I clearly remember owning windows mobile phones that did everything the iThings supposedly innovated upon the world, long before there were iThings. They kind of sucked in some ways, but they certainly could do everything the first gen iPhone did. Plus they had multitasking, third party applications, copy and paste, etc. You would think if Apple can sue over frivolous look and feel nonsense, MS would be able to find *something* in the fact that they did everything the iPhone could do long before the iPhone did it.
i sort of see what you're saying as it applies to home users switching platforms, but still business is going to play a massive factor here. transitioning all of a business's software from one platform to another is a nightmare that costs a fortune. it's nothing to do with the cost of the hardware or the retail cost of software. most business software is developed or at least customized in house, at an expense far beyond the retail cost, if any.
You do realize where that money comes from, right? I never can understand cheering for profitable corporations. (not saying you necessarily were, just a reaction to people who say things like you said without acting upset about it).
Have to side with the other replies, I too have worked with extremely intelligent and academically successful people who just can not program worth a shit despite what appears to be honest effort. I don't think a simple compiler error would stump them, but they had tremendous trouble seeing how to apply basic programming patterns to real world situations despite understanding all the theory just fine.
so now "post-pc" also refers to smartphones? Thats odd, since smartphones have existed for 15 years (yes, long before Apple invented them) and the term "post-pc" didn't show up until the recent tablet fad. Never heard anyone theorize that smartphones will replace the PC.
I don't doubt that someday something will do what PCs do better than PCs do it, and at that point we will see a post-pc world. That isn't going to be tablets and its not going to be smartphones. It would take something significantly better at doing the things business does than either of those are. Right now we are in a "PC plus" world. There are other computing devices that do new things, or some things in new ways, and they are very good for that. However, the PC's role as a primary business tool used by people in almost every position of almost every company in the world is not going to change simply because we've invented some new gadgets.
...and yet ~90 million PCs are sold every quarter, compared to 25 million tablets in Apple's best quarter. Picking a single manufacture of tablets that enjoys a massive majority market share and comparing it to individual competitors in the PC market makes little sense (unless, of course, you're looking for flawed statistics that at surface level seem to support some argument).
Despite the fact that PCs have a longer lifetime, higher cost, and a marketplace that is very much saturated (it's a wee bit harder to sell something when all of your potential customers already have one), PCs still move nearly 4x as many units every quarter.
I see little evidence of that. Something may replace PCs someday, but it certainly won't be any of the gadgets we have today and it probably won't be a tablet at all. Current tablets are good for very simple tasks and/or very simple users. Mostly home users that don't have need to do any business tasks. That is a space that PCs never served well in the first place. Tablets are horrible for anything more than a very lightweight business use, and this is a massive arena the PC dominates. As long as business is based on PCs, it's a PC world no matter what you play with at home.
as i recall, my post-graduate studies began only after my graduation had been completed. yet I don't believe it would have been accurate for me to declare that "we now live in a post-graduate world" in my commencement speech. for apple to claim we are in a "post-pc" world is similarly ridiculous. they might call their gadgets "post-pc" gadgets, and they might even be right, but the world in general is decidedly not post PC.
maybe it means that almost nobody uses tablets after the initial "oh wow, look its a really big smartphone" phase wears off, but there are a few diehard Apple people who just can't get over it. We may never know.
Who is "we"? Certainly it's not anyone who does work on a computer, or anyone who supports computers that people do work on, or anyone who creates things that people use to do work on a computer. Those poor clods are still stuck in the "PC runs damn near every aspect of business" world.
Hmm.. while you seem to have missed the point entirely, you do help to make mine.
Of course, exactly as you say, a cancer researcher can not be expected to make sound technical decisions. I would never suggest that they could or should. The problem in the OP's scenario is not that he make a *bad* technical decision. The problem is clearly that he made a technical decision at all. As you and he and I all seem to agree, he is not qualified to do so.
The fact that more care is not being taken by those managing something as potentially important as a cancer research project demonstrates irresponsibility at best. One would hope that those who do such work would not let something that is so simple to fix become an obstacle when expert assistance is so readily available.
Would I blame someone if they bought a set of tires from a reputable company and had an unexpected issue? Of course not. Would I blame them if instead they went out, bought the cheapest tires they could find and then installed the things themselves? Yes.
If you take your project seriously and believe your website is an important part of it, you simply must acquire the skill to make good decisions regarding it's implementation or hire an expert who can do this for you. You cannot stick your head in the sand and cry "I'm too busy, too important!" and expect any sympathy from me. Do you use that approach as an excuse for every area in which you fail to bring in proper expertise?
