As long as Microsoft has the strongest commitment to backwards compatibility, they'll retain their market position.
Most people don't care about the operating system, they just use it to launch their apps....
Well, maybe Windows 8 does have backwards compatibility problems? Have we missed them while ranting about the crappy GUI? I was at a junkyard yesterday, and it was hard to keep my mind on the deal I was trying to make (selling my totaled car to them) because their IT guy was having a very spectacular loud hissy fit. Apparently, the junkyard's software that keeps track of the various car parts wouldn't run under the Windows 8 OS that he had to buy with the new computers he was installing. Just anecdotal evidence, but a data point nevertheless: perhaps America's junkyards are not very happy about Microsoft today.
Not only that, but as more computing functions get nebulized into the cloud of obscurity, there'll be even less of a need for businesses to need full blown desktops. And that wave hasn't really begun yet to ramp up to what it probably will become even if it only a way for IT to run internal clouds and centralize their security headaches.
I think you're saying that we're re-entering the "thin client" phase of the Eternal Wheel of Karma. You think people will use small lightweight devices, and the real work is done by program and storage servers. Maybe you're right. Until the Great Wheel takes another turn, anyway.
But there will still be a rather large market for servers and data storage, won't there?
First off desktops are an even smaller and lower margin share of the market than laptops. The Windows 8 move is really about laptops, when people say desktop that's what they mean. In terms of how to use touch on a larger screen, most likely the interface is going to be trackpad or something like a 10" tablet giving you a miniature version of your screen that you work on for interface shifts. Sort of like how the Cintiq works today.
When I say "desktop", I mean the thing humming next to me that contains 6 internal 1 Terabyte drives (yeah, time to upgrade), a PCI-E graphics card that needs its own power connectors, a PCI-e USB 3 card I added recently, and one or two e-SATA drives. I call that a "desktop". It sounds as though you are saying that the new "desktop" is what I call a "laptop". A laptop is a clamshell-like device that has a keyboard and a mouse that I always take along. I'm probably confused about what you meant by "...when people say desktop that's what they mean.", so I'm going to ignore it.
From what you say, it appears that you believe MS is truly expecting to turn laptops and even desktops into touch interface devices. I realize you don't have to apologize for MS and that you are just trying to explain what you think their plans are...but I think their plans are nuts any way you chop them.
Let me first dispose of the notion of a touchscreen desktop. I'm not going to be groping that huge screen, even if they build one that looks like the interface in Minority Report. You seem to be suggesting that instead of the screen, I'd be tracing my finger along some sort of touchpad. Why? We've gone through all this before, and most people think mice are better than the alternatives. I see absolutely no reason why I should use a "touchscreen" that I don't even touch.
Laptops with touchscreens? Maye, just maybe some people will buy these. It could come in handy when I lose the mouse. But why do I need a completely new GUI to use the touchscreen? Can't I just double tap on an icon to run the program? Drag folders and documents across the desktop? I sure wouldn't be happy if the GUI on my desktop looks totally different from the GUI on my laptop. Also, I think it would be a distraction to constantly take my hand away from the keyboard to stab at my display. Yes, I have to take my hand from the keyboard to use the mouse too, but it's a shorter reach, and the movements required to traverse the screen are very small (at least the way I have my mouse set up).
As others have pointed out, tablets and smart phones are for people who want to consume content (read books, play games, surf the web, etc.). I have 2 tablets; I'm not some sort of anti-touchscreen bigot. I love reading books and playing games on these devices Sometimes, I even read my email on my smartphone—but I don't answer it. For that I go to my desktop, which has a real keyboard. You need different tools and more resources to create content, like audio, video, graphics, programming, and writing. Those are two distinct purposes, two distinct markets, and I don't think MS will successfully merge them. Their greatest fault has always been the notion that they can change the market with nothing more than wishful thinking and an ad campaign.
Thank you for your reply! Please forgive my obtuseness, but I want to restate what I understand you to be saying, so that I can totally get rid of my fear of the number 8.
I think you are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the only difference between Win 7 and 8 consists of some GUI changes, and that the new GUI can be made to revert to that of an earlier version of Windows. I'm not so much attached to the Start menu, but to the general appearance of my desktop: I can really turn off that awful blocky surface I see in the ads? As far as GUIs go, I'm a bit conservative—my Windows 7 GUI looks remarkably like...Windows 2K. I hated the stupid 3D window borders in XP, and the Macwannabe transparent crap of Windows 7—which is just visual junk to me, so I go for the "classic" look, which I thank MS for leaving available to me, at least up to Windows 7. Does Win 8 allow me to make my GUI look like I was back in Y2K? I suppose I could live with XP if I had to. The Doctor's fundamental position on GUIs is: never, ever change a GUI unless it's really broken. It is inexcusable to present a new GUI that users have to learn to navigate when the old one they already know does the same job. Especially when you have to teach grandma and grandma how their new computer works. Optional GUI variations are great; forcing people to use a new GUI is not.
