel & Claudia must be turning in their gravies.
Gravy on fries is one thing (add cheese curds and you have poutine).
Gravy on McDonald's fries? Whether you personally like them or not, they are by far the most consistently loved menu items at McDreadful's. To take one of the few foods they do consistently better than other fast-food chains, and put ANYTHING on it, is heresy.
FWIW, the three Canadians I had lunch with two weeks ago thought it was REALLY STRANGE to eat a Krispy Kreme donut in comparison to a Tim Horton's. (I've noticed a distinct "food flavor" to this thread.) To them, it seemed heretical for someone to be able to sit down and eat a dozen KK's (quite practical for an average person with high glucose tolerance). In contrast, eating a dozen TH's would make moving around quite a challenge.
Tim
P.S. Not all Americans think Canada is worse than America, and I'm perfectly happy with the "heresy" of Tim Horton's lunch menu (donuts as side item to a turkey sandwich).
Actually, I can see exactly where Jobs is coming from WRT portable video.
With music, you are more likely to "play" it in a variety of contexts that are already well-established. I used my iPod a great deal this past week, both on a family vacation to Niagara Falls (about 10 hours each way) and on several short trips. The passengers in the back might have been interested in watching video, but those of us in the driver's seat aren't (or shouldn't be). For the backseat crowd, there are already solutions for playing DVDs that way.
WRT downloading movies, there's a different issue. Of all the movies that I really love, only a handful have been worth re-watching enough for me to buy the DVD. (This excludes my purchases of movies for the kids when they were younger, and would watch "The Lion King" or "Alladin" several times each week.) If push came to shove, and I had to rebuild my video collection from scratch, I'd probably only repurchase 5-10 movies. The rest are just not that important to me.
Now... why would I bother downloading/storing that number of videos to an iPod-like device? There are other products in the portable DVD space that accomplish the same basic functionality, and the times that I would actually watch a movie away from my home system (vacation or a REALLY long trip where I'm the passenger) are few and far between. Again, that need is quite nicely satisfied by a portable DVD & screen.
Demographically, I'm pretty much Joe-average (in consumer terms), so I think Jobs has hit the mark when he thinks that iPod video is a non-issue.
There's a difference between "not taking new orders" and "no inventory to sell." They've basically announced that they've shut down the current production lines and are selling off existing inventory, while not taking orders for new systems.
This doesn't mean you can't walk into an Apple store and buy a shiny new iMac. It means if that store is out of inventory, you'll have to go to another store, or see if the store will do an inter-store transfer. (An exception being the Apple online store--they've probably stopped selling there to keep as many systems as possible in the retail channel.)
Did I miss the part where they announced that they've completely emptied the retail channel?
More often, A, B, and E use 90% of a standard, and co-opt the other 10% for their own purposes. Then C, D, F, G, I, J and K try to elist the help of L, M and N (all of whom, in total, make up about 2% of the market) to push the "big guys" to more closely follow the standard (or at least, the parts of the standard that the "little guys" care about).
The business realities are that (as in most markets) fewer than 5 companies control the vast majority of the controls market, with 2-3 being really dominant. Therefore, the smaller guys are always pushing "open standards," which the big guys generally (but not always) resist to some degree. This changes when, as someone else pointed out, the gov't agencies specify an open standard such as BACnet or LON (one of which started out as an industry consortium, and the other as a privately developed protocol that's now commonly licensed).
In the end, it's arguable whether or not all of this creates a better situation for the business at large. On the one hand, using standard (internet, or industry-specific) protocols such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, XML/Soap, BACnet or LON make it cheaper to deploy systems compared to what HVAC companies used to do, and increase the likelyhood of interoperability. On the other hand, all the players are now forced to be more conscious of security, because they use protocols and hardware that are more widely known/understood.
Given that (to the best of my knowledge) the Fire and Security pieces of the BACnet standard were the last pieces to come in, it has largely been driven by HVAC companies to this point. This is unfortunate, as you point out, because this may lead to the tail wagging the dog. I fear we'll see all sorts of addendums and annexes to deal with the realities of F&S that the initial BACnet group didn't envision.
FWIW, a good part of what I do is making Security, Fire, and HVAC systems from different companies play nicely together, and do so without creating new issues for the Security or Fire systems. As you said, creating tight integration, even for reporting purposes, is frequently at odds with the level of isolation necessary for good business sense. Sometimes, we have to educate the customer that what they want to do is technically possible (with enough $$), but isn't a wise idea. In that situation, the Security guys are my best allies.
