I am sick of having "experiences" pushed in my face by marketing drones who think I need to know what's "cool" or "interesting." The "experience" I'm really interested in is a browser that functions properly, doesn't crash, supports standards, and which doesn't eat all of the available memory or CPU. I'm even willing to PAY for something like that. If the management team at the Mozilla Foundation has time and resources to surreptitiously load unwanted extensions hyping some television show on the browser, they sure as hell have the time and resources to fix some of the more egregious and annoying bugs.
I sure hope Firefox isn't about to plummet into "form over function" irrelevancy like Skype recently did ("The most expressive Skype ever!"). Bugger "expressive" or "experience"...just make the damned thing work properly.
The essay has little to do with creative satisfaction, which is what the title implies. Substitute the phrase "light entertainment" for the author's use of "fun", and one gets a slightly better idea of what he seems to be writing about. The article appears to be a social justice essay rather than a technology discussion.
While he makes some interesting, fragmentary points, much of what he wrote is full of unsupported assertions and generalizations, which makes it hard to accept his conclusions. My own experience certainly doesn't agree with his assertions about the nature of the way programmers think.
Exactly; the EPA test track is only good as a baseline measurement. Granted, it is impossible to define "average" driving conditions versus having precise control on a test track, but it would be of great use to have professional drivers test vehicles in a series of defined driving environments over a period of time and use the average results. This would be a far better reflection of real mileage versus the ideal (and totally unrealistic) test track. We have test pilots, why not test drivers which are responsible for similar levels of care in measurement and reporting? Perhaps an industry lab that is funded by all automakers selling cars in the U.S. with government-defined test conditions and federal inspectors reading and giving a critique on the results?
I regularly get 25 MPG or better in my 1996 Cadillac DeVille, which isn't bad for an 8-cylinder, 275 HP engine in a 3,800 lb vehicle, and I can get 40 MPG in my 1999 Honda Accord if I am on a long road trip, driving carefully (4-cylinder ULEV-rated VTEC powerplant). The EPA estimates for both vehicles are considerably lower. In fact, the Cadillac gets 30 MPG on 2 hour trips over rolling hills at 70 miles per hour, something that most people would never believe of a vehicle that is regularly used as an example of a gas hog. It's not, and it's a great example of what good engineering can already achieve. Some people have measured 65 MPG or better in their Volkswagen diesels, and Honda sells a diesel in Japan and Europe that gets better than 50 MPG. Why do we need to be spending inordinate amounts on hybrid vehicles that have toxic battery packs that need replacing every seven to ten years? The technology to do better is already available on standard powerplants.
Just because the EPA is unwilling to change its methodology to account for advances in technology, we have automakers shelving perfectly good ideas. Exactly what is so hard about changing protocols? It's not like we don't have well-qualified people available to make this happen, and many of them work for automakers. I bet Ford and GM would be happy to have a place to show off what they can do for mileage improvement; it might even help generate sales, and since we're trying to create jobs, what are we waiting for?
I believe you are correct about the reasons for the oil consumption figure. Much of our heavy manufacturing in the midwest has disappeared, thanks to relatively cheap labor available in other countries. What many don't seem to realize is that all those plastic doodads and sub-assemblies that go into larger products require oil, and if you're not making that here (the USA), oil consumption will fall in this country -- but not elsewhere.
You make a very good point about distance transportation, which really needs to be emphasized further in these kinds of discussions. Out where I live (east-central Texas), discussions of "practical" electric vehicles, mass transit and things like using a bicycle are greeted with well-deserved derision. Farm equipment as an example, cannot be powered by anything but a concentrated, portable energy supply that is easily stored at the farm. Batteries just don't cut it, and even if they did, getting the electrical infrastructure capable of handling high-volume charging requirements would be prohibitively expensive in rural areas. Running out of battery off-road is not good; try carrying enough battery capacity in your arms to get going again versus five gallons of gasoline. And, the idea of using a bicycle to go get reasonably-priced groceries 30 miles away (not uncommon in this area) is ludicrous, not to mention hauling 1,500 lbs of feed. A go-kart powered with a lawnmower engine is a paragon of practicality by comparison. Urbanites often seem to forget that most of the country is empty space, and for many applications, there is a stark choice between limited human or animal power, and something that gives you the energy density of diesel or gasoline. Diesel being far less difficult to handle and store than gasoline. Gasoline with ethanol added is an incredible headache, since it destroys engines that don't get run every day: Farm equipment is not cheap, and destroying it with dodgy fuel just to satisfy someone's need for a subsidy or an obsession with ethanol is just criminal. And people wonder why food prices are climbing.