I have to say I'm paranoid that I'm still not understanding all this correctly. I was under the impression that Win 8 had "touch screen features". These features don't interest me, as I'm not planning to buy a touchscreen desktop any time in the future, even if it does look like the one in Minority Report. So these features can be turned off, and everything can be done with keyboard and mouse as in days of yore? And the code underneath the GUI (the real operating system, in other words) in Windows 8 is identical to Windows 7? That would be cool then; I can just ignore the version number—I can just regard Win 8 as a sort of very expensive GUI service pack for Windows 7.
I'm afraid that I've been very confused by Microsoft's advertising campaign for Windows 8. Perhaps they should sponsor therapy groups for all those traumatized psyches.
MIcrosoft doesn't want to fix their UI. They want to train users in their touch UI.
So let me see if I got this right. Because MS failed abjectly to anticipate the tablet and smart phone market (unless one takes Windows Phone seriously), and has no viable position in that market, their new plan is to force people to train themselves in the new Windows mobile OS by making them buy a desktop OS that somehow imposes this requirement. I suppose they want people to buy new computers with touchscreens, so they can be properly trained?
They will not go back up. People don't want, or need, a new computer.
I think you're right that computer sales won't go back up to their previous levels. A lot of people will decide they'd rather have a tablet or smart phone (maybe with an accessory keyboard for answering email), but I think there's a hard core of home computer users who will continue to want their own computer. In that market, the core users will at least buy occasional replacements (or parts to build them). I don't think that tablets will replace business laptops or desktops any time soon, so that market will remain. However, replacement cycles will keep getting longer, and there will be a reluctance to buy ever faster machines; I think we've hit a point where business applications just aren't going to need that much more computing power every two years or so.
The things that are good about windows 8 (modularity of features and some options for speedy lightweight installs, for example) are not at all apparent to most end users....
All M$ has to do is fix their UI and sales will go back up.
I've never even seen a Windows 8 PC, but my understanding is that this new GUI is touchscreen oriented. That would certainly kill any interest I might have in it when I build my next desktop. It also makes me wonder what the hell MS is smoking. Touchscreens are great for tablets (I have 2) and smart phones. But not for my desktop, where I do my serious work.
What are these "modularity features" you speak of? I'd like to know.
Is this even a new OS? I've heard some say that it's just Windows 7 under a new GUI. The fact that I haven't heard loud wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of drivers makes me think this isn't one of Microsoft's real OS releases, which cause global pain remarkably similar to a pandemic of thrombosed hemorrhoids. I think it's a "look—shiny new!" marketing project. It's all too easy for Microsoft to create the illusion of "progress" with a mere GUI change because most people think the GUI is the OS, and Microsoft does nothing to disabuse them of the notion. Thus, it usually works. However, in this case, the MS marketing department may be invited to take a fast elevator ride from the 90th floor while the elevator car is being held on the 91st.
All the baby boomer professors will keep working for another 10 to 20 years. Until they retire, they are taking up a huge percentage of the available academic jobs. With regards to literature majors, the death of the publishing industry has killed any non-academic work. While there is still some work available, compared to even 10 years ago, it's peanuts.
Huh? I am a baby boomer, and didn't get a tenure track job when I got my doctorate in Philosophy back in '78. I resent your implication that it's all my fault, sirrah!
To be honest, I was told at the outset that my chances of landing an academic job if I got through the doctoral program were slim to none. Sure, enough, after I spent a couple of years working as an "adjunct" with an insulting salary, no respect, and no support from the college or the Philosophy department, I decided to look around for something better. Well, this was approximately in 1982, and somebody told me at just the right time to look at the then new computer field for jobs.
First job I landed was as a software tech writer (O.K., the hiring manager was an ex-nun who wanted to talk philosophy over lunch...but I got hired.) Writing skills will always help, and Philosophy or Lit Ph.D.s should be able to know how to both read carefully and write skillfully. I jacked up my salary enormously over the next few years by making judicious job moves, and by learning programming and Unix internals skills. I did very well in nineties...until a couple of years after the dot com bust. The last eight years or so were crap because the "scientific managers" decided they had to subjugate the new class of technology-savvy workers, but all in all, I'm happy with the decisions I made.