Fortunately, some of the players in this market (ahem) are providing just such a Web Services interface, probably in hopes of looking like the good guy with the white hat. (Not that I would happen to work for just such a company.;-))
Actually, both of the things you've mentioned become truly important when you're talking about getting data OUT of a variety of proprietary systems. More to the point, Web Services/Soap calls standardize a data access control API for client applications to use, eliminating the transport layer as a consideration.
Real world example? HVAC company A provides an XML/Web Services interface to allow external systems to query it for energy usage (given the external system is able to validate itself). HVAC company B does the same thing. Now, the external system from Energy Provider C can gather data from A and B without having to dive into any of the myriad of proprietary protocols that those companies would normally use for such data, and can make demand load/limit adjustments, customized billing, and so on, based on that data..
The real trick is convincing both companies (A and B) that it's in their best interest to provide this non-proprietary interface. While many vendors are pushing neutral protocols, such as BACnet or LON, those aren't really high-level enough to work with at the enterprise level and beyond. For that, you need something like XML/Web Services, so you can eliminate protocols, and have some reasonable chance at interpreting the data.
The person responsible for posting the message below without choosing "HTML Formatted" has been sacked.
I believe you are assuming because I don't want to give internet access that I don't trust people to do their work. I'm not sure I disagree, but I also believe that your argument is something of a slippery slope. Do you also provide each of your employees with a TV and cable access in case they want to take a break? Toys? A hammock? How much do you want to make it like home? At some point, your employees will decide subconciously or not, that you just want them to feel at home. Have a beer, watch some TV. Program a little if you can fit it in. Relax, its all good, dude!
Actually, the people you WANT are the ones who would be (or are) coding at home instead of watching TV and drinking beer. A vast majority of the people on my team are such types, so I wish I could make it more like home, because I know I'll get more work from them if I do.
I believe you are assuming because I don't want to give internet access that I don't trust people to do their work. I'm not sure I disagree, but I also believe that your argument is something of a slippery slope. Do you also provide each of your employees with a TV and cable access in case they want to take a break? Toys? A hammock? How much do you want to make it like home? At some point, your employees will decide subconciously or not, that you just want them to feel at home. Have a beer, watch some TV. Program a little if you can fit it in. Relax, its all good, dude!
Actually, the people you WANT are the ones who would be (or are) coding at home instead of watching TV and drinking beer. A vast majority of the people on my team are such types, so I wish I could make it more like home, because I know I'll get more work from them if I do.
Read "Inferiority" by Arthur C. Clarke. He wrote it 40 some-odd years ago, but it's just as true today, and illustrates many of the points you've made via short story. According to the intro, it was (at one point) required reading at MIT. Unfortunately, the ideas you've expressed are quite foreign to many companies (not mine of course... [cough]), so they are doomed to getting their butts kicked by "lower tech" (and more agile) companies while they wallow in leading-edge bug fixes.
This reminds me of what I call the "Malcom in Jurrassic Park" syndrome. His complaint (better stated in the book, but stated in the movie) to the scientists was (rough paraphrase) "You're standing on the shoulders of giants, and were so excited about what you *could* do that you didn't stop to think if you *should*."
Though many aspects of Malcom's character were annoying enough to want him to become T-Rex filling, he was able to rather eloquently state what you're saying here. This thought also seems to be creeping up into other threads.
For me, this begs the question: Is there a limit to what I (Joe Programmer) can learn as high-level languages progress if I choose to have a solid understanding of the things that went before the HLL? After all, I may be a pretty smart guy, but it seems pretty arrogant to assume that I'll be able to understand the mistakes of many others (without making those mistakes myself), take their knowledge, build upon it, and be able to reap all the benefits of the knowledge database that I've built upon.
It seems at some point, for me to advance in a given field (not necessarily programming), I have to accept that I won't be able to know and understand ALL of the work of my predecessors, but only the most relevant aspects. This would appear to be where, in any given field, true genius would emerge.
Slashdot Mirror
Aaarrggghhh...where are the Marcells when I need them!
- moon.php) sound like they could've been written by a /. reader. Well, except for the second verse.
Tim
P.S. The lyrics to that song (http://www.lyricsfind.com/m/marcels/best-of/blue
...if Duke gave away the iPods, but made all the lectures available as OGG files?
Tim
Must Must See See TTVV!
The "chip wagon" was the other thing that caught our eyes. My co-workers told us that there were trucks that would go around and cook fries to order, but we didn't believe them until we saw a blue panel truck in downtown Ottawa that advertised "Fresh, Fast, French Fries" (or something along those lines).
