Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory
genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
what makes a non-discriminatory policy (obviously hiring is one)? Do
people of certain genetic "deficiencies" have the same health benefits? At the
same cost?
what happens if IBM becomes the only company that commits
to this, and a stampede of genetic malware knocks at their door only? Do they
modify their policies? (it could become VERY expensive for them should they
remain the only corporation committed to this policy.)
what and how are "defectives" (God! I hate this topic... very loaded) detected? Are
they tested?, Is it mandatory?
Much good can, will (and has) come from genetic understanding and it's important
to remember what it brings. But from the article, there is a cautionary example (from the article):
In a handful of publicly disclosed cases, genetic data has been used without workers' knowledge.
This is a topic long sneaking up on current consciousness and conscience and
at some point needs to be stared down. I'm not a socialist, but if we start seeing
a society free to not hire, not talk to, not help, etc., simply because of some
percieved defect in their genetic makeup, I'd support some public policy not allowing
this.
it's more self-aggrandizing egotistical behavior... than anything else.
You know what? I worked for a company, one of the telcoms that went
through the upheaval of crooked leadership during the Enron days. One
of our CEO's walked away with $500M, and they're still chasing him down -- I
predict they'll NEVER get him. Our stock went from over $50 to under $2.
Then our shining knight on a white horse rode into town. He had a reputation
for coming in and slashing jobs, but he had genuine likability and charisma about
him. He also had an open e-mail policy, claimed he read and answered his e-mail.
Guess what? He did!
I exchanged a few e-mails with him, and he always responded. Cool... two
administrations before I'd always had pretty direct access at that level (I was pretty
senior), and now it appeared the company was back to bidnez. His responses were
short and non-expansive, but, hey, he IS the CEO.
Then, 9a.m. one morning about a year ago I got marched into a little room and
set free. For a previous post with more info, look here.
Yeah, he read and answered his e-mail... but he always signed it (and I'm not
making this up), "dick".
This is a near and dear issue for me. I've eagerly slurped up all the new
generations of printer technology each time more amazed than ever at the
quality of prints, finally achieving indistinguishable quality from lab prints.
But, a disturbing parallel trend came with each new generation of printer. The
printers became:
better quality
faster
cheaper
but at the same time:
less reliable (like, in a major major way)
more expensive per print
and inconvenient as hell
I still jump in every generation or so of new photo printer technology but not with
rose-colored glasses anymore. I still need to on occasion get a quick print for home
or some guest, but that's mostly it. For my serious stuff, I send it out to be done:
it's just so much easier
if they make a mistake, they eat the costs
the majority of the prints I want to make are for other people, and the majority
of the time those people are geographically far away. I can get a high quality print
to them much more easily and in half the time than if I do it myself.
I still am having trouble getting a ceramic cup to print properly on any of my
photo printers.
I think the costs for high quality prints from services will remain competitive as
there are plenty of competent "players" out there. Just read the reviews, sample a few
prints yourself before you commit big time to any of them. Also, maintain your
storage of prints yourself, lots of services offer storage, but I'd highly recommend
if you value your pictures, you keep archives of your own. (Aside from reliability
issues, what happens if any of them go out of business? Where do your pictures go?)
Oh please, oh please, stop making futuristic cell phones. How about
some today phones. Phones that work. Phones that sound good. Phones
that have decent battery life.
Last time I looked at cell phones, the only ones on display at the kiosk were
camera phones. I asked to look at just a plane old cell phone. She asked why
I would want a phone that couldn't take pictures. Hwah?
Let's see, what is Nokia considering:
the Aki, a wrist strap device for programmed self expression? Hell
most people aren't able to self express anyway, let alone thinking some wrist device
is going to do this. An electronic and more expensive twenty-first century mood
ring (for those of you who are old enough to remember).
the Acibo?, voice driven?, bio-energy rechargeable? Hwah? Don't know
what bio-energy rechargeable means. I'm also not wild about the idea of yet another
device to which people can talk and get increasingly frustrated when it calls "Bob"
instead of "Mom". Nope.
the wearable shockproof SURV1. Huh, shockproof wearable electronics?
They'd better be. Interesting looking, old looking in a year, which of course is
what they want.
a necklace base communicator, the Global Nomad? Cute name. Ugly
device. They describe it as the necklace for your geeky girlfriend. For those geeks
I know who do have a girlfriend, even they won't wear this device.
Nor, I'm guessing would any guys. Next!
the Colores. Apparently this does everything and holdseverything.
I just don't think there's a need for people to be this chock full of data, nor
to be this transcendentally connected to the universe. But, I could be wrong.
Maybe I'm too Unix "old school". I like small devices each of which do their
thing well, and integrate nicely with other things when it makes sense. In the
above "future", it mostly doesn't.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for cell phone technology to work correctly. Can you
hear me now?
Just like on my Cheerios box: "..., though some settling of contents normally
occurs during shipping and loading".
I guess as long as the consumer gets at least what they're advertised to get I don't
see this as any controversy, but maybe a decent approach by a seemingly decent
company (don't know for sure, haven't done any real research into Apple). And as
for any consumers of the "lower grade" Minis, again, I can't see there'd be any problem
as long as they got what they paid for and was advertised.