Note that I identified a new field that did not require credentials, because very few credentialed people were available at the time, and I persisted until I got that first job. (My job search only took me 6 months.) After I had something software-related to add to my resume', the Ph.D. actually became an advantage. It's easier to justify a bigger salary for someone by saying "he has a Ph.D." (and, as I pointed out to at least one manger, she could then complain that she had an employee that got paid more than she, and could ask for a raise of her own). The exact nature of your education doesn't really matter as much as you think it does. Even Comp Sci majors have to be taught how to do their jobs after they're hired. (Not that I'd recommend "IT" as a good place to work these days.)
So if you've gotten a "useless" degree, look for something unusual to do for money, perhaps something new, or something you had never considered. Then work out a song and dance how your background somehow prepared you for your chosen field. If you are offered a job at a ridiculously low wage take it! It is that invaluable first item on your resume. You are now experienced! The nun was not able to pay me very well, but that's OK—I got a 25% raise when I made my first job move after 11 months on that first job. (Some day, I will tell you the story of how I did that.) Getting a good career started is a matter of determination, imagination, and ample chutzpah. You have will never be worth more than you think you are, so value yourself highly. Think strategically; you are in it for the long haul. Get out there and bag that first job.
People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.
I don't believe it. We're talking about a gun, not a pair of socks. They were just hoping to get by.
You pack your luggage knowing you're going to the airport, with the TSA goons.
I tend to believe it because I once almost did it. My wife had dropped me off at the airport, and I had to run after the receding car waving like mad to get her attention. Damned if I hadn't forgotten I still had my 9 mm pistol in my pocket.
I get patted down regularly, and the TSA agents have been professional and polite. Occasionally one will talk to me about using the scanner, but it's always a brief, polite discussion and they haven't tried to push me.
I'll say that TSA staff, years ago, were much more aggressive and liked to throw their authority around. Maybe they received customer service training because that isn't a problem any more.
I think there have been definite changes in TSA procedures within the last year or so. My perception is that they have been instructed in how to better give orders—"Step forward, put your feet on the yellow foot prints, no sir, the yellow footprints on the floor there. Assume the French Position. Hold still. Move forward, sir". It was scary how well it worked—I wasn't even tempted to make any insulting remarks. Everything went so fast. I am becoming an ever more subservient subject, as my government desires me to be.
Do I think the TSA is stupid, wasteful, and draconian? Absolutely. Do I think going through airport security is the time to make a beef about it? Not bloody likely.
When is the time? What is a better occasion?
If only about 10 to 20 people declined to cooperate with the TSA at a few major airports every day, the system would be become inoperable. Why? Because the local police would have to make the arrests, and local D.A.s would have to prosecute them (or decide not to), and local officials would get their faces on national television. After a couple of weeks of this, the governments of the cities in which these airports are located would be under strong constituent pressure to exercise the option of kicking the TSA out of their airports, and letting private contractors do the security screening.
Why do the people of this country no longer understand the power of direct action? Does no one remember the civil rights struggle, or the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations? I participated in the latter during my years at U.C. Berkeley (1966 - 1970)—and got to find out for myself that there is a literal meaning to the phrase "having the shit beaten out of me". The path to change in this country does not go primarily through the ballot box—that becomes an option only when favorable conditions have been created, when people have been made aware of the issue, and when enough minds have been changed. The way to make a difference is through nonviolent direct action. And yes, I would do my part.
And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again. I absolutely refuse to enter the TSA point-of-no-return. I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.
I wish I had this option. I have an elderly aunt who lives overseas. The reason I fly is because I can't walk on water.
Well, there's little room to interpret buying you a drink as anything threatening.
But the people who make jokes about having bombs or firearms? Well, that's just stupidity on their behalf, because it won't be taken well. You might as well go to a women's crisis center and make rape jokes -- they're just not going to work.
I was going through security one time and had to be patted down. The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!". I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that, but they let him through with just the usual scan. I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport.
So I would say the TSA agents do have some latitude on what they do - but I wouldn't recommend testing it if you want to make it on time to your flight.
Aw, do your patriotic duty and screw with the TSA. Us regular people have lots of latitudes! Two years ago, when the TSA guy at a major airport told me he was going to pat me down, and I said "Hell no", nothing much happened to me. I guess this doesn't happen a lot—his initial reaction was one of complete surprise: "You're...what?" (Well, I was surprised too...the sudden expiration of my bullshit tolerance kinda hit me without warning.) He then proceeded to make his most dreadful threat: if you refuse, we will call the police! Now I was in my element. "Yes I know, you don't have police powers and can't arrest me (I was guessing, but I think I'm right). "Go ahead", I said, "call the real police. I respect them. After a few minutes, one cop arrived. I offered to let him search me, because of my great respect for real sworn law enforcement officers. He said he couldn't do that, but would "supervise to make sure everything is done correctly". By this time, flight time was getting closer, and my daughter (who was traveling with me to Germany) was giving me her "Oh Dad!" look. So reluctantly, I ended the comedy by letting them search me after all. Well, I knew I had to or my 80 something year old aunt wouldn't see her beloved nephew on her birthday...but one of these days, I'm going to book a flight to a place I really don't want to go to...