The notion of driving around with a huge deep fryer out back seems a bit scary. However, upon seeing the truck, the American with me started looking at the back end. I asked what he was looking for.
He said, "I'm looking for the trailer hitch."
"Trailer hitch?" I replied?
"Yeah... to tow the gravy boat."
That's when I first felt frustration about Canada's concealed carry laws.
Tim
Yes, gravy on fries in Ottawa. Try the poutine at the downtown McD's, or most any of the restaurants near the airport. My Canadian co-workers warned me to specify "no gravy" when ordering a meal, and sure enough, it was a standard at just about every chain, with the exception of an Outback steakhouse.
Tim
P.S. Poutine at KFC? I can't imagine how the awful (IMHO) KFC gravy would taste in poutine. The Colonel & Claudia must be turning in their gravies.
Gravy on fries is one thing (add cheese curds and you have poutine).
Gravy on McDonald's fries? Whether you personally like them or not, they are by far the most consistently loved menu items at McDreadful's. To take one of the few foods they do consistently better than other fast-food chains, and put ANYTHING on it, is heresy.
FWIW, the three Canadians I had lunch with two weeks ago thought it was REALLY STRANGE to eat a Krispy Kreme donut in comparison to a Tim Horton's. (I've noticed a distinct "food flavor" to this thread.) To them, it seemed heretical for someone to be able to sit down and eat a dozen KK's (quite practical for an average person with high glucose tolerance). In contrast, eating a dozen TH's would make moving around quite a challenge.
Tim
P.S. Not all Americans think Canada is worse than America, and I'm perfectly happy with the "heresy" of Tim Horton's lunch menu (donuts as side item to a turkey sandwich).
While it's true that the accents are "nearly the same," there are *some* diffs that will creep in.
BTW, even the McDonald's in Ottawa would offer gravy on their fries. Gravy on McDONALD'S FRIES??? What is this heresy?
Tim
Actually, I can see exactly where Jobs is coming from WRT portable video.
With music, you are more likely to "play" it in a variety of contexts that are already well-established. I used my iPod a great deal this past week, both on a family vacation to Niagara Falls (about 10 hours each way) and on several short trips. The passengers in the back might have been interested in watching video, but those of us in the driver's seat aren't (or shouldn't be). For the backseat crowd, there are already solutions for playing DVDs that way.
WRT downloading movies, there's a different issue. Of all the movies that I really love, only a handful have been worth re-watching enough for me to buy the DVD. (This excludes my purchases of movies for the kids when they were younger, and would watch "The Lion King" or "Alladin" several times each week.) If push came to shove, and I had to rebuild my video collection from scratch, I'd probably only repurchase 5-10 movies. The rest are just not that important to me.
Now... why would I bother downloading/storing that number of videos to an iPod-like device? There are other products in the portable DVD space that accomplish the same basic functionality, and the times that I would actually watch a movie away from my home system (vacation or a REALLY long trip where I'm the passenger) are few and far between. Again, that need is quite nicely satisfied by a portable DVD & screen.
Demographically, I'm pretty much Joe-average (in consumer terms), so I think Jobs has hit the mark when he thinks that iPod video is a non-issue.
Tim
Hmmm...
There's a difference between "not taking new orders" and "no inventory to sell." They've basically announced that they've shut down the current production lines and are selling off existing inventory, while not taking orders for new systems.
This doesn't mean you can't walk into an Apple store and buy a shiny new iMac. It means if that store is out of inventory, you'll have to go to another store, or see if the store will do an inter-store transfer. (An exception being the Apple online store--they've probably stopped selling there to keep as many systems as possible in the retail channel.)
Did I miss the part where they announced that they've completely emptied the retail channel?
Tim
Hey... with all that unbiased analysis, you're giving Raving Apple Zealots a bad name.
Tim
"Supersize Me"
Oops... maybe that's not such a good idea.
Tim
More often, A, B, and E use 90% of a standard, and co-opt the other 10% for their own purposes. Then C, D, F, G, I, J and K try to elist the help of L, M and N (all of whom, in total, make up about 2% of the market) to push the "big guys" to more closely follow the standard (or at least, the parts of the standard that the "little guys" care about).
The business realities are that (as in most markets) fewer than 5 companies control the vast majority of the controls market, with 2-3 being really dominant. Therefore, the smaller guys are always pushing "open standards," which the big guys generally (but not always) resist to some degree. This changes when, as someone else pointed out, the gov't agencies specify an open standard such as BACnet or LON (one of which started out as an industry consortium, and the other as a privately developed protocol that's now commonly licensed).