On the other hand, there are lots of examples where companies advertise one way but
deliver less. I recently purchases a washer/dryer set -- won't name the company, but
it sears in my memory. Anyway, in the picture in the Sunday circular, they
were pictured side-by-side, doors open. The dryer's inside light neatly illuminated
the clothing inside, exactly one of my criteria. When I got mine, no light.
Whaaaaah? I looked inside, no problem, there's the recess where the light should be,
it must be burned out, annoying but fixable. The more I pried around and tried to
find where the socket was the more confused I became. There wasn't ANYPLACE to install
a light bulb. I called the company for an explanation. Their explanation: "the
pictures in the ads don't necessarily reflect what the actual product looks like".
No apology, no offer to fix it. Guess what, I'll remember this
experience for a long long time. (The inside light was one of my primary criteria
in dryers as I shopped.... sigh.)
When it comes to something so fundamental and critical to a building in terms
of entering and leaving (access) one criterion comes to mind as necessary. I don't see
any mention in the article, I've got to assume this is considered. Does anyone
know if there is code to this requirement?
My question is this: what is the behavior of a door with that kind of technology
in total failure mode? What happens in a fire or some catastrophic event where the
door
loses power,
faces extreme heat
or cold,
gets wet, etc.?
Is it designed to
quiesce to a state whereby it behaves as an unlocked and openable door? I get
nervous sometimes when I see technology used this way. (I'm pretty comfortable with
the old pin/tumbler systems, and am perfectly aware they're not foolproof, nor the
most convenient...)
We had agreements with them about what constituted qualifying to keep their cars. They had to maintain a GPA (one graduated Valedictorian of her class of 600 students, got straight A's, and is now a doctor and has been invited to participate in a prestigious research project; the other maintained a 3.5 out of 4 GPA, and is a teacher today). They BOTH worked, and paid for their own gas.
We did give them things but we were strict and insisted they be part of the community, e.g., hold jobs, and do community (volunteer) work.
So, yes, we did give them cars, but not to just hop into and go out and do whatever they wanted.
Your concerns are valid. I see many kids exhibiting what you describe: financially dependent; spoiled; and without a clue where things come from.
These are probably the kids I worry about most.
We were not well-to-do at all, and got both of our daughters cars (to my objection) when they turned sixteen. And, virtually everyone in their peer group also had cars. Again, a demographic not rich by any means.
My friends of a younger generation also are giving their kids cars... if I guessed the percentage it would exceed 75%. Again, not a rich (but not poor) demographic. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just reporting what I've seen.
And, cable isn't the only thing I listed. I do see kids playing with video cameras, digital cameras, etc. The suite of options is greater today and I think the affinity for activities is more spread spectrum because of that and the video game niche takes a hit from that.
I agree lots of kids today barely lift their energy beyond learning the basics of IM, but IM is an incredible black hole for kids' time and energy, again, taking away some from video gaming.
I think all things collectively contribute to this.
Up front disclaimer: I am not a video-gamer, and have never been one.
I can add only anecdotal experience, but that experience jives with the article.
I've had many friends who children were video game freaks. About ten years ago
I was befuddled and bemused at the length of time they played and their intensity.
Today, different friends, different generations... what I've seen has been that
video games for today's kids is more of a diversion among many rather than a
life style. I think video games were largely a fascination with "look what we
can do with computers and graphics" emerging technology.
Video games will always have a market, but I would agree with the observed trend
they don't hold sway today as in the past. I think a number of things factor into
this:
no creative quantum leaps in game technology since its emergence (better
graphics alone don't cut it -- I still see kids playing ten year old console games
because they simply like the old games better, regardless of inferior graphics)
emergence of so many other distracting technologies (mp3, video on-line, chat,
cell phones, digital photography, cable/satellite 200+ tv channel selection)
a more mobile generation/society where a typical 16th birthday gift for kids is
at least a used car. (that was virtually unheard of when I was a kid). today's
generation is more likely to hop in the car and go somewhere rather than hole up in
their room with video games.
the failure of real-time on-line video gaming (too much latency)
Today, when I see kids playing video games at friend's homes it's typically a
end-of-the-day diversion after all other activities have been exhausted.
I've read the fine article, and most of the posts so far. Most notable in all of this bickering is a seeming disregard for the consumer. It's all about controlling the consumer, not about providing the best technology. I wonder when any of this comes about how mature either technology will be.
Have you ever tried to configure and make work current HD technology? Hell, they've not even gotten this to work properly!
Case in point, if you're trying to run HD through an Audio Visual switch, good luck getting the sound to synchronize with the picture. I struggled with this for some friends new setup and did an end-zone dance when I got it to work. Then we found out that some video sources and inputs worked synchronized, while others didn't. What a pain in the ass.
And then, you have to choose what the output from the A/V switch to the TV will be, S-video, composite, coax? For the configuration we set up, getting to a satisfactory signal we went with composite only to find all of the screen enunciator functions from the A/V switch (Yamaha) weren't generated on the composite output.
It seems everywhere you turn, the new wow-technology either doesn't work right, doesn't work well, doesn't work all of the time, and sometimes doesn't work at all. FSCK!
Now layer on top of all of this the new HD or Blu Ray DVD stuff. I shudder at the compolications we face with the DRM crap they're focusing on. Instead they should be making this as easy to use as possible with as few speed bumps as possible. I'm not holding my breath.
