In the case of the home computer, you have the right to use porn as your background, but if a technician sees it while administrating your machine they DO NOT have the right to sue you, but they have the right to refuse to administrat your machine ever again.
Ah, but they do have the right to sue their employeer... That's the situation that I was going for.
But any good support person would not only remote the machine but would also explain to the user what they were doing while they are working on the PC. A lot of people learn buy doing or seeing what is going on. So as you take them through each step you tell them what your doing. Or you can actually do the remote control as a window so you can see what the user is seeing and still talk them through it so they get the experience but be better able to see if they make a mistake.
Ah, but the original posting talked about doing away with phone support. Phone / remote - that's a completely different story. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, and your procedure.
As far as the porn comment is concerned... (man am I paying for that) - disregard it as *porn* and think of it as something which causes a moral conflict or a general feeling of unfortableness. Perhaps the two individuals are different in theological beliefs... perhaps the user has a personal email up, or a corporate email which is supposedly secure communications.
In my experience, at a company I worked for a long time ago, working on the HR director's computer was a little dicey as he always had problems with opening attatchements, and what have you... when salaries are shot infront of you - you get put in a bad place by looking... regardless - its an uncomforable situation.
It seems clear that you have never worked for support in a corporate enviorment.
And you'd wrong. I spent 3 years in college through the trenches of MIS as support tech, help desk and network admin, and DBA admin. From every standpoint I had direct contact with some of the thickest people imaginable. In the time that I spent there, I recieved high praise form almost every employee (I think I pissed off one guy once), on the fact that I spent a little extra time to make sure that they got it. When I switched from Tech to HD my role went from a more hardware to more software package problems. When I went to NW admin I fixed and explained to them how to manage files and email better (though that had the least contact with them). When I switched to DBA, I started creating usable interfaces according to their specifications, helping them get it right the first time as opposed to ordering 3 revs on a single form... I had praise from managers, Directors and VPs all of which were amazed that their people were happier and more literate.
Trust me, I worked my way though the trenches of MIS. Go out to a shipping departent
If you did, you would know that there is always a percentage of the users (If you have a sales department, the number is generally higher) that just simply do not pick up on fixing common problems. they will call time and again with the same set of problems. You patiently sit on the phone with them, and identify the problem, explain what caused the problem, explain how to fix the problem, and explain how to avoid the problem in the future. All the while hoping against hope that this time he gets it, knowing full well that he won't
And traditionally, any problem I encountered that was not operator error I fixed without question. If I didn't think the user would get it, I'd explain it, I'd explain why... and I'd explain it in as simple terms as possible. By another guy I worked with I was told that I had too much patience for stupidity... Probably true, but he never made it out from behind the help desk...
But I think you read too much into my definition of increasing their knowledge. Douglas Adams once comment that flying is falling onto the ground and missing. I commonly think of being *proficient* with computers as "not causing the BSOD while I perform my daily function." When you take the time (as you said) to explain how to avoid the problem in the future, you are increasing your users knowledge. Maybe they won't get it this time, but some day when they are about to do something similar, they'll stop, think about what they are doing, and ultimately avoid their previous problem... They may not know exactly how or why, (though at the time I usually explained that) but they do have the skills not to cause the same problem again.
And for those people, you fix it and get out of the way... But from my experience, there is a large number of people that just need it explained to them and they get it - much larger than the surly employees who work where you do.:)
And in a corporate environment, I would agree, this is a slightly better paradigm. However, quite commonly the MIS guys here have a tendency to *mess things up*, so I actually want them to seek me out before they change, fix, or do anything to my computer. As an engineer, I have had countless hours of work lost because MIS came in and did something unannounced (and either rebooted my machine without saving things, or saved things in a non-standard way - so as to make me chase them down for my files).
While I welcome MIS to scan my usage (a lot of./ bursts), and examine my machine, I prefer to at least be told, questioned or otherwise asked first...
On top of this, we commonly put/pull project machines on and off the network. When we had to find MIS to configure network settings for us (something they wanted to do at one point) I tell you, it was a pain in the ass. I tell you, in this case, the fish thing really holds true.
Also, I'm sure the employer would not want it's support engineers wasting valuable time teaching users the ins and outs of the OS, not to mention the user wasting their time learning about their computer when they have more important work to be getting on with.