If policy-makers spent less time in their little insular world of suburban life (and watching the talking heads on the evening news), they might have a different perspective on things. I know that growing up in Los Angeles during the 1970's (I left in 1978), I had no idea what effect reasonable-sounding energy policy had on the rest of the population. Now I do. Bottom line, attempting to legislate the use of certain technologies because they work well under specific circumstances is an invitation to all sorts of problems. You cannot anticipate all needs, requirements, and problems. But, Congress seems to think this is possible and so we are stuck with things like massive ethanol subsidies; money that could be better spent elsewhere improving technologies that actually work.
For example, I have my suspicions about motivations with fuel economy. A diesel four-banger compact gets extremely good mileage; Honda's 2009 diesel Accord achieved better than 50 MPG and met the European "clean diesel" standards. Why can't we buy them here (along with counterparts from Nissan, Toyota and others)? My 1996 Cadillac DeVille (which some consider a "gas guzzler") gets 24 MPG highway/city combined (actual measured value), and I can get 30 MPG (actual) on 2-hour highway trips at 70 miles an hour, cruise control engaged. This is with an emissions system that needs repair -- my mileage will improve after it is fixed. My 1999 Honda Accord (4 cylinder VTEC) gets 30 to 38 MPG depending on the type of driving, and on long trips I've achieved 40 MPG. The point I'm making is that if we really want to reduce transportation's consumption of oil, the technology required to do so is already proven and available, and would not require gutting the livelyhoods of people that have to drive long distances or use petroleum-powered equipment for vital things -- like growing and transporting food.
Peak travel, like some other problems, vanishes if we're willin
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, stop using Viacom product. There's more to life than the crap Viacom and its subsidiaries like to feed people. Just because they make it available doesn't mean you have to consume it. Let the general public (your neighbors and friends who struggle with email) know what's going on. They get spoon-fed the news and haven't stopped to think critically. Maybe you can be the first crack in the armor of ignorance.
I realize that getting people to turn off their TV and stop listening to commercial music is a tough call, but that's what it boils down to. I stopped watching television twenty years ago, and I haven't purchased a CD from an RIAA-member publishing house for almost as long. Thanks to the 'net, I really don't need to sit through thirty minutes of advertising so I can watch a talking head read me the news from a script; I can read the same thing online in a few minutes, and I can actually find the source of the story to see how badly my "news" provider has skewed the facts. Thanks to YouTube, I can see an entire security cam video and find out what happened, not just the part that the network news wants me to see.
As for Viacom, there are a lot of ways to get their attention. Contact the EFF (which has more political clout than individuals). Send snail mail in large envelopes (so they don't get tossed immediately) to Viacom's legal department. Buy a share of Viacom stock and hold it for a while, then get in touch with investor relations at the company. Above all, make it clear that the goal is to impact their business negatively by encouraging others not to purchase their product.
The Slashdot community as a whole is a little smarter, a little better informed and a little more activist than the general population (think you'll ever see xkcd in a newspaper any time soon?). Time to let Viacom know -- and other companies like them -- that screwing us is not a good idea.
Please, someone give the marketing people sedatives before they hurt themselves.
Every time I hear one of these clueless clowns talk about "new technology", it just reminds me of how shallow their historical perspective is. I'm not sure what's worse -- listening to these idiots or watching them get funding for what is nothing more than a pretty website with a bit of Javascript masquerading as The Next Big Thing(tm). And of course, this will all be the rage until next month, when we throw everything away for The Next Big Thing 2.0(tm).
Of course, we all know it's not about technology -- it's about publishing articles, books and white papers, holding symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings where we can all pay to hear someone pontificate about The Next Big Thing(tm). Let's not forget all of the advertising real estate made available by all those magazines, books, symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings.
Heaven help you if you even quietly ask exactly what all of this does for the customer, or why it is that their Next Big Thing(tm) cratered after a year and $25 million.
I really am tired of being seen as a source of revenue ("consumer") that can be lied to, tricked and otherwise legally fleeced, rather than a willing participant in a transaction where I get something of value for my money. Money, I might add, that represents something I can't ever get back -- time.
What's worse is companies that sell my behavior patterns to the highest bidder without at least being courteous enough to tell me they're doing so. Rootkits that report what CD I'm listening to? And don't give me the crap about not having "personally identifying characterstics"; that's baloney spewed in press releases so the CEO can cover his butt when the lawsuits start. And we don't know any companies that lie, misrepresent or withhold information (Merck) either, right?