In the end, it's arguable whether or not all of this creates a better situation for the business at large. On the one hand, using standard (internet, or industry-specific) protocols such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, XML/Soap, BACnet or LON make it cheaper to deploy systems compared to what HVAC companies used to do, and increase the likelyhood of interoperability. On the other hand, all the players are now forced to be more conscious of security, because they use protocols and hardware that are more widely known/understood.
Tim
Given that (to the best of my knowledge) the Fire and Security pieces of the BACnet standard were the last pieces to come in, it has largely been driven by HVAC companies to this point. This is unfortunate, as you point out, because this may lead to the tail wagging the dog. I fear we'll see all sorts of addendums and annexes to deal with the realities of F&S that the initial BACnet group didn't envision.
FWIW, a good part of what I do is making Security, Fire, and HVAC systems from different companies play nicely together, and do so without creating new issues for the Security or Fire systems. As you said, creating tight integration, even for reporting purposes, is frequently at odds with the level of isolation necessary for good business sense. Sometimes, we have to educate the customer that what they want to do is technically possible (with enough $$), but isn't a wise idea. In that situation, the Security guys are my best allies.
Tim
Very true statements, all around.
;-))
Fortunately, some of the players in this market (ahem) are providing just such a Web Services interface, probably in hopes of looking like the good guy with the white hat. (Not that I would happen to work for just such a company.
Tim
Actually, both of the things you've mentioned become truly important when you're talking about getting data OUT of a variety of proprietary systems. More to the point, Web Services/Soap calls standardize a data access control API for client applications to use, eliminating the transport layer as a consideration.
Real world example? HVAC company A provides an XML/Web Services interface to allow external systems to query it for energy usage (given the external system is able to validate itself). HVAC company B does the same thing. Now, the external system from Energy Provider C can gather data from A and B without having to dive into any of the myriad of proprietary protocols that those companies would normally use for such data, and can make demand load/limit adjustments, customized billing, and so on, based on that data..
The real trick is convincing both companies (A and B) that it's in their best interest to provide this non-proprietary interface. While many vendors are pushing neutral protocols, such as BACnet or LON, those aren't really high-level enough to work with at the enterprise level and beyond. For that, you need something like XML/Web Services, so you can eliminate protocols, and have some reasonable chance at interpreting the data.
Does that help?
Tim
They're Insanely Grrrrrrreaat!
Tim
We saw a Pontiac Aztek at church one Sunday, and my oldest son said, "Dad... I can't believe what I just saw. I've never seen that before."
"What's that?"
"An Aztek without dealer plates!"
Tim
Tim
Tim
I suppose the "Think Different"... "Think Ease of Use"... "Think Apple" meaning was lost on people because of the lack of explicit punctuation.
Tim
Yes, but how do we know when we've reached "Ludicrous Speed"? It's when your desktop goes plaid...
Tim
Read "Inferiority" by Arthur C. Clarke. He wrote it 40 some-odd years ago, but it's just as true today, and illustrates many of the points you've made via short story. According to the intro, it was (at one point) required reading at MIT. Unfortunately, the ideas you've expressed are quite foreign to many companies (not mine of course... [cough]), so they are doomed to getting their butts kicked by "lower tech" (and more agile) companies while they wallow in leading-edge bug fixes.
Tim
Tim
This reminds me of what I call the "Malcom in Jurrassic Park" syndrome. His complaint (better stated in the book, but stated in the movie) to the scientists was (rough paraphrase) "You're standing on the shoulders of giants, and were so excited about what you *could* do that you didn't stop to think if you *should*."
Though many aspects of Malcom's character were annoying enough to want him to become T-Rex filling, he was able to rather eloquently state what you're saying here. This thought also seems to be creeping up into other threads.
For me, this begs the question: Is there a limit to what I (Joe Programmer) can learn as high-level languages progress if I choose to have a solid understanding of the things that went before the HLL? After all, I may be a pretty smart guy, but it seems pretty arrogant to assume that I'll be able to understand the mistakes of many others (without making those mistakes myself), take their knowledge, build upon it, and be able to reap all the benefits of the knowledge database that I've built upon.
It seems at some point, for me to advance in a given field (not necessarily programming), I have to accept that I won't be able to know and understand ALL of the work of my predecessors, but only the most relevant aspects. This would appear to be where, in any given field, true genius would emerge.
Tim