And for those who would recommend "RTFM", I did. I went to the various places that sell this stuff, I Googled, and could not find definitive ultimate solutions to all of these glitches. Thank God the entertainment industry isn't in charge of the space program!
legal mumbo jumbo. It's what protects us from being a police state
No, the laws are what keep us from being a police state, and hopefully, the constitution. Legal mumbo jumbo cuts both ways. I bristle when legalese is used in overly technical and idiomatic ways to skew a story, a trial, anything. Both sides do it, both side shouldn't (always a strange and delicate balance between that and a most vigorous defense of a defendant).
you seem to imply it is ok for the cops to use "legal technicalities" to convict someone they "deem" a criminal.
Actually, more correctly, you seem to infer. No other posts have given any such interpretation of my comments. But, if you interpret my position as such let me clarify. I don't believe in legal technicalities as tools to convict... but, I have encountered situations where
someone is known to be commiting crimes, doing bad things (corporate setting, e.g.) and because of their slipperiness, the germaine governing "body" nails them for any infraction otherwise. This was how Al Capone and friends were finally nabbed by convicting them on tax evasion, though all knew that was hardly their most egregious offense.
But as for using technicalities to convict for the sake of convicting someone? No, definitely not something I agree with.
I can't help but suspect there must be more to this story than is being
put forth. Part of me wants to believe his defense, "he never tried to defraud", but
my distaste for legal mumbo jumbo makes me wonder more about the specifics:
He tried to access the system twice and both times was denied access. What does
that mean? Was he trying to gain access to a part of the system where access to
sensitive information was stored? Was he trying to login, but not knowing how to?
He never tried to defraud: What does that mean? Is it because he never gained
access? If so, was his intent to try and defraud had he gained access? (In my
opinion, if that were the case, he certainly should be considered to have tried
to defraud.)
Another defense argument is this guy's actions were merely attempts to
verify legitimacy of the fund raising site. So, what exactly was
he doing to verify? (And why wouldn't he take more traditional avenues
such as Googling, etc. What are the implications of every cynical user of a site
attempting "access" to verify legitimacy?)
Has this guy done other things and now authorities, etc., are just using
technicalities to shut him down?
On its face, this looks like serious stuff with serious consequences for
seemingly innocent activity and should give pause to any internet users, but I suspect
there's more to it than meets the public eye.
This guy is pretty amazing in his energy applied to convincing the world (and
himself) Microsoft is an inventing kind of company. He even uses a bizarre example:
It's akin to the argument that a Ford Escort
preceded a Formula One racer, and therefore the engineers on that Formula
One racer didn't really invent anything because all they are doing is
making a car.
Wow! I'm not sure in this universe what comparison is being made. But I infer
he is saying Microsoft is getting accused of being non-innovative because they're
making the Formula One racers. I'm not sure this is a metaphor I can accept for
the stuff I've seen coming from Microsoft, unless a Formula One racer:
weighs about 6,000 to 7,000 lbs.
gets about.0001 miles per gallone
has a whole bunch of extra, unwieldly, unnecessary, undecipherable, and just
plain weird instrumentation that never gets used
has none of the critical and necessary instrumentation available or if it is, it's
under the seat.
has to have the tires upgraded every lap
shuts itself down if you: don't pay a fee, or if you seem to be doing something
suspicious
I would however cede their metaphor in these regards:
Almost noone knows how to maintain a Formula One racer properly
Formula One racers are outrageously expensive
they really do get crappy mileage
they really do go through tires
they break down a lot.
There are also some specious arguments and claims:
Microsoft is the only one who "gets it" about how technology is an interrelated
puzzle.
there should be a consistency across technology, from remote controls, to cell
phones, to laptops, to desktops, ad nauseum (there shouldn't -- just what is
the argument for this?
there is no comparable technology "out there" to Microsoft's COM model (just
plain wrong).
Regardless, it's kind of fun to see the periodic article pushing yet again to
tell the world Microsoft is innovative. In Microsoft's case, it is
actually possible saying so makes it so.
If this is true, it means there is a site for approximately one site per
every 350 people on the planet! Hmmmm, don't know if that's
impressive or not. However, some criteria that would make it more clear to me
what they're counting as web sites:
they claim these are responses from "sites" -- what is the question/query? Is
it a spider?
does a blog represent a single site? If so, would that mean a couple of Google
machines hosting 10,000 blogs would represent 10,000 sites?
are load balanced sites (e.g., corporations, et. al.) represented as one site? Or
are they represented by the number of machines balancing the load? (If this is true,
then you can figure Google's contribution to the site count to be well over 100,000
by now.)
As in the blog universe I suspect a large number of these sites are not much
in substance. Aside from my curiosity about the realness of this number
I wonder what really can be gleaned from it. It is interesting to see the profile
and trends of the technology serving the sites (most notably Apache vs. IIS/.NET).
Wow, the post is the entire article! So, this isn't much
to go on. Sounds mostly like PR with a shot across the bow they intend to make
it as consumer unfriendly as possible. (Consider "These movies are so
expensive, we have to be careful" -- doesn't sound like ability to take
advantage of inexpensive delivery cuts the consumer any slack.)
I still wonder:
what is the "security"?
what is on-line?
any idea at all of pricing?
what movies? (recent release available on dvd?)
HD?
This is spin. Whatever it is, I'm not looking forward to it.