Anytime I hear that tone I erase the number from my contacts. Have you noticed that you receive less calls in general since you started using this greeting?
I don't know...how many times a day did you call me? Seriously...I think that my strategy does permanently reduce the number of junk calls; I have the impression that I receive far fewer junk calls than before I implemented my system. I do not have hard data to back that up, and actually there's no way I can think of to measure the number of call lists that I've got my number purged from. The fact that many Unknown Callers hang up the moment the tones sound makes me think that the robocall software is acting as it should: it senses the tones, and marks the number as invalid. This is logical from the viewpoint of the phone spammers, because it's not in their interest to waste resources on invalid numbers.
These tones were actually the modus operandi of the old "Call Zapper" dongles that you connected between your phone and the landline. I was going to buy one of the things, but couldn't find one...after all, the junk call problem was "solved" by Congress. Then I did some research and found the articles I linked to in my previous post. The fact that the dongles are now uncommon makes the strategy more powerful, I think. There's no reason not to configure robocall software to drop disconnected lines—except for incompetence, of course.
Nope. Both major parties make robocalls, therefore they are both equally annoying. As long as this equality is preserved, the annoyance factor is canceled out and has no effect on the vote. Except, perhaps to increase voter apathy...for all I know that's the real reason for the robocalls: to prevent people from caring enough to vote.
So...theoretically one of them could stop doing it?
Yes, theoretically.... I have come to the conclusion, somewhat late in life, that expecting logical behavior from organizations is hopelessly optimistic. In fact, not too many individuals seem capable of logical thought.
I'm sorry this doesn't work for you. I should also mention that this is the T-Mobile version of the Galaxy S2. So maybe it's a T-Mobile feature. (I'm not recommending T-Mobile as wonderful, by the way—poor signal in too many places...but then AT&T was no better when I used them. Basically, I think the cell phone infrastructure in the U.S. sucks.)
...And yes, overall - I trust Google, as do MANY other people.
Many people trust a huge corporation dedicated to making money through advertising? Why in the world would they? Is "trust" even an appropriate relationship between an individual and a mega-corp? I trust my doctor. I trust my friends. I do not trust my bank (that's why I review my account), I trust my government to always screw up, and I trust both major political parties to be a source of perpetual black humor. The question "Do you trust Google" doesn't even make sense to me. I expect them to try to maximize their profits, I recognize that they have made some important innovations. But that's it. What else should I trust them to do? Act in my best interests? That's completely laughable, and downright weird.
Actually, I do see one advantage to being able to record surreptitiously: if you're interacting with the police, it would be nice to have your own video record. After all, they have one they can produce at will because there's a video camera in every police car, at least around here. I suppose they could just demand that you take off your glasses. As for people wearing their Glass(es) in my home, it just ain't gonna happen.
Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.
Ah, you have seen through Google's false front of goodness, and begin to perceive the true evil in their hearts! Once a large enough percentage of the population is wearing those Google Glass things, Google will simply edit out anyone who hasn't yet been assimilated! Your friends will ignore you (because they can't see you), and if you don't mend your ways, you will become the unfortunate victim of a traffic accident. (Driver: "Officer, I didn't even see the guy in the crosswalk--just look at the download from my glasses! I don't know where the body that damaged my bumper came from." Cop: "What body?")
I say "No!" to such mathematical pretentiousness. Personally, I will not be upgrading until they give their version numbers in binary to prove they still employ actual programmers. Besides, everyone knows that you should never use anything below version 50 of any software because that's when all the bugs have been worked out.
This is a regulatory issue (unlike many other technical issues where the US government is more than happy to legislate on). Require phone companies to block spoofed phone numbers and alert law enforcement for their point of origin...
What spoofed phone numbers? All the spam numbers I've bothered googling for are real, actual true spam numbers. They're not spoofing the phone numbers of my friends, the U.S. government, President Obama, the Plumber's Union, or anybody else.
Or you could just make your answering machine start with the three-tone signal that indicates a disconnected line. (For information about these tones, look here. An audio file for the tones can be found here.
This doesn't seem to work in all instances—some telemarketers still leave messages. Robocall software can be configured to ignore the signal. But it does seem to lead to an immediate disconnect for at least half my spam calls.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as Microsoft has the strongest commitment to backwards compatibility, they'll retain their market position. Most people don't care about the operating system, they just use it to launch their apps. ...