Having worked in both MIS through college and now working in engineering, I assure you, your employer wants the most productive employees possible. 15 minutes of explination on an OS issue which prevents this problem from ever occuring again, is well worth the money. Loosing 50 to 100 bucks for 15 minues so an engineer knows a better way to do something they will have to do either every day or with great frequency, saves an MIS call, MIS work, and engineer work.
Don't think of MIS as strictly a reactive entity, they need to be equally as proactive as possible.
Yeah, but I really liked my Far Side mug, and it got chipped to hell when my fiance dropped it. While I agree with you that for manufacturing and heavy industry this adds many problems - small things and trinkets improve. Plus, what about break pads that don't wear out as fast, mufflers which don't fall off as easily, and windshields that resist cracking?
...oh, and if they figure out how to do this with a ceramic, or a ceramic-like polymer, I'd realy like a new "I'll tell you what this means Norm - no size restrictions and screw the limit." mug.
For one thing, this really depends on how you use remote administration. That statement from the Bible "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime," holds true here. If every time your user has a problem, you fix it without explaining what caused it, you're going to potentially decrease the learning rate of your user base. In other words, users will commonly repeat the same mistakes, and you will commonly repeat the same fix.
On top of this, many users do not want a remote administration client stored on their machine - as many think of it as "their machine," and as long as they are paying for a service, chances are they are right. By allowing a 3rd party support technician to access their machine, they are opening themselves up to a wide variety of personal investigation (regardless of the morals, intent or actions of the support personel). Lets add to that, the common tendency for people to say 'mine!' and not want you to touch their toy (remember computers aren't tools for everyone - to some they are just toys) and whatnot.
Then lets ask some other questions about if you do attatch using a remote administrative client... IANAL but, what if they have porn as their background and the helpdesk person is offended by this? I'm pretty sure this fits the definition of sexual harrassment of the employee, and requesting the client to change their background constitutes a violation of their rights - unless you prevented them from having any in your EULA...which I have problems with too... My point being, that sometimes you can indiscriminantly wander a step too far into someone's life by using a remote administration tool, and everybody can be unhappy.
Last, what about the fact that some users want phone support and not you to do something... Hey, it may inconvenience you, but some people prefer it... Phone support is common in all industries (even power tools) so it is a familiar medium of communication for many people. If you toss them on the recieving end of a remote administrative procedure, they may be less than comfortable, and therefore, less likely to continue business with you. Remote administration is great for servers, but you had better *know* your user base, and know what they want.
I guess, the bottom line is: while, it may be helpful to some, not everybody will want it. You risk dumbing your user base, and creating an unnecessary tension between employees and clients. And most importantly, you risk the security of their machine for your convenience.
Perhaps this is a good solution in major cases, but I might suggest this as a last alternative as opposed to your standard care.
Point well taken, however... I'd rather make a correction than a complete recindment.
If a new technology is not presented in a manner which is similar enough to an old technology, that a significant (signifcant does not mean over 50%) proportion of the proponents of the old technology embrace it, and fails to establish a strong new customer base then that technology will fail.
This has been seen in DvX, where the subscription component was too foriegn for people who are now willing to rent a DVD at blockbuster.
Yes, I agree that we will see changes, but changes which only the current industries allow. As we move towards a mega-corp erra (where people have less and less of a problem with massive mergers) then our choices as to what we use and what we do become limited. Yes, thousands of smaller businesses will be founded, and most will be swatted away. Yes, there will be a handful which create true new elements of technology, but unless they eventually rise themselves to a megacorp status, they will be swallowed, consumed, or ruined by a rival company. Diversification of a company to control all aspects of distrabution is an economic goldmine. This is how Rockafeller(sp?) used the railroads to make his money. If you control the steel, the barrels, the rails, and the trains, then you control the cost of whatever good someone wants to ship, and every real means necessary to do so.
While yes, tech development has increased in quantity, I would argue that we have developed a greater quantity of less-useful inventions. I will site as an exception though, the biomedical industry, which has continued to always look for a better stick.
The electric lighting system, the car, the plane, the rocket, the television, the computer, and the semiconductor were all revolutionary. TiVo, the Ab-Rocker, the juicer, and the palm pilot however are not in the same league of invention quality. Should I begin to discuss pattents on "one click shopping?"
While I believe rapid product development would be in the "revolutionary" category, I believe there are enough interests threatened by this, that it will be discouraged.