My payment behavior, my demographics, my creative output and my personal interests are just that -- mine, thank you very much. My skin color, gender, religious affiliation, reading list, ethnic background, musical tastes, employment status, income history, bathroom count (apparently of importance to the U.S. Census Bureau) and geographic location are none of your business. If you want to use that information, you can bloody well ask my permission -- and pay me a fee for it too. "Fair use" should be a two-way street.
Of course, I'm hoping that somewhere there are corporate executives that actually have morals, ethics and a spine in one package. I'm reasonably certain that I'm asking too much of most politicians.
No, I'm not cynical or upset at all...I just sound that way.
I made some changes at the office and at home not too long ago, with interesting (and gratifying) results visible on the electric bill. My laptop (dual-booting Thinkpad) is now my primary system. I even use it for gaming; granted, I don't play some of the more outrageous games -- SimCity 4 and Flight Simulator are my favorites -- but the laptop does quite well. Lots of memory helps, of course. I'm a developer, so most of the time I'm coding and one hardly needs a 3 Ghz machine for that. The only drawback to the laptop is its comparatively lackluster disk throughput, but it's not a major issue.
Other benefits included reclaiming a lot of desk real-estate (which promply got cluttered with stacks of stuff), and an eerily quiet office.
After a cursory glance, the core of the patent seems to be the idea of using a comment system attached to a pattern or procedure that identifies groups of web pages to which those comments apply. The database is referenced via a plug-in or other (potentially client-server) method. The web sites in question may or may not be simultaneously visible. All of the claims regarding IRC, email, etc. are pre-emptive in nature so as to prevent someone from using this patent as the basis for an improvement.
The patent is incredibly broad (it even suggests that email falls within the purview of the claims). I'd imagine that most Wikis, Slashdot itself, many document management and IR systems as well as a few data mining tools probably apply. Usenet with embedded URL's (or even static images of web pages) comes to mind, and I'd bet that AOL, eBay, Webex and CompuServe would have something to say about all this. Most blogs (and their precursors) are probably prior art, and I wouldn't be surprised if several well-established comparison shopping sites applied.
The patent was filed in 2001, which is fairly late in the game to be claiming things like this as unique and non-obvious.
What about the millions of lines of infringing code we were supposed to see? And no, pointing to AIX, Dynix, Linux and Irix and saying "it's in there somewhere, but we don't know where" doesn't count.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sick of having "experiences" pushed in my face by marketing drones who think I need to know what's "cool" or "interesting." The "experience" I'm really interested in is a browser that functions properly, doesn't crash, supports standards, and which doesn't eat all of the available memory or CPU. I'm even willing to PAY for something like that. If the management team at the Mozilla Foundation has time and resources to surreptitiously load unwanted extensions hyping some television show on the browser, they sure as hell have the time and resources to fix some of the more egregious and annoying bugs.
I sure hope Firefox isn't about to plummet into "form over function" irrelevancy like Skype recently did ("The most expressive Skype ever!"). Bugger "expressive" or "experience"...just make the damned thing work properly.
The essay has little to do with creative satisfaction, which is what the title implies. Substitute the phrase "light entertainment" for the author's use of "fun", and one gets a slightly better idea of what he seems to be writing about. The article appears to be a social justice essay rather than a technology discussion.
While he makes some interesting, fragmentary points, much of what he wrote is full of unsupported assertions and generalizations, which makes it hard to accept his conclusions. My own experience certainly doesn't agree with his assertions about the nature of the way programmers think.
Exactly; the EPA test track is only good as a baseline measurement. Granted, it is impossible to define "average" driving conditions versus having precise control on a test track, but it would be of great use to have professional drivers test vehicles in a series of defined driving environments over a period of time and use the average results. This would be a far better reflection of real mileage versus the ideal (and totally unrealistic) test track. We have test pilots, why not test drivers which are responsible for similar levels of care in measurement and reporting? Perhaps an industry lab that is funded by all automakers selling cars in the U.S. with government-defined test conditions and federal inspectors reading and giving a critique on the results?
I regularly get 25 MPG or better in my 1996 Cadillac DeVille, which isn't bad for an 8-cylinder, 275 HP engine in a 3,800 lb vehicle, and I can get 40 MPG in my 1999 Honda Accord if I am on a long road trip, driving carefully (4-cylinder ULEV-rated VTEC powerplant). The EPA estimates for both vehicles are considerably lower. In fact, the Cadillac gets 30 MPG on 2 hour trips over rolling hills at 70 miles per hour, something that most people would never believe of a vehicle that is regularly used as an example of a gas hog. It's not, and it's a great example of what good engineering can already achieve. Some people have measured 65 MPG or better in their Volkswagen diesels, and Honda sells a diesel in Japan and Europe that gets better than 50 MPG. Why do we need to be spending inordinate amounts on hybrid vehicles that have toxic battery packs that need replacing every seven to ten years? The technology to do better is already available on standard powerplants.