Well, maybe Windows 8 does have backwards compatibility problems? Have we missed them while ranting about the crappy GUI? I was at a junkyard yesterday, and it was hard to keep my mind on the deal I was trying to make (selling my totaled car to them) because their IT guy was having a very spectacular loud hissy fit. Apparently, the junkyard's software that keeps track of the various car parts wouldn't run under the Windows 8 OS that he had to buy with the new computers he was installing. Just anecdotal evidence, but a data point nevertheless: perhaps America's junkyards are not very happy about Microsoft today.
Not only that, but as more computing functions get nebulized into the cloud of obscurity, there'll be even less of a need for businesses to need full blown desktops. And that wave hasn't really begun yet to ramp up to what it probably will become even if it only a way for IT to run internal clouds and centralize their security headaches.
I think you're saying that we're re-entering the "thin client" phase of the Eternal Wheel of Karma. You think people will use small lightweight devices, and the real work is done by program and storage servers. Maybe you're right. Until the Great Wheel takes another turn, anyway.
But there will still be a rather large market for servers and data storage, won't there?
First off desktops are an even smaller and lower margin share of the market than laptops. The Windows 8 move is really about laptops, when people say desktop that's what they mean. In terms of how to use touch on a larger screen, most likely the interface is going to be trackpad or something like a 10" tablet giving you a miniature version of your screen that you work on for interface shifts. Sort of like how the Cintiq works today.
When I say "desktop", I mean the thing humming next to me that contains 6 internal 1 Terabyte drives (yeah, time to upgrade), a PCI-E graphics card that needs its own power connectors, a PCI-e USB 3 card I added recently, and one or two e-SATA drives. I call that a "desktop". It sounds as though you are saying that the new "desktop" is what I call a "laptop". A laptop is a clamshell-like device that has a keyboard and a mouse that I always take along. I'm probably confused about what you meant by "...when people say desktop that's what they mean.", so I'm going to ignore it.
From what you say, it appears that you believe MS is truly expecting to turn laptops and even desktops into touch interface devices. I realize you don't have to apologize for MS and that you are just trying to explain what you think their plans are...but I think their plans are nuts any way you chop them.
Let me first dispose of the notion of a touchscreen desktop. I'm not going to be groping that huge screen, even if they build one that looks like the interface in Minority Report. You seem to be suggesting that instead of the screen, I'd be tracing my finger along some sort of touchpad. Why? We've gone through all this before, and most people think mice are better than the alternatives. I see absolutely no reason why I should use a "touchscreen" that I don't even touch.
Laptops with touchscreens? Maye, just maybe some people will buy these. It could come in handy when I lose the mouse. But why do I need a completely new GUI to use the touchscreen? Can't I just double tap on an icon to run the program? Drag folders and documents across the desktop? I sure wouldn't be happy if the GUI on my desktop looks totally different from the GUI on my laptop. Also, I think it would be a distraction to constantly take my hand away from the keyboard to stab at my display. Yes, I have to take my hand from the keyboard to use the mouse too, but it's a shorter reach, and the movements required to traverse the screen are very small (at least the way I have my mouse set up).
As others have pointed out, tablets and smart phones are for people who want to consume content (read books, play games, surf the web, etc.). I have 2 tablets; I'm not some sort of anti-touchscreen bigot. I love reading books and playing games on these devices Sometimes, I even read my email on my smartphone—but I don't answer it. For that I go to my desktop, which has a real keyboard. You need different tools and more resources to create content, like audio, video, graphics, programming, and writing. Those are two distinct purposes, two distinct markets, and I don't think MS will successfully merge them. Their greatest fault has always been the notion that they can change the market with nothing more than wishful thinking and an ad campaign.
Thank you for your reply! Please forgive my obtuseness, but I want to restate what I understand you to be saying, so that I can totally get rid of my fear of the number 8.
I think you are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the only difference between Win 7 and 8 consists of some GUI changes, and that the new GUI can be made to revert to that of an earlier version of Windows. I'm not so much attached to the Start menu, but to the general appearance of my desktop: I can really turn off that awful blocky surface I see in the ads? As far as GUIs go, I'm a bit conservative—my Windows 7 GUI looks remarkably like...Windows 2K. I hated the stupid 3D window borders in XP, and the Macwannabe transparent crap of Windows 7—which is just visual junk to me, so I go for the "classic" look, which I thank MS for leaving available to me, at least up to Windows 7. Does Win 8 allow me to make my GUI look like I was back in Y2K? I suppose I could live with XP if I had to. The Doctor's fundamental position on GUIs is: never, ever change a GUI unless it's really broken. It is inexcusable to present a new GUI that users have to learn to navigate when the old one they already know does the same job. Especially when you have to teach grandma and grandma how their new computer works. Optional GUI variations are great; forcing people to use a new GUI is not.