First most obvious question to me is, will it run on Linux? No mention in the
article, and their web site is coy (and a little
annoying in its design). It does mention "cross platform tastiness", and "written in
java", so I'm hoping.
That said, my biggest worry is browser extensions that start relying on non-standard
implementation, i.e., they begin to have affinity for things not-html, not-javascript,
things not-css. I know the browser universe is a hodge-podge of standards already, I
just would hate to see yet another trailblazer that ends up to be some extension of
some proprietary idea.
Anyway, to the new browser and its team, welcome to our flock. Best of luck.
Dejà wow! So, this legislation looks the same as that being passed around
in the United States. Again, the gist is the consumer taking any actions on their
own in fair-use context (not sure that exists there, but I'm assuming) could
be accused of violating these proposed laws.
And, again, I see nothing in these proposed laws that are ensuring protection for
the artists. All references seem to indicate protection of music labels
, something quite different than artists.
Aside:
Psychiatrist: So, Mickey, you say you want to divorce Minnie Mouse
because she's crazy?
Mickey Mouse: (in high squeaky voice) No, I want to divorce her
because she's fucking Goofy!
Aside from many astute observations about this poor boy, laid off and never having received his: company car, millions of dollars, etc., I would add that anyone who describes themselves as Ninja in.NET, and with a kung fu grip of.NET still has a ways to go before earning others' respect.
Also, for a look at the other end of a career a getting laid of, take a read of my post.
I sometimes wonder about those who somehow think by the time they've "worked" for one year they should have it all.
Wish I could get to the article to see specifics... but, there is nothing, nothing about this that makes any sense.
This approach will
alienate customers
create support nightmares
create unwanted and unnecessary waste products
What are these people thinking? Imagine if the publishing industry went this route when books began being widely published. If they'd been of the same ilk (and the could have, they had to know people were reading books, then passing them around), they would have developed some kind of self-destructing mechanism for books so once you read it you could not read it again. How crazy a world would that be? (I know, I know... they've sort of gone down that road making some books so fragile that once you crack the spine and read them, they barely hold together for another read.)
I would just love to be in some of these meetings where people are suggesting these ideas, and others are approving them.
(Hmmm, weird, could swear I replied to this, must have only gone as far as preview and forgot to submit.)
I've always looked for vi-alike plugins for as many environments as possible. Life would be great if things like OpenOffice had a vi mode. (Not asking others to be vi-ers, just let me have my interface... I'm at least a factor of 2 or 3 more efficient editing text in vi.) 'Twould be nice if I could plug it into FireFox (and even Thunderbird).
As for your post about vi vs. vim, look at my statement before your quote:
Okay, the tool I'm using now: vim, derivative of Bill Joy's vi, with color syntax and a bounty of enhancements.
So, you see I did distinguish between vim and vi and even attributed Bill Joy as the original author! (Though vi seems very much derivative of the first character-based fullscreen text editor I encountered in Unix called "sc" (short for screen). "sc" was available with ATT SysV Unix many, many years ago.)
Again, thanks much for the suggestion, and "hey" to a fellow vi-er.
Hi vidnet, thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to check into it. I wonder if I can plug it into FireFox (and even some e-mail clients, that would be nice).
As for your comment: And I hope you just misspelled "I prepare my comments in vim". Vim isn't vi, and vi isn't vim....
I think the full context of my statement was more correctly: Okay, the tool I'm using now: vim, derivative of Bill Joy's vi, with color syntax and a bounty of enhancements. So, I was not only making the distinction between vim and vi, I attributed Bill Joy as vi's author (though I remember using a precursor to vi that was VERY much like vi called "sc" (short for screen). It was included with AT&T SysV way, way back.).
Again thanks much for the suggestion... and "hey" to a fellow vi user.
It's almost amazing the movie industry gets away with this. They scream
and throw tantrums over any overtures, any market that dares step
foot in their domain. How? By threatening to sue almost anyone! How? By
demanding the electronics industry put "safeguards" in dvd players (more on that in
a second). How? By spending millions in D.C. demanding laws be passed to protect
their eroding stranglehold on an evolving market place. How? By doing everything
in their power to prevent evolution (read: progress).
In the meantime, they approve pap for movie plots and ideas, pander to the idiotic
mainstream thinking that's their meal ticket (it mostly is). But their offerings
have become so predictable, so terrible, and so terribly produced and
directed people are starting to feel ripped off for the small fortune they must
spend for a night out of movies and popcorn. They've sown these seeds, they're
reaping their own rewards.
What I think funny in the article is their collective sigh of relief some recent
movies are getting viewers. I suspect when movies like "Transporter 2 are
raking in blockbuster revenues it's more about their concerted ramped-up advertising
and less about the quality of their movies.
It does appear there may be some good movies this fall ("History of Violence"
is high on my list), I'm guessing we'll see more of the same crap. I don't know
how many times they can go to the well with their overproduced special effects
stories with no plot or believable ideas and keep the public coming back (but don't
underestimate the masses to continue to believe, ever heard of Charlie Brown and
Lucy?), but they're creating their own misery.
As for their heavy handed fingers-in-the-distribution-and-technology pie, give me
a break. I set up a dvd recorder for my dad. I LOVED how simple it was to operate,
and it did an excellent job of recording shows for him. He was a happy camper
too. He loves to watch PBS, and was excited to record a recent Civil War special
on his new dvd recorder and wanted to send the dvd to me to watch. He was concerned
because his dvd would not play on other dvd players, something about a region code
violation (we know what that is).