GoDaddy has a long track record of poor service and questionable practices the predates any SOPA business by many years. They offer nothing unique and have dozens of more reputable competitors. There is only one reason anyone uses GoDaddy: low cost.
This is your responsibility. Certainly you didn't end up using GoDaddy's services purely by random chance. A decision was made by someone, and it was made poorly. Probably someone trying to save a few bucks. It's highly unlikely that this will be the only ramification of that bad decision. It's also somewhat likely that other, similarly poor choices have been made in how your technical infrastructure is designed.
no, that link WAS NOT functional for a great number of folks, as was the main godaddy.com site, for several hours. It may have worked for you, but no one agrees that godaddy.com stayed up, because it did not.
If your business is so completely unimportant to you that you would trust something as critical as dns to a company like GoDaddy, I doubt the FBI is going to be very concerned with your loss.
You mean the advertising company that makes its profits by hijacking DNS requests?? The company that breaks things like MX lookups by default? The company that takes advantage of dimwits who thing anything with the word "Open" in the name is actually somehow open? That OpenDNS?
While I applaud your suggestion of grand conspiracy, I think in this case it's likely Apple is simply rated so highly because they manage to sell stuff for a massive amount more than it costs them to make it. Apple is better at converting their customer's money into their own money than maybe any other corporation in the world.
Apple is clearly raising their profits by refusing to allow content that might make their little walled garden less appealing.
They could care less about profits of one or two censored apps, they are protecting the money train that *all the other* apps bring them.
How can anyone believe Apple would do anything for any reason besides profit? Do you think they because the most *profitable* company around by accident? Or because their crap is really that good? Wake up.
Slashdot Mirror
I clearly remember owning windows mobile phones that did everything the iThings supposedly innovated upon the world, long before there were iThings.
They kind of sucked in some ways, but they certainly could do everything the first gen iPhone did. Plus they had multitasking, third party applications, copy and paste, etc. You would think if Apple can sue over frivolous look and feel nonsense, MS would be able to find *something* in the fact that they did everything the iPhone could do long before the iPhone did it.
i sort of see what you're saying as it applies to home users switching platforms, but still business is going to play a massive factor here. transitioning all of a business's software from one platform to another is a nightmare that costs a fortune. it's nothing to do with the cost of the hardware or the retail cost of software. most business software is developed or at least customized in house, at an expense far beyond the retail cost, if any.
You do realize where that money comes from, right? I never can understand cheering for profitable corporations. (not saying you necessarily were, just a reaction to people who say things like you said without acting upset about it).
Owners of a Cray can run any software they like without obtaining permission from it's manufacturer.
Advantage: Cray
Have to side with the other replies, I too have worked with extremely intelligent and academically successful people who just can not program worth a shit despite what appears to be honest effort. I don't think a simple compiler error would stump them, but they had tremendous trouble seeing how to apply basic programming patterns to real world situations despite understanding all the theory just fine.
so now "post-pc" also refers to smartphones? Thats odd, since smartphones have existed for 15 years (yes, long before Apple invented them) and the term "post-pc" didn't show up until the recent tablet fad. Never heard anyone theorize that smartphones will replace the PC.
I don't doubt that someday something will do what PCs do better than PCs do it, and at that point we will see a post-pc world. That isn't going to be tablets and its not going to be smartphones. It would take something significantly better at doing the things business does than either of those are. Right now we are in a "PC plus" world. There are other computing devices that do new things, or some things in new ways, and they are very good for that. However, the PC's role as a primary business tool used by people in almost every position of almost every company in the world is not going to change simply because we've invented some new gadgets.
...and yet ~90 million PCs are sold every quarter, compared to 25 million tablets in Apple's best quarter. Picking a single manufacture of tablets that enjoys a massive majority market share and comparing it to individual competitors in the PC market makes little sense (unless, of course, you're looking for flawed statistics that at surface level seem to support some argument).
Despite the fact that PCs have a longer lifetime, higher cost, and a marketplace that is very much saturated (it's a wee bit harder to sell something when all of your potential customers already have one), PCs still move nearly 4x as many units every quarter.
Sorry, not buying the hype.
the world in general is decidedly not post PC.
Not yet, but it's certainly heading that way.