I have to say I'm paranoid that I'm still not understanding all this correctly. I was under the impression that Win 8 had "touch screen features". These features don't interest me, as I'm not planning to buy a touchscreen desktop any time in the future, even if it does look like the one in Minority Report. So these features can be turned off, and everything can be done with keyboard and mouse as in days of yore? And the code underneath the GUI (the real operating system, in other words) in Windows 8 is identical to Windows 7? That would be cool then; I can just ignore the version number—I can just regard Win 8 as a sort of very expensive GUI service pack for Windows 7.
I'm afraid that I've been very confused by Microsoft's advertising campaign for Windows 8. Perhaps they should sponsor therapy groups for all those traumatized psyches.
MIcrosoft doesn't want to fix their UI. They want to train users in their touch UI.
So let me see if I got this right. Because MS failed abjectly to anticipate the tablet and smart phone market (unless one takes Windows Phone seriously), and has no viable position in that market, their new plan is to force people to train themselves in the new Windows mobile OS by making them buy a desktop OS that somehow imposes this requirement. I suppose they want people to buy new computers with touchscreens, so they can be properly trained?
No, nobody could be that stupid.
They will not go back up. People don't want, or need, a new computer.
I think you're right that computer sales won't go back up to their previous levels. A lot of people will decide they'd rather have a tablet or smart phone (maybe with an accessory keyboard for answering email), but I think there's a hard core of home computer users who will continue to want their own computer. In that market, the core users will at least buy occasional replacements (or parts to build them). I don't think that tablets will replace business laptops or desktops any time soon, so that market will remain. However, replacement cycles will keep getting longer, and there will be a reluctance to buy ever faster machines; I think we've hit a point where business applications just aren't going to need that much more computing power every two years or so.
The things that are good about windows 8 (modularity of features and some options for speedy lightweight installs, for example) are not at all apparent to most end users. ...
All M$ has to do is fix their UI and sales will go back up.
I've never even seen a Windows 8 PC, but my understanding is that this new GUI is touchscreen oriented. That would certainly kill any interest I might have in it when I build my next desktop. It also makes me wonder what the hell MS is smoking. Touchscreens are great for tablets (I have 2) and smart phones. But not for my desktop, where I do my serious work.
What are these "modularity features" you speak of? I'd like to know.
Is this even a new OS? I've heard some say that it's just Windows 7 under a new GUI. The fact that I haven't heard loud wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of drivers makes me think this isn't one of Microsoft's real OS releases, which cause global pain remarkably similar to a pandemic of thrombosed hemorrhoids. I think it's a "look—shiny new!" marketing project. It's all too easy for Microsoft to create the illusion of "progress" with a mere GUI change because most people think the GUI is the OS, and Microsoft does nothing to disabuse them of the notion. Thus, it usually works. However, in this case, the MS marketing department may be invited to take a fast elevator ride from the 90th floor while the elevator car is being held on the 91st.
All the baby boomer professors will keep working for another 10 to 20 years. Until they retire, they are taking up a huge percentage of the available academic jobs. With regards to literature majors, the death of the publishing industry has killed any non-academic work. While there is still some work available, compared to even 10 years ago, it's peanuts.
Huh? I am a baby boomer, and didn't get a tenure track job when I got my doctorate in Philosophy back in '78. I resent your implication that it's all my fault, sirrah!
To be honest, I was told at the outset that my chances of landing an academic job if I got through the doctoral program were slim to none. Sure, enough, after I spent a couple of years working as an "adjunct" with an insulting salary, no respect, and no support from the college or the Philosophy department, I decided to look around for something better. Well, this was approximately in 1982, and somebody told me at just the right time to look at the then new computer field for jobs.
First job I landed was as a software tech writer (O.K., the hiring manager was an ex-nun who wanted to talk philosophy over lunch...but I got hired.) Writing skills will always help, and Philosophy or Lit Ph.D.s should be able to know how to both read carefully and write skillfully. I jacked up my salary enormously over the next few years by making judicious job moves, and by learning programming and Unix internals skills. I did very well in nineties...until a couple of years after the dot com bust. The last eight years or so were crap because the "scientific managers" decided they had to subjugate the new class of technology-savvy workers, but all in all, I'm happy with the decisions I made.
Note that I identified a new field that did not require credentials, because very few credentialed people were available at the time, and I persisted until I got that first job. (My job search only took me 6 months.) After I had something software-related to add to my resume', the Ph.D. actually became an advantage. It's easier to justify a bigger salary for someone by saying "he has a Ph.D." (and, as I pointed out to at least one manger, she could then complain that she had an employee that got paid more than she, and could ask for a raise of her own). The exact nature of your education doesn't really matter as much as you think it does. Even Comp Sci majors have to be taught how to do their jobs after they're hired. (Not that I'd recommend "IT" as a good place to work these days.)