Anyway, the disk arrived today, and it's NOT playable on my player. Fuck the
movie and entertainment industry. They've made my dad unhappy, they've prevented me
from watching a show which, had I watched, could only have helped their cause (exposure,
exposure, exposure).
This isn't the first time I've had this technology dance with my dad, and I'm sure it
won't be the last. But, I hate it, and the sooner the entertainment industry cleans up
their act, the better. Sigh.
I was on a special project, tucked away in a secret office in Seattle. We were creating a workbench of sorts using one of the very first PC networks in our company (it was 1986). Five of us created hundreds of files and thousands of lines of code and balanced version control ad hoc and on-the-fly. The project was a success.
One day though, I'd transferred an image of our work from one machine to another. When I "ls'ed", oooops, I mean "dir'ed" the directory structures on the two machines they did not match. WTF? Hey wait, DOS has a diff command! Phew!
I dir'ed the tree structures of the two mismatched machines into machine1.dir and machine2.dir and issued the command: c:> diff machine1.dir machine2.dir
and the system replied: files are different. Wow! Strong stuff. I found a way to get the two files to a unix box and used a real diff command. Sigh.
Okay, the tool I'm using now: vim, derivative of Bill Joy's
vi, with color syntax and a bounty of enhancements. (Yes, I prepare my
comments in vi, then cut and paste, don't even try to make me use
some GUI text widget editor and claim it can be productive.)
And then there's:
sed, or even ed. ed is great for scripting edit changes if you don't have the
heart to master sed. I once used "sed" to create nroff output of document versions
with delete markers (asterisks), change markers, and insertion markers from
our technical documentation library.
awk. I couldn't have done half the work I've done in my career without this one.
I watched entire teams scramble to solve some problem in Visual Studio, and would
crank out a twenty line awk script that afternoon. Problem solved.
[ef]grep. If you're going to pipeline some shit, it's nice to filter it first (and
sometimes second, then third, etc....). The grep family is second to none for this.
(Funny story: I once worked at Microsoft. Was doing some stuff in DOS. Asked what
command I'd use to find a string in a file or files. They showed me "FIND". Okay.
I typed in: find mystring *.* and literally got back: mystring found in *.*, and then a listing of all the lines found. No
reference to the files they were in... Shit, after all, I asked to find the lines
in '*.*'.
I complained. They showed me their (Microsoft's purchased from IBM) unix, "xenix",
and their "grep" command. Ahhhhh, better. I typed: grep -i mystring *.*
and it replied "unknown option -i". I complained about not having
an "ignore case" option. They looked at me like I was crazy... "Why would you ever
want to ignore case?"
diff. A life saver. 'Nuff said.
find. Freak! When I first met this command I said "go away!". Talk about an obtuse
syntax and paradigm. Learn it! It's worth it.
xargs. Nice way to get around the line length restrictions of some of the unix
shells.
zsh, bash, (but not csh)... Any interactive shell with a good history and command
line completion mechanism. I never have to remember command syntax anymore... usually
I can find a usable and editable example somewhere in the last 2000 commands I've
executed.
I could go on, and probably will in some subsequent posts. When you have so many
well written, well evolved, well crafted, and well behaved tools all flying in
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I am genetically an idiot.
Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
Much good can, will (and has) come from genetic understanding and it's important to remember what it brings. But from the article, there is a cautionary example (from the article):
This is a topic long sneaking up on current consciousness and conscience and at some point needs to be stared down. I'm not a socialist, but if we start seeing a society free to not hire, not talk to, not help, etc., simply because of some percieved defect in their genetic makeup, I'd support some public policy not allowing this.
it's more self-aggrandizing egotistical behavior... than anything else.
You know what? I worked for a company, one of the telcoms that went through the upheaval of crooked leadership during the Enron days. One of our CEO's walked away with $500M, and they're still chasing him down -- I predict they'll NEVER get him. Our stock went from over $50 to under $2.
Then our shining knight on a white horse rode into town. He had a reputation for coming in and slashing jobs, but he had genuine likability and charisma about him. He also had an open e-mail policy, claimed he read and answered his e-mail. Guess what? He did!
I exchanged a few e-mails with him, and he always responded. Cool... two administrations before I'd always had pretty direct access at that level (I was pretty senior), and now it appeared the company was back to bidnez. His responses were short and non-expansive, but, hey, he IS the CEO.
Then, 9a.m. one morning about a year ago I got marched into a little room and set free. For a previous post with more info, look here.
Yeah, he read and answered his e-mail... but he always signed it (and I'm not making this up), "dick".
This is a near and dear issue for me. I've eagerly slurped up all the new generations of printer technology each time more amazed than ever at the quality of prints, finally achieving indistinguishable quality from lab prints.
But, a disturbing parallel trend came with each new generation of printer. The printers became:
but at the same time:
I still jump in every generation or so of new photo printer technology but not with rose-colored glasses anymore. I still need to on occasion get a quick print for home or some guest, but that's mostly it. For my serious stuff, I send it out to be done:
I think the costs for high quality prints from services will remain competitive as there are plenty of competent "players" out there. Just read the reviews, sample a few prints yourself before you commit big time to any of them. Also, maintain your storage of prints yourself, lots of services offer storage, but I'd highly recommend if you value your pictures, you keep archives of your own. (Aside from reliability issues, what happens if any of them go out of business? Where do your pictures go?)