One of our most successful inventions from a "it works" standpoint was an autonomous natural gas pipe inspection unit. It was requested to be developed by several natural gas companies. The problem with many utility companies is that when they know about a problem, the must continute to monitor the problem, or fix it. This is expensive, so the utilities chose not to develop the product any more. Really, they would have been happier with a little box that blinked and told them nothing. It is all too common for a product which provides useful or corporately unhealthy information to a given utility to be... "dumbed" to the point of uselessness (the little blinking box).
When you develop a product which builds "anything," your manufacturers will be threatened. I can garountee that it is not in their best interest to devlop it... hence, at best we'll get a "widget maker" or an "enhanced widget maker." Even still, as the joke goes, they would make sure that it only works using the substance unobtainium.
So are you saying that the guy who wrote that will discover it?
I doubt it. Plus I'd argue that flying represented a greater technological step than manufacturing systems. The air previously was only accessed by zeplins or hot air baloons, everybody wanted to fly (which has a controlable movement portion which neither baloon nor zeplin achieved). We have a myriad of ways to produce any one product nowdays. As I've said in other responses, there are different methods of manufacturing which are suited for different products, but some are better or worse.
Nowdays screws and nails are stamped out, but previously they were spun on a lathe, cast or smelt. There are companies which still do the other older methods, but for the most part that is because of custom dimensions or technological availability. The point is, flying hadn't been done. Making a screw - well that already exists.
And I'd point out that the same quote applies to the prediction that this technology will exist. Its use is an oxymoron, and I hope you really meant it as such.
The original poster probably did know what he was talking about. If nothing else, the fact that this could elimiate or reduce shipping will prevent and delay this... that's taking on the teamsters.
As the technology gets better RP manafucturing processes will be able to build structures far lighter and stronger, with desired resonance frequencies and all sorts of other cool exotic shit. It's not there yet, but give it 10 years, maybe 20... the technology will improve.
On a limited scale, with a limited scope, an astounding *maybe*. There become timeframe issues of getting everybody to want to upgrade their equipment. The logistics of Y2K alone was only as successful as it was because it had to be. This is a technology which is optional, requires the retooling of major industries, and so on.
Take the rain gutter industry. Extrusion technology has been around long since before the first playdough press, but only within the last 5 years have custom length rain gutters extruded from the back of a truck become a reality.
All I'm saying is, I can fully agree that the technology for this stuff will be available in 10 to 20 years, but personal use and wide manufacturing use will be nearly non-existant. Technology can only be accepted as long as it does not interfere (now) with the status quo.
No parts manufacturer would want to be without one of these to build thier own parts with, but they would be about as unwilling as a dog at the veteranarian to just give up the schematics and plans for their flux capacitor and have it fabbed at a given store.
So my predicted timeframe for just this event (keep in mind this is basically wild guessing):
10 years technology to fab parts in an timely viable way.
15 years technology to fab parts in a structurally viable way.
20 years technology to fab parts of a limited variety of materials
50 years technology to fab single material parts in a economically vaiable way
65 years technology for a handfull of manufacturers to use the current product to construct their products (as opposed to a C&C mill/lathe, manufacturing process)
75 years to model internal parts (not just outside skeleton - think chips and such)
85 years to fab internal parts as well as external parts.
95 years to do this quickly.
100 years to make these machines cost effective
105 years parts stores such as NAPA have those fabbers and no longer have their small parts distributed
The egg or the chicken (which ever came first) was the start of replicator technology. This is, however, a major advancement in synthetic replication technology. We're a far cry from "Tea...Earl Grey...Hot" and really much closer to "Widget...Plastic...Useless"
Yes, though, holgraphic image displays do have interesting similarities, but so do 3d video cards.
Cocaine and THC are chemical compounds. Prototyping machines produce a physical component from an original polymer. Unless this polymer were already Cocane or THC, these prototypers are not going to build you one. You can probably though make a 1 kilo brick of resin. (which if you smoked would make you pretty high).
The technology for downloading molecules is relatively non-existant, as the alchemists of the middle ages found out. While scientists of the 20th century have since proved, you can make gold from lead - it just costs more than the made gold is worth, "simple molecules" (which are way more complex than an element) will be nigh impossible to construct from "thin air."
But overall, yes, at home labs will become more prevalent, advances in plant biology will allow for more divers growing climates for various greeneries to grow in, and ultimately the WoD will be called off in persuit of easier and cheaper legislation...
