While I disagree with just about everything you've just asserted (without backing arguments), I don't see what it has to do with my post. Why have you felt the need to share this blather with me?
Um, I didn't make any sort of argument that companies care about me personally, although I would argue that people within companies can and do care about their employees personally (within limits). My argument is that companies can carry philosophies, ideas, and organisational creativity which are not purely economic, and might be worthy of respect. Do you actually disagree with this?
Compare to IE with 90%+ for the browser market, but that was beaten with the standards-supporting strategy. And there are other mid-sized players out there--Twitter for example. Don't get me wrong, I don't think any strategy has much hope. I think they'd be better off thinking about what comes after "social". Perhaps Google would be better off going more platform-y, like Amazon seems to be doing.
Huh? While I agree that the "great love" stuff is nauseating hyperbole, characterising companies as "purely economic affair[s]" is just silly. Companies are made up of people, selected by the people already in the company (while hiring), and people who want to work there (by applying). So you end up with a bunch of people who are selected for a particular mindset. The result of this is that companies have all sorts of differing priorities, motives, directions and products. This is particularly noticeable in tech, where there are ideological divisions between competing companies.
Money, is of course one of the big concerns, but I would argue that it's not necessarily the biggest. Apple seems to be largely motivated to make products that are insanely focussed on a certain type of user experience. Google by large-scale information sorting and similar technological problems. This is what make people want to work at these places.
Respect for a company is no stranger that respect for any other group of people.
Well, they aren't going to beat Facebook with + either. They need to band together with others in some sort of interoperable open social network if they are to have any hope at all. It worked for web standards vs. Microsoft. It can work for open social networking vs. Facebook.
Actually, I think there would be for Google. I'd argue that they should be concentrating on keeping the web from being swallowed up by huge sites like Facebook, which will develop their own advertising and revenue streams. If they supported an open platform for social networking, it's more likely that the landscape would comprise a bunch of smaller players--who would get their revenue through Google ads.
I think this is essentially their strategy with Android. It's a better strategy than going into direct competition with Facebook, which has got them--and will continue to get them--nowhere.
As I said, I don't want to belittle what you deal with, life can be a bitch, especially if it piles up on you like that. But I think you're making a mistake in thinking that these thing aren't common. They are. Lots of people are socially awkward, to varying degrees, all the time. When you're bad at something there's a tendency to think that everyone else is great, and getting along without difficulty. It ain't so.
Yeah, but you know this is a continuum, right? A lot of what you're describing happens to a huge segment of the population at times. Now, I'm not trying to belittle the struggle with something you're not good at, but everyone's gotta suck at something, right?
Diagnosis is a very kludgy way of dealing with traits that are part of a population's distribution. It's like diagnosing someone as a "slow runner" or "short".
When it has to use general-purpose computing (like when you try to do floating-point math), you'll find most computers a great deal faster and more efficient.
Is that true? I thought that the human brain was very good at all sorts of calculation, but that was hidden from consciousness. The computational power required to walk and chew gum at the same time is impressively high, no?
It is real work, I never said it wasn't. It just isn't the only "real work" that goes on, even on computers. Not by a long shot. The term"real work" mostly seems to be used by myopic arrogant jerks, that's my point. Ie. "GUIs are fine if you're just checking Facebook or whatever, but real work is done in a CLI".
It's a very useful term... for filtering out the pointless rantings of myopic sysadmin types. Guess what, "real work" guys: most work in the world is not batch processing text files! Strange but true.
Actually, profiling has been seriously challenged, there's a nice New Yorker article about it, and several scholarly papers, Alison L and Rainbow L. eds (2011) 'Professionalizing Offender Profiling: Forensic and Investigative Psychology in Practice'. Routledge, London. The charge is that profiling is similar to astrology, make vague claims that could match a variety of scenarios, and pay attention when it fits, not when it doesn't.
Like a lot of forensic techniques, it seems to have jumped from the theoretically plausible to practice, without going through the intermediate step of check that it works. "Junk science" may be a fair characterisation.
Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.
Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.
Well... I agree that cloud backup might be a problem in a variety of scenarios, but the use case isn't as small as you make out. I used cloud backups personally (as well as local, of course), and it works well. I work with video and very large photoshop files, so I'm shunting around significant amounts of data. CrashPlan (and Mozy too, before they capped their plans) seems to cope with it okay. Sure, I have a 5mb fibre connection up, so it's above average, but so is my data use.
Networks are getting faster, and the data people want to back up will not necessarily keep growing (in term of what the produce each day, not cumulative). The 500MB photoshop files and the 1080p video I work with today are the same as I worked with 4 years ago.
I know that a lot of submissions are inevitably going to be based on press releases (it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak), but do they have to be so blatantly biased? Could we have some sort of editorial? The last sentence of this post make me want to vomit.
I'll tell you how they do it. As a vector artist who has worked with flash in the past, I've noticed that it moves your bezier curve control points around -- often to the extent of distorting the shapes. It's very aggressive with its simplification of vector shapes. To the extent that I can't stand to use it with vectors, every time I want to make an adjustment, I find it's moved all my points around.
Slashdot Mirror
While I disagree with just about everything you've just asserted (without backing arguments), I don't see what it has to do with my post. Why have you felt the need to share this blather with me?
Um, I didn't make any sort of argument that companies care about me personally, although I would argue that people within companies can and do care about their employees personally (within limits). My argument is that companies can carry philosophies, ideas, and organisational creativity which are not purely economic, and might be worthy of respect. Do you actually disagree with this?