I care, and I'm with you all the way buddy.
Oh please, oh please, stop making futuristic cell phones. How about some today phones. Phones that work. Phones that sound good. Phones that have decent battery life.
Last time I looked at cell phones, the only ones on display at the kiosk were camera phones. I asked to look at just a plane old cell phone. She asked why I would want a phone that couldn't take pictures. Hwah?
Let's see, what is Nokia considering:
Maybe I'm too Unix "old school". I like small devices each of which do their thing well, and integrate nicely with other things when it makes sense. In the above "future", it mostly doesn't.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for cell phone technology to work correctly. Can you hear me now?
Just like on my Cheerios box: "..., though some settling of contents normally occurs during shipping and loading".
I guess as long as the consumer gets at least what they're advertised to get I don't see this as any controversy, but maybe a decent approach by a seemingly decent company (don't know for sure, haven't done any real research into Apple). And as for any consumers of the "lower grade" Minis, again, I can't see there'd be any problem as long as they got what they paid for and was advertised.
On the other hand, there are lots of examples where companies advertise one way but deliver less. I recently purchases a washer/dryer set -- won't name the company, but it sears in my memory. Anyway, in the picture in the Sunday circular, they were pictured side-by-side, doors open. The dryer's inside light neatly illuminated the clothing inside, exactly one of my criteria. When I got mine, no light. Whaaaaah? I looked inside, no problem, there's the recess where the light should be, it must be burned out, annoying but fixable. The more I pried around and tried to find where the socket was the more confused I became. There wasn't ANYPLACE to install a light bulb. I called the company for an explanation. Their explanation: "the pictures in the ads don't necessarily reflect what the actual product looks like". No apology, no offer to fix it. Guess what, I'll remember this experience for a long long time. (The inside light was one of my primary criteria in dryers as I shopped.... sigh.)
When it comes to something so fundamental and critical to a building in terms of entering and leaving (access) one criterion comes to mind as necessary. I don't see any mention in the article, I've got to assume this is considered. Does anyone know if there is code to this requirement?
My question is this: what is the behavior of a door with that kind of technology in total failure mode? What happens in a fire or some catastrophic event where the door
Is it designed to quiesce to a state whereby it behaves as an unlocked and openable door? I get nervous sometimes when I see technology used this way. (I'm pretty comfortable with the old pin/tumbler systems, and am perfectly aware they're not foolproof, nor the most convenient...)
We had agreements with them about what constituted qualifying to keep their cars. They had to maintain a GPA (one graduated Valedictorian of her class of 600 students, got straight A's, and is now a doctor and has been invited to participate in a prestigious research project; the other maintained a 3.5 out of 4 GPA, and is a teacher today). They BOTH worked, and paid for their own gas.
We did give them things but we were strict and insisted they be part of the community, e.g., hold jobs, and do community (volunteer) work.
So, yes, we did give them cars, but not to just hop into and go out and do whatever they wanted.
Your concerns are valid. I see many kids exhibiting what you describe: financially dependent; spoiled; and without a clue where things come from. These are probably the kids I worry about most.
We were not well-to-do at all, and got both of our daughters cars (to my objection) when they turned sixteen. And, virtually everyone in their peer group also had cars. Again, a demographic not rich by any means.
My friends of a younger generation also are giving their kids cars... if I guessed the percentage it would exceed 75%. Again, not a rich (but not poor) demographic. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just reporting what I've seen.
And, cable isn't the only thing I listed. I do see kids playing with video cameras, digital cameras, etc. The suite of options is greater today and I think the affinity for activities is more spread spectrum because of that and the video game niche takes a hit from that.
I agree lots of kids today barely lift their energy beyond learning the basics of IM, but IM is an incredible black hole for kids' time and energy, again, taking away some from video gaming.
I think all things collectively contribute to this.
Good thoughts though.
Up front disclaimer: I am not a video-gamer, and have never been one.
I can add only anecdotal experience, but that experience jives with the article. I've had many friends who children were video game freaks. About ten years ago I was befuddled and bemused at the length of time they played and their intensity. Today, different friends, different generations... what I've seen has been that video games for today's kids is more of a diversion among many rather than a life style. I think video games were largely a fascination with "look what we can do with computers and graphics" emerging technology.
Video games will always have a market, but I would agree with the observed trend they don't hold sway today as in the past. I think a number of things factor into this:
Today, when I see kids playing video games at friend's homes it's typically a end-of-the-day diversion after all other activities have been exhausted.
I've read the fine article, and most of the posts so far. Most notable in all of this bickering is a seeming disregard for the consumer. It's all about controlling the consumer, not about providing the best technology. I wonder when any of this comes about how mature either technology will be.
Have you ever tried to configure and make work current HD technology? Hell, they've not even gotten this to work properly!
Case in point, if you're trying to run HD through an Audio Visual switch, good luck getting the sound to synchronize with the picture. I struggled with this for some friends new setup and did an end-zone dance when I got it to work. Then we found out that some video sources and inputs worked synchronized, while others didn't. What a pain in the ass.
And then, you have to choose what the output from the A/V switch to the TV will be, S-video, composite, coax? For the configuration we set up, getting to a satisfactory signal we went with composite only to find all of the screen enunciator functions from the A/V switch (Yamaha) weren't generated on the composite output.