If you like to read sci-fi, I highly reccomend "Chung Kuo" by David Wingrove. The cities themselves are grown out of "ice", though it seems that they regard "ice" as an industrial grown crystaline, and not the same sort of frozen H20 that is normally stipulated. Unfortunately the rest of the book is not about that (though it is good), and this is only like one of those cool side notes.
I would fathom a guess that crystal growth is probably the more likely prototyping technology of the future, as you can impart specific structural qualities in a given substance. But, until you can "grow" a random glass in a specific form, this won't be massively useful either...
Your comment about very few substances fitting the layer by layer construction paradigm is well thought out.
Whoah, someones been sniffing glue while reading a little to much William Gibson. I hope you meant this post as "+X Funny" because as far as reality, your understanding of manufacturing, the human body, what this article was about, "the Net" (as you like to call it) and nanotech are quite questionable.
Rapid prototyping does not replicate anything more than physical form. Nanotech (currently) is little else than a trained circus of bacteria for fleas to watch. "The Net" already allows people to trade ideas in raw data format (But, I assume you want to trade - say 250 Megs worth of (related) data comprising a particular person's complete understanding of a given topic, in a relatively instantaneous timeframe though - which isn't possible).
Everything we do "shatters our world view," as it (the world) is a noncausal system and until we do someting, we don't know the full implications of our actions upon it (think about predicting the stock market for an example).
Your predictions seem based in a very bizare non-reality and are generally, unrelated to the story at hand. As humor, spoof and satire of some of the other posts here, your posting ranks high, as an actual new thought......its drivel?
Manafacturers don't have to hang up their boots just yet though. The current machines generally print in a single material, plastic, wax, or some such. It will be a while before you go to the mechanic and he prints out a new transmission instead of ordering one from Ford. However already, you can create a cast and injection mold a small run of parts, accuracy is around 1/1000 of an inch on the better machines. Currently takes around 10 hours of so for a 10 inch cubed model.
However, the technology will improve. An auto-parts company *will* download the part instead of ordering it. Eventually manafacturing will be an information business too.
Cool that you wrote the stuff. That's gotta be some pretty cool code. However, manufacturing will probably not make that kind of switch *ANY* time soon.
Manufactured parts come in a variety of materials formed in a variety of ways. Not all parts can be built in any one specific way - not because of the cost - but because of the material structure, the stresses which the material will experience, and so on. Casting is cool for engine blocks, but I would hate to see it used for body panels.
Different parts not only have different thicknesses of materials, but different structural makeups. Pressing a metal weakens and strengthens it vastly different from stamping, forging, or casting. Sheet alumininum will respond quite differently to outside forces than say, a part spun from aluminum bar stock.
I guess, that plastic parts have a better chance of being usefully replicated, but traditionally the processes used (injection blow molding, rotational molding, extrusions, and so on) are usually used to produce the original product because it is simple, easy and quick. Ten hours to build a shampoo bottle, or a half a dozen legos is unacceptable when the manufacturing process for producing them turns out hundreds or thousands in that amount of time.
While I agree, there will be an increased role of these prototype modelers in the coming decade, the replicators from star trek are - well - not. This story is FUD.
Ok, Having had a close friend who worked in a prototyping lab in college and myself now working in a job where we build and design custom automated machinery - this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Ok, so the prototype models I've seen are made usually out of a few different types of things. Either a solid piece of plastic or wax is cut with a laserlight, or a resin is hardened with a lazer level by level (and the structure is effectively grown).
The former is the older process, and it does not lend itself to irregularites in the material, requires additional material (as a bunch is thrown away) and builds solid objects which cannot be hollow. The latter (resin) allows a structure to be grown hollow, but commonly you spend a couple hours with a exacto blade cutting out the flange as it builds these wells in which to build the resin figure. Basically, you can model more complex parts with the latter process (things with slots, ball joints and so on).
The bottom line is however, you can't copy - say - the schematic of a board. We won't see people copying electronics, building their own chips, and/or duplicating custom ASIC designs...
From my experience, the only things useful for these kinds of prototyping could remotely be useful in is prototyping parts which a good machinist could build quicker, faster, and cheaper with or without a C&C mill/lathe. I guess you could also use it to build / research custom orthodics, as they used the resin prototyper to commonly build feet. But once again, the resin material is relatively toxic to the touch and prone to breakage, so this would probably not be an ideal application either.
Yeah, so remember, when you buy that rolex off the guy on the street in NYC, while it probably isn't real, it wasn't (and probably won't be) fabbed by rapid-prototyping equipment - just a couple hundred kids working in a sweat-shop in southeast asia...