I see little evidence of that. Something may replace PCs someday, but it certainly won't be any of the gadgets we have today and it probably won't be a tablet at all. Current tablets are good for very simple tasks and/or very simple users. Mostly home users that don't have need to do any business tasks. That is a space that PCs never served well in the first place. Tablets are horrible for anything more than a very lightweight business use, and this is a massive arena the PC dominates. As long as business is based on PCs, it's a PC world no matter what you play with at home.
as i recall, my post-graduate studies began only after my graduation had been completed. yet I don't believe it would have been accurate for me to declare that "we now live in a post-graduate world" in my commencement speech. for apple to claim we are in a "post-pc" world is similarly ridiculous. they might call their gadgets "post-pc" gadgets, and they might even be right, but the world in general is decidedly not post PC.
Woz always seems to be sensible, realistic and honest. Make you wonder how S. Wozniak got mixed up with the likes of S. Jobs in the first place.
Oh... glad someone cleared that up. I thought they were using the word "post" in the traditional way and I just couldn't see how it made any sense.
maybe it means that almost nobody uses tablets after the initial "oh wow, look its a really big smartphone" phase wears off, but there are a few diehard Apple people who just can't get over it. We may never know.
No. The key to Apple's success is getting people to pay them a lot more than it costs them to make something.
Everything else that someone claims is a "key to Apple's success" is simply fanboy drivel or idealistic nonsense.
because otherwise you're left with only comments from the freaks who really do care about a silly little gadget
"Yes, we are in a post-PC world."
Who is "we"? Certainly it's not anyone who does work on a computer, or anyone who supports computers that people do work on, or anyone who creates things that people use to do work on a computer. Those poor clods are still stuck in the "PC runs damn near every aspect of business" world.
whatever
Hmm.. while you seem to have missed the point entirely, you do help to make mine.
Of course, exactly as you say, a cancer researcher can not be expected to make sound technical decisions. I would never suggest that they could or should.
The problem in the OP's scenario is not that he make a *bad* technical decision. The problem is clearly that he made a technical decision at all. As you and he and I all seem to agree, he is not qualified to do so.
The fact that more care is not being taken by those managing something as potentially important as a cancer research project demonstrates irresponsibility at best. One would hope that those who do such work would not let something that is so simple to fix become an obstacle when expert assistance is so readily available.
Would I blame someone if they bought a set of tires from a reputable company and had an unexpected issue? Of course not. Would I blame them if instead they went out, bought the cheapest tires they could find and then installed the things themselves? Yes.
If you take your project seriously and believe your website is an important part of it, you simply must acquire the skill to make good decisions regarding it's implementation or hire an expert who can do this for you. You cannot stick your head in the sand and cry "I'm too busy, too important!" and expect any sympathy from me. Do you use that approach as an excuse for every area in which you fail to bring in proper expertise?
GoDaddy has a long track record of poor service and questionable practices the predates any SOPA business by many years. They offer nothing unique and have dozens of more reputable competitors. There is only one reason anyone uses GoDaddy: low cost.
This is your responsibility. Certainly you didn't end up using GoDaddy's services purely by random chance. A decision was made by someone, and it was made poorly. Probably someone trying to save a few bucks. It's highly unlikely that this will be the only ramification of that bad decision. It's also somewhat likely that other, similarly poor choices have been made in how your technical infrastructure is designed.
no, that link WAS NOT functional for a great number of folks, as was the main godaddy.com site, for several hours. It may have worked for you, but no one agrees that godaddy.com stayed up, because it did not.
If your business is so completely unimportant to you that you would trust something as critical as dns to a company like GoDaddy, I doubt the FBI is going to be very concerned with your loss.
You mean the advertising company that makes its profits by hijacking DNS requests?? The company that breaks things like MX lookups by default? The company that takes advantage of dimwits who thing anything with the word "Open" in the name is actually somehow open? That OpenDNS?
and nothing of value was lost
you can stand in the way of progress, but you'll probably end up left behind.
While I applaud your suggestion of grand conspiracy, I think in this case it's likely Apple is simply rated so highly because they manage to sell stuff for a massive amount more than it costs them to make it. Apple is better at converting their customer's money into their own money than maybe any other corporation in the world.
christ your comment is stupid.
Apple is clearly raising their profits by refusing to allow content that might make their little walled garden less appealing.
They could care less about profits of one or two censored apps, they are protecting the money train that *all the other* apps bring them.
How can anyone believe Apple would do anything for any reason besides profit? Do you think they because the most *profitable* company around by accident? Or because their crap is really that good? Wake up.