It seems everywhere you turn, the new wow-technology either doesn't work right, doesn't work well, doesn't work all of the time, and sometimes doesn't work at all. FSCK!
Now layer on top of all of this the new HD or Blu Ray DVD stuff. I shudder at the compolications we face with the DRM crap they're focusing on. Instead they should be making this as easy to use as possible with as few speed bumps as possible. I'm not holding my breath.
And for those who would recommend "RTFM", I did. I went to the various places that sell this stuff, I Googled, and could not find definitive ultimate solutions to all of these glitches. Thank God the entertainment industry isn't in charge of the space program!
No, the laws are what keep us from being a police state, and hopefully, the constitution. Legal mumbo jumbo cuts both ways. I bristle when legalese is used in overly technical and idiomatic ways to skew a story, a trial, anything. Both sides do it, both side shouldn't (always a strange and delicate balance between that and a most vigorous defense of a defendant).
Actually, more correctly, you seem to infer. No other posts have given any such interpretation of my comments. But, if you interpret my position as such let me clarify. I don't believe in legal technicalities as tools to convict... but, I have encountered situations where someone is known to be commiting crimes, doing bad things (corporate setting, e.g.) and because of their slipperiness, the germaine governing "body" nails them for any infraction otherwise. This was how Al Capone and friends were finally nabbed by convicting them on tax evasion, though all knew that was hardly their most egregious offense.
But as for using technicalities to convict for the sake of convicting someone? No, definitely not something I agree with.
Good feedback, thanks for the comments.
Regards... yagu
I can't help but suspect there must be more to this story than is being put forth. Part of me wants to believe his defense, "he never tried to defraud", but my distaste for legal mumbo jumbo makes me wonder more about the specifics:
On its face, this looks like serious stuff with serious consequences for seemingly innocent activity and should give pause to any internet users, but I suspect there's more to it than meets the public eye.
This guy is pretty amazing in his energy applied to convincing the world (and himself) Microsoft is an inventing kind of company. He even uses a bizarre example:
Wow! I'm not sure in this universe what comparison is being made. But I infer he is saying Microsoft is getting accused of being non-innovative because they're making the Formula One racers. I'm not sure this is a metaphor I can accept for the stuff I've seen coming from Microsoft, unless a Formula One racer:
I would however cede their metaphor in these regards:
There are also some specious arguments and claims:
Regardless, it's kind of fun to see the periodic article pushing yet again to tell the world Microsoft is innovative. In Microsoft's case, it is actually possible saying so makes it so.
If this is true, it means there is a site for approximately one site per every 350 people on the planet! Hmmmm, don't know if that's impressive or not. However, some criteria that would make it more clear to me what they're counting as web sites:
As in the blog universe I suspect a large number of these sites are not much in substance. Aside from my curiosity about the realness of this number I wonder what really can be gleaned from it. It is interesting to see the profile and trends of the technology serving the sites (most notably Apache vs. IIS/.NET).
Wow, the post is the entire article! So, this isn't much to go on. Sounds mostly like PR with a shot across the bow they intend to make it as consumer unfriendly as possible. (Consider "These movies are so expensive, we have to be careful" -- doesn't sound like ability to take advantage of inexpensive delivery cuts the consumer any slack.)
I still wonder:
This is spin. Whatever it is, I'm not looking forward to it.
First most obvious question to me is, will it run on Linux? No mention in the article, and their web site is coy (and a little annoying in its design). It does mention "cross platform tastiness", and "written in java", so I'm hoping.
That said, my biggest worry is browser extensions that start relying on non-standard implementation, i.e., they begin to have affinity for things not-html, not-javascript, things not-css. I know the browser universe is a hodge-podge of standards already, I just would hate to see yet another trailblazer that ends up to be some extension of some proprietary idea.
Anyway, to the new browser and its team, welcome to our flock. Best of luck.
Dejà wow! So, this legislation looks the same as that being passed around in the United States. Again, the gist is the consumer taking any actions on their own in fair-use context (not sure that exists there, but I'm assuming) could be accused of violating these proposed laws.
And, again, I see nothing in these proposed laws that are ensuring protection for the artists. All references seem to indicate protection of music labels , something quite different than artists.
Aside:
Psychiatrist: So, Mickey, you say you want to divorce Minnie Mouse because she's crazy?
Mickey Mouse: (in high squeaky voice) No, I want to divorce her because she's fucking Goofy!
Aside from many astute observations about this poor boy, laid off and never having received his: company car, millions of dollars, etc., I would add that anyone who describes themselves as Ninja in .NET, and with a kung fu grip of .NET still has a ways to go before earning others' respect.
Also, for a look at the other end of a career a getting laid of, take a read of my post.
I sometimes wonder about those who somehow think by the time they've "worked" for one year they should have it all.
Wish I could get to the article to see specifics... but, there is nothing, nothing about this that makes any sense.
This approach will
What are these people thinking? Imagine if the publishing industry went this route when books began being widely published. If they'd been of the same ilk (and the could have, they had to know people were reading books, then passing them around), they would have developed some kind of self-destructing mechanism for books so once you read it you could not read it again. How crazy a world would that be? (I know, I know... they've sort of gone down that road making some books so fragile that once you crack the spine and read them, they barely hold together for another read.)