Did you ever notice that they always cross two very strange breeds of things, like in this case Nigerian Dwarf Goats? I wonder how cheaper the research could have been if they'd done something a little bit more common.
Plus, they always give these animals dumb names, once again, these two are named Mille and Muscade. I mean, is it me, or do you get the idea they named them after they made the breakthrough - just so they were something memorable. I highly doubt anybody initially named an animal Muscade. I figure, if you wouldn't name your child it, you wouldn't name your "pet" or "project" it as well.
And why did they choose spider silk as their concentrated trait. I find that as random as say the 3-asses from the south park episide. Next thing we'll be hearing about monkeys which milk silk, and ponies which milk silk, and so on...
Which brings me to my final thought: How stupid does "milk silk" sound. I tell you, its about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Next we'll be able to get red-meated chickens, chickens with four sets of breasts, and of course, pork with 3 asses (increasing the number of rump roasts available).
two comments.
1. a buddy of mine is working on pattenting a process for using light to create an image on a screen. Of course, he's doing it with particles a couple of microns wide - and the technology will not be directly applied to monitors for *a couple* of years.
2. I think most people feel ashamed to live in the US. There are problems with our electoral process, our president, our "human rights", no national health care, our stance on various social programs common to other countries, our drug culture, the DMCA, the MPAA, our lawyers, SUV's, our constant complaining about the cost of fuel, immagration, the role of the US military, american football, OJ is guilty, professional wrestlers as govenors, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thermond are embarassments to both parties - despite their "experience", scientologists. Pattent law is only a miniscule (in comparrison) reason why we should be ashamed to live here.
Would it be great if you were
writing beautiful code...
on a beautiful computer,
while you eat beautiful nacho chips,
and gaze longlingly out your beautiful window,
at a beautiful butterfly,
and a beautiful rabbit,
playing in your beautiful yard...
Oh, - and your drunk.
sorry... props go to SNL and the Jack Handey deep thoughts... but this is the first thing that popped into my mind.
While sales tax is not as much of a problem here, I still look at stores. The steps which I labeled were not necessarily in order, nor all necessary for every purchase (insert no ops where necessary). The point I was trying to make was: find a product you are interested in, do the research, comparrision shop a little, then purchase from someone you trust.
I believe, that the concept of "retail" pricing for electronics is headed out. Buy.com is just what it says it is, its a superstore. Yes, their pricing is low on every item, but pay attention to sales sheets in the sunday paper and you can achieve the same thing.
I'm with you 100% on PayPal... that just sounds like "Checks Cashed Here: NO ID Required!"
#1. I hear about a really cool product.
#2. I look for information on the web.
#3. I go to a local electronics store (best buy, circuit city, tweeter, radio shack (sic), other small local ones)
#4. I check the products existance.
#5. I comparision shop online.
#6. If the internet is substancially cheaper, I purchase it from a reputable source online. If it isn't cheaper at a reputable source online, I pay the store price - At least I have a place to take my product back to in the event that it breaks.
#7. I purchase most major electronics at local stores.
#8. The internet is great for books, music, and pet su-... scratch that last one.
A Netsclusive(TM pending) company should raise some serious flags by now. The internet business model has become more and more questionable. Even top quality advertizing, like the Pets.com dog doesn't mean success. If I have even the slightest question as to how long a company will survive, I check f*ckedcompany.com for any information. If they say the CFO had the stomach flu I avoid business with them.
Note: I got burned by purchasing a computer through QUANTEX online. The computer was cheap, but I've got a 2 more years on a 3 year service contract with nobody. The compter works fine, but I now know that I was still hosed.
Boy, you showed them. What better way to get your revenge then to quit school. Personally, I'd have made every effort to sit in the front of my classes, voulenteer to take messages to the office, and otherwise make my presence as known as possible. Considering that it seems you alluded to them driving you out of school, that would have make them nuts. When the system screws you, use the system to screw with the system. By dropping out, you eliminated yourself as a potential threat - whether real or not, and solved their problem. Rather than do that run for student council, and get the school computer policy revoked - or at least establish a students computing rights - one which conflicted with the previous said document. Get enough students to agree with you, a small bit of backing student legislation, and you can twist the arm of the administration. Even making the effort gets your point.
Oh, and not to nag you - but please, at least go back and get a GED. I know it sounds like a silly peice of paper but you'll thank yourself in 10 years. If you don't want to do college, that's fine, but sooner or later a high school diploma will haunt you big time.