So if you've gotten a "useless" degree, look for something unusual to do for money, perhaps something new, or something you had never considered. Then work out a song and dance how your background somehow prepared you for your chosen field. If you are offered a job at a ridiculously low wage take it! It is that invaluable first item on your resume. You are now experienced! The nun was not able to pay me very well, but that's OK—I got a 25% raise when I made my first job move after 11 months on that first job. (Some day, I will tell you the story of how I did that.) Getting a good career started is a matter of determination, imagination, and ample chutzpah. You have will never be worth more than you think you are, so value yourself highly. Think strategically; you are in it for the long haul. Get out there and bag that first job.
People do forget they have firearms in their bags, believe it or not.
I don't believe it. We're talking about a gun, not a pair of socks. They were just hoping to get by. You pack your luggage knowing you're going to the airport, with the TSA goons.
I tend to believe it because I once almost did it. My wife had dropped me off at the airport, and I had to run after the receding car waving like mad to get her attention. Damned if I hadn't forgotten I still had my 9 mm pistol in my pocket.
I get patted down regularly, and the TSA agents have been professional and polite. Occasionally one will talk to me about using the scanner, but it's always a brief, polite discussion and they haven't tried to push me.
I'll say that TSA staff, years ago, were much more aggressive and liked to throw their authority around. Maybe they received customer service training because that isn't a problem any more.
I think there have been definite changes in TSA procedures within the last year or so. My perception is that they have been instructed in how to better give orders—"Step forward, put your feet on the yellow foot prints, no sir, the yellow footprints on the floor there. Assume the French Position. Hold still. Move forward, sir". It was scary how well it worked—I wasn't even tempted to make any insulting remarks. Everything went so fast. I am becoming an ever more subservient subject, as my government desires me to be.
Do I think the TSA is stupid, wasteful, and draconian? Absolutely. Do I think going through airport security is the time to make a beef about it? Not bloody likely.
When is the time? What is a better occasion?
If only about 10 to 20 people declined to cooperate with the TSA at a few major airports every day, the system would be become inoperable. Why? Because the local police would have to make the arrests, and local D.A.s would have to prosecute them (or decide not to), and local officials would get their faces on national television. After a couple of weeks of this, the governments of the cities in which these airports are located would be under strong constituent pressure to exercise the option of kicking the TSA out of their airports, and letting private contractors do the security screening.
Why do the people of this country no longer understand the power of direct action? Does no one remember the civil rights struggle, or the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations? I participated in the latter during my years at U.C. Berkeley (1966 - 1970)—and got to find out for myself that there is a literal meaning to the phrase "having the shit beaten out of me". The path to change in this country does not go primarily through the ballot box—that becomes an option only when favorable conditions have been created, when people have been made aware of the issue, and when enough minds have been changed. The way to make a difference is through nonviolent direct action. And yes, I would do my part.
And this is why i'll never step onto a commercial airliner again. I absolutely refuse to enter the TSA point-of-no-return. I rarely enter anywhere i cant leave easily and at my own discretion.
I wish I had this option. I have an elderly aunt who lives overseas. The reason I fly is because I can't walk on water.
Well, there's little room to interpret buying you a drink as anything threatening.
But the people who make jokes about having bombs or firearms? Well, that's just stupidity on their behalf, because it won't be taken well. You might as well go to a women's crisis center and make rape jokes -- they're just not going to work.
Hey, you're right! Most of my airport jokes bomb.
I was going through security one time and had to be patted down. The guy behind me in line decided to be a joker and made a comment along the lines of "they could at least give you a drink for this!". I was really expecting them to unleash the dogs on him for that, but they let him through with just the usual scan. I'm not sure if he would have been so lucky had we been at a larger airport. So I would say the TSA agents do have some latitude on what they do - but I wouldn't recommend testing it if you want to make it on time to your flight.
Aw, do your patriotic duty and screw with the TSA. Us regular people have lots of latitudes! Two years ago, when the TSA guy at a major airport told me he was going to pat me down, and I said "Hell no", nothing much happened to me. I guess this doesn't happen a lot—his initial reaction was one of complete surprise: "You're...what?" (Well, I was surprised too...the sudden expiration of my bullshit tolerance kinda hit me without warning.) He then proceeded to make his most dreadful threat: if you refuse, we will call the police! Now I was in my element. "Yes I know, you don't have police powers and can't arrest me (I was guessing, but I think I'm right). "Go ahead", I said, "call the real police. I respect them. After a few minutes, one cop arrived. I offered to let him search me, because of my great respect for real sworn law enforcement officers. He said he couldn't do that, but would "supervise to make sure everything is done correctly". By this time, flight time was getting closer, and my daughter (who was traveling with me to Germany) was giving me her "Oh Dad!" look. So reluctantly, I ended the comedy by letting them search me after all. Well, I knew I had to or my 80 something year old aunt wouldn't see her beloved nephew on her birthday...but one of these days, I'm going to book a flight to a place I really don't want to go to...