I would just love to be in some of these meetings where people are suggesting these ideas, and others are approving them.
Hi vidnet, thanks for the suggestion.
(Hmmm, weird, could swear I replied to this, must have only gone as far as preview and forgot to submit.)
I've always looked for vi-alike plugins for as many environments as possible. Life would be great if things like OpenOffice had a vi mode. (Not asking others to be vi-ers, just let me have my interface... I'm at least a factor of 2 or 3 more efficient editing text in vi.) 'Twould be nice if I could plug it into FireFox (and even Thunderbird).
As for your post about vi vs. vim, look at my statement before your quote:
So, you see I did distinguish between vim and vi and even attributed Bill Joy as the original author! (Though vi seems very much derivative of the first character-based fullscreen text editor I encountered in Unix called "sc" (short for screen). "sc" was available with ATT SysV Unix many, many years ago.)
Again, thanks much for the suggestion, and "hey" to a fellow vi-er.
Regards, yagu
Hi vidnet, thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to check into it. I wonder if I can plug it into FireFox (and even some e-mail clients, that would be nice).
As for your comment: And I hope you just misspelled "I prepare my comments in vim". Vim isn't vi, and vi isn't vim....
I think the full context of my statement was more correctly: Okay, the tool I'm using now: vim, derivative of Bill Joy's vi, with color syntax and a bounty of enhancements. So, I was not only making the distinction between vim and vi, I attributed Bill Joy as vi's author (though I remember using a precursor to vi that was VERY much like vi called "sc" (short for screen). It was included with AT&T SysV way, way back.).
Again thanks much for the suggestion... and "hey" to a fellow vi user.
It's almost amazing the movie industry gets away with this. They scream and throw tantrums over any overtures, any market that dares step foot in their domain. How? By threatening to sue almost anyone! How? By demanding the electronics industry put "safeguards" in dvd players (more on that in a second). How? By spending millions in D.C. demanding laws be passed to protect their eroding stranglehold on an evolving market place. How? By doing everything in their power to prevent evolution (read: progress).
In the meantime, they approve pap for movie plots and ideas, pander to the idiotic mainstream thinking that's their meal ticket (it mostly is). But their offerings have become so predictable, so terrible, and so terribly produced and directed people are starting to feel ripped off for the small fortune they must spend for a night out of movies and popcorn. They've sown these seeds, they're reaping their own rewards.
What I think funny in the article is their collective sigh of relief some recent movies are getting viewers. I suspect when movies like "Transporter 2 are raking in blockbuster revenues it's more about their concerted ramped-up advertising and less about the quality of their movies.
It does appear there may be some good movies this fall ("History of Violence" is high on my list), I'm guessing we'll see more of the same crap. I don't know how many times they can go to the well with their overproduced special effects stories with no plot or believable ideas and keep the public coming back (but don't underestimate the masses to continue to believe, ever heard of Charlie Brown and Lucy?), but they're creating their own misery.
As for their heavy handed fingers-in-the-distribution-and-technology pie, give me a break. I set up a dvd recorder for my dad. I LOVED how simple it was to operate, and it did an excellent job of recording shows for him. He was a happy camper too. He loves to watch PBS, and was excited to record a recent Civil War special on his new dvd recorder and wanted to send the dvd to me to watch. He was concerned because his dvd would not play on other dvd players, something about a region code violation (we know what that is).
Anyway, the disk arrived today, and it's NOT playable on my player. Fuck the movie and entertainment industry. They've made my dad unhappy, they've prevented me from watching a show which, had I watched, could only have helped their cause (exposure, exposure, exposure).
This isn't the first time I've had this technology dance with my dad, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But, I hate it, and the sooner the entertainment industry cleans up their act, the better. Sigh.
I was on a special project, tucked away in a secret office in Seattle. We were creating a workbench of sorts using one of the very first PC networks in our company (it was 1986). Five of us created hundreds of files and thousands of lines of code and balanced version control ad hoc and on-the-fly. The project was a success.
One day though, I'd transferred an image of our work from one machine to another. When I "ls'ed", oooops, I mean "dir'ed" the directory structures on the two machines they did not match. WTF? Hey wait, DOS has a diff command! Phew!
I dir'ed the tree structures of the two mismatched machines into machine1.dir and machine2.dir and issued the command: c:> diff machine1.dir machine2.dir
and the system replied: files are different . Wow! Strong stuff. I found a way to get the two files to a unix box and used a real diff command. Sigh.
Command line judo? Sheesh! Where to start?
Okay, the tool I'm using now: vim, derivative of Bill Joy's vi, with color syntax and a bounty of enhancements. (Yes, I prepare my comments in vi, then cut and paste, don't even try to make me use some GUI text widget editor and claim it can be productive.)
And then there's:
find mystring *.*
and literally got back:
mystring found in *.*, and then a listing of all the lines found. No reference to the files they were in... Shit, after all, I asked to find the lines in '*.*'.
I complained. They showed me their (Microsoft's purchased from IBM) unix, "xenix", and their "grep" command. Ahhhhh, better. I typed: grep -i mystring *.*
and it replied "unknown option -i". I complained about not having an "ignore case" option. They looked at me like I was crazy... "Why would you ever want to ignore case?"
I could go on, and probably will in some subsequent posts. When you have so many well written, well evolved, well crafted, and well behaved tools all flying in