Just because the EPA is unwilling to change its methodology to account for advances in technology, we have automakers shelving perfectly good ideas. Exactly what is so hard about changing protocols? It's not like we don't have well-qualified people available to make this happen, and many of them work for automakers. I bet Ford and GM would be happy to have a place to show off what they can do for mileage improvement; it might even help generate sales, and since we're trying to create jobs, what are we waiting for?
I believe you are correct about the reasons for the oil consumption figure. Much of our heavy manufacturing in the midwest has disappeared, thanks to relatively cheap labor available in other countries. What many don't seem to realize is that all those plastic doodads and sub-assemblies that go into larger products require oil, and if you're not making that here (the USA), oil consumption will fall in this country -- but not elsewhere.
You make a very good point about distance transportation, which really needs to be emphasized further in these kinds of discussions. Out where I live (east-central Texas), discussions of "practical" electric vehicles, mass transit and things like using a bicycle are greeted with well-deserved derision. Farm equipment as an example, cannot be powered by anything but a concentrated, portable energy supply that is easily stored at the farm. Batteries just don't cut it, and even if they did, getting the electrical infrastructure capable of handling high-volume charging requirements would be prohibitively expensive in rural areas. Running out of battery off-road is not good; try carrying enough battery capacity in your arms to get going again versus five gallons of gasoline. And, the idea of using a bicycle to go get reasonably-priced groceries 30 miles away (not uncommon in this area) is ludicrous, not to mention hauling 1,500 lbs of feed. A go-kart powered with a lawnmower engine is a paragon of practicality by comparison. Urbanites often seem to forget that most of the country is empty space, and for many applications, there is a stark choice between limited human or animal power, and something that gives you the energy density of diesel or gasoline. Diesel being far less difficult to handle and store than gasoline. Gasoline with ethanol added is an incredible headache, since it destroys engines that don't get run every day: Farm equipment is not cheap, and destroying it with dodgy fuel just to satisfy someone's need for a subsidy or an obsession with ethanol is just criminal. And people wonder why food prices are climbing.
If policy-makers spent less time in their little insular world of suburban life (and watching the talking heads on the evening news), they might have a different perspective on things. I know that growing up in Los Angeles during the 1970's (I left in 1978), I had no idea what effect reasonable-sounding energy policy had on the rest of the population. Now I do. Bottom line, attempting to legislate the use of certain technologies because they work well under specific circumstances is an invitation to all sorts of problems. You cannot anticipate all needs, requirements, and problems. But, Congress seems to think this is possible and so we are stuck with things like massive ethanol subsidies; money that could be better spent elsewhere improving technologies that actually work.
For example, I have my suspicions about motivations with fuel economy. A diesel four-banger compact gets extremely good mileage; Honda's 2009 diesel Accord achieved better than 50 MPG and met the European "clean diesel" standards. Why can't we buy them here (along with counterparts from Nissan, Toyota and others)? My 1996 Cadillac DeVille (which some consider a "gas guzzler") gets 24 MPG highway/city combined (actual measured value), and I can get 30 MPG (actual) on 2-hour highway trips at 70 miles an hour, cruise control engaged. This is with an emissions system that needs repair -- my mileage will improve after it is fixed. My 1999 Honda Accord (4 cylinder VTEC) gets 30 to 38 MPG depending on the type of driving, and on long trips I've achieved 40 MPG. The point I'm making is that if we really want to reduce transportation's consumption of oil, the technology required to do so is already proven and available, and would not require gutting the livelyhoods of people that have to drive long distances or use petroleum-powered equipment for vital things -- like growing and transporting food.
Peak travel, like some other problems, vanishes if we're willin
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, stop using Viacom product. There's more to life than the crap Viacom and its subsidiaries like to feed people. Just because they make it available doesn't mean you have to consume it. Let the general public (your neighbors and friends who struggle with email) know what's going on. They get spoon-fed the news and haven't stopped to think critically. Maybe you can be the first crack in the armor of ignorance.
I realize that getting people to turn off their TV and stop listening to commercial music is a tough call, but that's what it boils down to. I stopped watching television twenty years ago, and I haven't purchased a CD from an RIAA-member publishing house for almost as long. Thanks to the 'net, I really don't need to sit through thirty minutes of advertising so I can watch a talking head read me the news from a script; I can read the same thing online in a few minutes, and I can actually find the source of the story to see how badly my "news" provider has skewed the facts. Thanks to YouTube, I can see an entire security cam video and find out what happened, not just the part that the network news wants me to see.