Compare to IE with 90%+ for the browser market, but that was beaten with the standards-supporting strategy. And there are other mid-sized players out there--Twitter for example. Don't get me wrong, I don't think any strategy has much hope. I think they'd be better off thinking about what comes after "social". Perhaps Google would be better off going more platform-y, like Amazon seems to be doing.
Huh? While I agree that the "great love" stuff is nauseating hyperbole, characterising companies as "purely economic affair[s]" is just silly. Companies are made up of people, selected by the people already in the company (while hiring), and people who want to work there (by applying). So you end up with a bunch of people who are selected for a particular mindset. The result of this is that companies have all sorts of differing priorities, motives, directions and products. This is particularly noticeable in tech, where there are ideological divisions between competing companies.
Money, is of course one of the big concerns, but I would argue that it's not necessarily the biggest. Apple seems to be largely motivated to make products that are insanely focussed on a certain type of user experience. Google by large-scale information sorting and similar technological problems. This is what make people want to work at these places.
Respect for a company is no stranger that respect for any other group of people.
Well, they aren't going to beat Facebook with + either. They need to band together with others in some sort of interoperable open social network if they are to have any hope at all. It worked for web standards vs. Microsoft. It can work for open social networking vs. Facebook.
Actually, I think there would be for Google. I'd argue that they should be concentrating on keeping the web from being swallowed up by huge sites like Facebook, which will develop their own advertising and revenue streams. If they supported an open platform for social networking, it's more likely that the landscape would comprise a bunch of smaller players--who would get their revenue through Google ads.
I think this is essentially their strategy with Android. It's a better strategy than going into direct competition with Facebook, which has got them--and will continue to get them--nowhere.
As I said, I don't want to belittle what you deal with, life can be a bitch, especially if it piles up on you like that. But I think you're making a mistake in thinking that these thing aren't common. They are. Lots of people are socially awkward, to varying degrees, all the time. When you're bad at something there's a tendency to think that everyone else is great, and getting along without difficulty. It ain't so.
Nah, dude, you're just a charmless buffoon. That's why you can't get laid.
Yeah, but you know this is a continuum, right? A lot of what you're describing happens to a huge segment of the population at times. Now, I'm not trying to belittle the struggle with something you're not good at, but everyone's gotta suck at something, right?
Diagnosis is a very kludgy way of dealing with traits that are part of a population's distribution. It's like diagnosing someone as a "slow runner" or "short".
Yes it does, pedants insistence on a poor translation of a confusing latin phrase notwithstanding. Give up.
Because this is PHP, man! Home of mysql_real_escape_string()!
When it has to use general-purpose computing (like when you try to do floating-point math), you'll find most computers a great deal faster and more efficient.
Is that true? I thought that the human brain was very good at all sorts of calculation, but that was hidden from consciousness. The computational power required to walk and chew gum at the same time is impressively high, no?
Strange, you seem to agree with me, but call my post ridiculous. Either you're confused or I am.
It is real work, I never said it wasn't. It just isn't the only "real work" that goes on, even on computers. Not by a long shot. The term"real work" mostly seems to be used by myopic arrogant jerks, that's my point. Ie. "GUIs are fine if you're just checking Facebook or whatever, but real work is done in a CLI".
It's a very useful term... for filtering out the pointless rantings of myopic sysadmin types. Guess what, "real work" guys: most work in the world is not batch processing text files! Strange but true.
Gordon Brown apologised a few years back -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8249792.stm
Actually, profiling has been seriously challenged, there's a nice New Yorker article about it, and several scholarly papers, Alison L and Rainbow L. eds (2011) 'Professionalizing Offender Profiling: Forensic and Investigative Psychology in Practice'. Routledge, London. The charge is that profiling is similar to astrology, make vague claims that could match a variety of scenarios, and pay attention when it fits, not when it doesn't.
Like a lot of forensic techniques, it seems to have jumped from the theoretically plausible to practice, without going through the intermediate step of check that it works. "Junk science" may be a fair characterisation.
You mean.. like a phone?
Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.
Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.
I suspect this is more to do with focus than bean counting. Though I agree Google is foundering.
This absolutely must be the case.>
And yet, they aren't. So you're wrong. QED.
Well... I agree that cloud backup might be a problem in a variety of scenarios, but the use case isn't as small as you make out. I used cloud backups personally (as well as local, of course), and it works well. I work with video and very large photoshop files, so I'm shunting around significant amounts of data. CrashPlan (and Mozy too, before they capped their plans) seems to cope with it okay. Sure, I have a 5mb fibre connection up, so it's above average, but so is my data use.
Networks are getting faster, and the data people want to back up will not necessarily keep growing (in term of what the produce each day, not cumulative). The 500MB photoshop files and the 1080p video I work with today are the same as I worked with 4 years ago.
I know that a lot of submissions are inevitably going to be based on press releases (it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak), but do they have to be so blatantly biased? Could we have some sort of editorial? The last sentence of this post make me want to vomit.
Yeah, but what are those apps? That's kind of the point of the question.
I'll tell you how they do it. As a vector artist who has worked with flash in the past, I've noticed that it moves your bezier curve control points around -- often to the extent of distorting the shapes. It's very aggressive with its simplification of vector shapes. To the extent that I can't stand to use it with vectors, every time I want to make an adjustment, I find it's moved all my points around.