Anytime I hear that tone I erase the number from my contacts. Have you noticed that you receive less calls in general since you started using this greeting?
I don't know...how many times a day did you call me? Seriously...I think that my strategy does permanently reduce the number of junk calls; I have the impression that I receive far fewer junk calls than before I implemented my system. I do not have hard data to back that up, and actually there's no way I can think of to measure the number of call lists that I've got my number purged from. The fact that many Unknown Callers hang up the moment the tones sound makes me think that the robocall software is acting as it should: it senses the tones, and marks the number as invalid. This is logical from the viewpoint of the phone spammers, because it's not in their interest to waste resources on invalid numbers.
These tones were actually the modus operandi of the old "Call Zapper" dongles that you connected between your phone and the landline. I was going to buy one of the things, but couldn't find one...after all, the junk call problem was "solved" by Congress. Then I did some research and found the articles I linked to in my previous post. The fact that the dongles are now uncommon makes the strategy more powerful, I think. There's no reason not to configure robocall software to drop disconnected lines—except for incompetence, of course.
Nope. Both major parties make robocalls, therefore they are both equally annoying. As long as this equality is preserved, the annoyance factor is canceled out and has no effect on the vote. Except, perhaps to increase voter apathy...for all I know that's the real reason for the robocalls: to prevent people from caring enough to vote.
So...theoretically one of them could stop doing it?
Yes, theoretically.... I have come to the conclusion, somewhat late in life, that expecting logical behavior from organizations is hopelessly optimistic. In fact, not too many individuals seem capable of logical thought.
I'm sorry this doesn't work for you. I should also mention that this is the T-Mobile version of the Galaxy S2. So maybe it's a T-Mobile feature. (I'm not recommending T-Mobile as wonderful, by the way—poor signal in too many places...but then AT&T was no better when I used them. Basically, I think the cell phone infrastructure in the U.S. sucks.)
...And yes, overall - I trust Google, as do MANY other people.
Many people trust a huge corporation dedicated to making money through advertising? Why in the world would they? Is "trust" even an appropriate relationship between an individual and a mega-corp? I trust my doctor. I trust my friends. I do not trust my bank (that's why I review my account), I trust my government to always screw up, and I trust both major political parties to be a source of perpetual black humor. The question "Do you trust Google" doesn't even make sense to me. I expect them to try to maximize their profits, I recognize that they have made some important innovations. But that's it. What else should I trust them to do? Act in my best interests? That's completely laughable, and downright weird.
Actually, I do see one advantage to being able to record surreptitiously: if you're interacting with the police, it would be nice to have your own video record. After all, they have one they can produce at will because there's a video camera in every police car, at least around here. I suppose they could just demand that you take off your glasses. As for people wearing their Glass(es) in my home, it just ain't gonna happen.
Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.
Ah, you have seen through Google's false front of goodness, and begin to perceive the true evil in their hearts! Once a large enough percentage of the population is wearing those Google Glass things, Google will simply edit out anyone who hasn't yet been assimilated! Your friends will ignore you (because they can't see you), and if you don't mend your ways, you will become the unfortunate victim of a traffic accident. (Driver: "Officer, I didn't even see the guy in the crosswalk--just look at the download from my glasses! I don't know where the body that damaged my bumper came from." Cop: "What body?")
I say "No!" to such mathematical pretentiousness. Personally, I will not be upgrading until they give their version numbers in binary to prove they still employ actual programmers. Besides, everyone knows that you should never use anything below version 50 of any software because that's when all the bugs have been worked out.
Can I become one of your customers, please? I live in Texas, but hey it's a digital world now, right? And I don't blame Canada for anything
Couldn't they just be using the phone book? Just asking...
This is a regulatory issue (unlike many other technical issues where the US government is more than happy to legislate on). Require phone companies to block spoofed phone numbers and alert law enforcement for their point of origin...
What spoofed phone numbers? All the spam numbers I've bothered googling for are real, actual true spam numbers. They're not spoofing the phone numbers of my friends, the U.S. government, President Obama, the Plumber's Union, or anybody else.
Or you could just make your answering machine start with the three-tone signal that indicates a disconnected line. (For information about these tones, look here. An audio file for the tones can be found here.
This doesn't seem to work in all instances—some telemarketers still leave messages. Robocall software can be configured to ignore the signal. But it does seem to lead to an immediate disconnect for at least half my spam calls.