As for Viacom, there are a lot of ways to get their attention. Contact the EFF (which has more political clout than individuals). Send snail mail in large envelopes (so they don't get tossed immediately) to Viacom's legal department. Buy a share of Viacom stock and hold it for a while, then get in touch with investor relations at the company. Above all, make it clear that the goal is to impact their business negatively by encouraging others not to purchase their product.
The Slashdot community as a whole is a little smarter, a little better informed and a little more activist than the general population (think you'll ever see xkcd in a newspaper any time soon?). Time to let Viacom know -- and other companies like them -- that screwing us is not a good idea.
You owe me a keyboard :-)
I can just hear the marketing people now...."but, it doesn't have rounded corners on the box thingy!"
What utter crap.
Please, someone give the marketing people sedatives before they hurt themselves.
Every time I hear one of these clueless clowns talk about "new technology", it just reminds me of how shallow their historical perspective is. I'm not sure what's worse -- listening to these idiots or watching them get funding for what is nothing more than a pretty website with a bit of Javascript masquerading as The Next Big Thing(tm). And of course, this will all be the rage until next month, when we throw everything away for The Next Big Thing 2.0(tm).
Of course, we all know it's not about technology -- it's about publishing articles, books and white papers, holding symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings where we can all pay to hear someone pontificate about The Next Big Thing(tm). Let's not forget all of the advertising real estate made available by all those magazines, books, symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings.
Heaven help you if you even quietly ask exactly what all of this does for the customer, or why it is that their Next Big Thing(tm) cratered after a year and $25 million.
No, I'm not a curmudgeon. I just sound like one.
Succinct summary!
I really am tired of being seen as a source of revenue ("consumer") that can be lied to, tricked and otherwise legally fleeced, rather than a willing participant in a transaction where I get something of value for my money. Money, I might add, that represents something I can't ever get back -- time.
What's worse is companies that sell my behavior patterns to the highest bidder without at least being courteous enough to tell me they're doing so. Rootkits that report what CD I'm listening to? And don't give me the crap about not having "personally identifying characterstics"; that's baloney spewed in press releases so the CEO can cover his butt when the lawsuits start. And we don't know any companies that lie, misrepresent or withhold information (Merck) either, right?
My payment behavior, my demographics, my creative output and my personal interests are just that -- mine, thank you very much. My skin color, gender, religious affiliation, reading list, ethnic background, musical tastes, employment status, income history, bathroom count (apparently of importance to the U.S. Census Bureau) and geographic location are none of your business. If you want to use that information, you can bloody well ask my permission -- and pay me a fee for it too. "Fair use" should be a two-way street.
Of course, I'm hoping that somewhere there are corporate executives that actually have morals, ethics and a spine in one package. I'm reasonably certain that I'm asking too much of most politicians.
No, I'm not cynical or upset at all...I just sound that way.
I made some changes at the office and at home not too long ago, with interesting (and gratifying) results visible on the electric bill. My laptop (dual-booting Thinkpad) is now my primary system. I even use it for gaming; granted, I don't play some of the more outrageous games -- SimCity 4 and Flight Simulator are my favorites -- but the laptop does quite well. Lots of memory helps, of course. I'm a developer, so most of the time I'm coding and one hardly needs a 3 Ghz machine for that. The only drawback to the laptop is its comparatively lackluster disk throughput, but it's not a major issue.
Other benefits included reclaiming a lot of desk real-estate (which promply got cluttered with stacks of stuff), and an eerily quiet office.
I agree.
After a cursory glance, the core of the patent seems to be the idea of using a comment system attached to a pattern or procedure that identifies groups of web pages to which those comments apply. The database is referenced via a plug-in or other (potentially client-server) method. The web sites in question may or may not be simultaneously visible. All of the claims regarding IRC, email, etc. are pre-emptive in nature so as to prevent someone from using this patent as the basis for an improvement.
The patent is incredibly broad (it even suggests that email falls within the purview of the claims). I'd imagine that most Wikis, Slashdot itself, many document management and IR systems as well as a few data mining tools probably apply. Usenet with embedded URL's (or even static images of web pages) comes to mind, and I'd bet that AOL, eBay, Webex and CompuServe would have something to say about all this. Most blogs (and their precursors) are probably prior art, and I wouldn't be surprised if several well-established comparison shopping sites applied.
The patent was filed in 2001, which is fairly late in the game to be claiming things like this as unique and non-obvious.
What about the millions of lines of infringing code we were supposed to see? And no, pointing to AIX, Dynix, Linux and Irix and saying "it's in there somewhere, but we don't know where" doesn't count.