As a further note, Bill Gates never finished college. Do you want to be a quitter like Bill Gates?:) (This is an attempt at humor / psychology)
The argument is about what he _should_ be allowed to do, not what the law currently allows him to do.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the AC was on the board of directors for Apple.
Ok, sorry that was rude. But I do have a point. For starters, it is Apple's obligation to its board of directors to make money. The board of directors has the right to make money any way they can legally see how. The problems stem, when a company's board of directors forget to consider the full legal implications of their actions (a-la the aggressive monopolistic behaviors associated with Microsoft). In the case of Apple - clearly this is something which is associated with their company. And clearly they were being ripped off - albeit a small amount of praise/fan worship coming from linux users.
The lemonade analogy completely fell apart where I noted, and therefore I commented.
Now, if you have a problem with the actions the board of directors have allowed their company to take, I suggest you chastize them as to your ethics. Please recognize though, that if they are within their legal bounds, and obvious harm can be seen from allowing other use (and I can elaborate what the obvious harm is), then ethically they are in the right.
Wow. That's hitting the nail right on the head, as to the issues surrounding IP. You have taken an ideal statment, and pointed out the real dillema facing current Intellectual Property law.
The company that I work for designs many pattentable proccesses and devices. Sometimes we pattent a process, sometimes we pattent a device - these are very distinct differences. When you pattent a device, you are the only one who can make a device which performs the funcionality described under the pattent. When you pattent a process, anybody can produce the product, but you are the only one allowed to produce the product in your pattented manner.
With software, you produce a finished product - a device,or tool. But you really take and construct it through a carefully developed process. If noone has come up with this way, or this product before, then you have truly created something new. The problem with software, however, is that the instruction set is small enough that it is intuitively easy to see how someone created "one click shopping" or, in this case "a really bitchin' GUI." Thousands of people have done it, a portion of it, or can see how to do exactly what you did. There is a necessity to prevent copycat coders to instantaneously produce an identical product, claiming it as their own. Face it, Amazon (in an old case) beat everybody to the punch - albeit a stupid punch. Obviously, amazon couldn't pattent selling books, obviously amazon couldn't pattent a quality of care, but they had obviously produced something which when examined, everyone would want. They had designed something really cool. Anyways, yes...
I now don't like what amazon has done, but I can't fault them for it.
You have given me new insight into many things about pattent law, IP, and whether Amazon.com is truly evil...
,i>I use Secret Recipe #1 for my lemonade. Jim Bob analyzes the chemical structure, duplicates it, calls it Secret Recipe #2, and starts marketing it under that name. Should I have the right to sue him for stealing my intellectual property?
Well, if he pattented his lemonade, actually yes. That's called reverse engineering. If he can prove that you performed tests on his lemonade prior to your procuring "Secret Recipe #2", he can and should sue you. If he doesn't have a pattent, and it is a trade secret, then you have decided that your lemonade is so superior to anyone else that even after your pattent runs out no one will successfully duplicate a glass of lemonade equal in quality that pattenting it will only hurt you. If someone develops the same "lemonade technology" then, unfortunately for you, more power to them.
Jim Bob comes over to my stand one day and starts talking with my customers, trying to get them to come over to his stand and try his own Secret Recipe. Should I have the right to sue him for manipulating my customers?
Well, if you own the property you have the right to have him removed for trespassing, soliciting your customers (as long as it is posted), and potential harrassment if he fails to leave when you ask him. Immediately off of your property, he can do whatever he wants. This is why there are so many people standing on the other side of the street from an abortion clinic protesting abortion normally, and not in the front lobby.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of the home computer, you have the right to use porn as your background, but if a technician sees it while administrating your machine they DO NOT have the right to sue you, but they have the right to refuse to administrat your machine ever again.
Ah, but they do have the right to sue their employeer... That's the situation that I was going for.
But any good support person would not only remote the machine but would also explain to the user what they were doing while they are working on the PC. A lot of people learn buy doing or seeing what is going on. So as you take them through each step you tell them what your doing. Or you can actually do the remote control as a window so you can see what the user is seeing and still talk them through it so they get the experience but be better able to see if they make a mistake.
Ah, but the original posting talked about doing away with phone support. Phone / remote - that's a completely different story. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, and your procedure.
As far as the porn comment is concerned... (man am I paying for that) - disregard it as *porn* and think of it as something which causes a moral conflict or a general feeling of unfortableness. Perhaps the two individuals are different in theological beliefs... perhaps the user has a personal email up, or a corporate email which is supposedly secure communications.
In my experience, at a company I worked for a long time ago, working on the HR director's computer was a little dicey as he always had problems with opening attatchements, and what have you... when salaries are shot infront of you - you get put in a bad place by looking... regardless - its an uncomforable situation.
It seems clear that you have never worked for support in a corporate enviorment.
And you'd wrong. I spent 3 years in college through the trenches of MIS as support tech, help desk and network admin, and DBA admin. From every standpoint I had direct contact with some of the thickest people imaginable. In the time that I spent there, I recieved high praise form almost every employee (I think I pissed off one guy once), on the fact that I spent a little extra time to make sure that they got it. When I switched from Tech to HD my role went from a more hardware to more software package problems. When I went to NW admin I fixed and explained to them how to manage files and email better (though that had the least contact with them). When I switched to DBA, I started creating usable interfaces according to their specifications, helping them get it right the first time as opposed to ordering 3 revs on a single form... I had praise from managers, Directors and VPs all of which were amazed that their people were happier and more literate.
Trust me, I worked my way though the trenches of MIS. Go out to a shipping departent
If you did, you would know that there is always a percentage of the users (If you have a sales department, the number is generally higher) that just simply do not pick up on fixing common problems. they will call time and again with the same set of problems. You patiently sit on the phone with them, and identify the problem, explain what caused the problem, explain how to fix the problem, and explain how to avoid the problem in the future. All the while hoping against hope that this time he gets it, knowing full well that he won't
And traditionally, any problem I encountered that was not operator error I fixed without question. If I didn't think the user would get it, I'd explain it, I'd explain why... and I'd explain it in as simple terms as possible. By another guy I worked with I was told that I had too much patience for stupidity... Probably true, but he never made it out from behind the help desk...
But I think you read too much into my definition of increasing their knowledge. Douglas Adams once comment that flying is falling onto the ground and missing. I commonly think of being *proficient* with computers as "not causing the BSOD while I perform my daily function." When you take the time (as you said) to explain how to avoid the problem in the future, you are increasing your users knowledge. Maybe they won't get it this time, but some day when they are about to do something similar, they'll stop, think about what they are doing, and ultimately avoid their previous problem... They may not know exactly how or why, (though at the time I usually explained that) but they do have the skills not to cause the same problem again.
And for those people, you fix it and get out of the way... But from my experience, there is a large number of people that just need it explained to them and they get it - much larger than the surly employees who work where you do. :)
And in a corporate environment, I would agree, this is a slightly better paradigm. However, quite commonly the MIS guys here have a tendency to *mess things up*, so I actually want them to seek me out before they change, fix, or do anything to my computer. As an engineer, I have had countless hours of work lost because MIS came in and did something unannounced (and either rebooted my machine without saving things, or saved things in a non-standard way - so as to make me chase them down for my files).
./ bursts), and examine my machine, I prefer to at least be told, questioned or otherwise asked first...
While I welcome MIS to scan my usage (a lot of
On top of this, we commonly put/pull project machines on and off the network. When we had to find MIS to configure network settings for us (something they wanted to do at one point) I tell you, it was a pain in the ass. I tell you, in this case, the fish thing really holds true.
Also, I'm sure the employer would not want it's support engineers wasting valuable time teaching users the ins and outs of the OS, not to mention the user wasting their time learning about their computer when they have more important work to be getting on with.
Having worked in both MIS through college and now working in engineering, I assure you, your employer wants the most productive employees possible. 15 minutes of explination on an OS issue which prevents this problem from ever occuring again, is well worth the money. Loosing 50 to 100 bucks for 15 minues so an engineer knows a better way to do something they will have to do either every day or with great frequency, saves an MIS call, MIS work, and engineer work.
Don't think of MIS as strictly a reactive entity, they need to be equally as proactive as possible.
Yeah, but I really liked my Far Side mug, and it got chipped to hell when my fiance dropped it. While I agree with you that for manufacturing and heavy industry this adds many problems - small things and trinkets improve. Plus, what about break pads that don't wear out as fast, mufflers which don't fall off as easily, and windshields that resist cracking?
...oh, and if they figure out how to do this with a ceramic, or a ceramic-like polymer, I'd realy like a new "I'll tell you what this means Norm - no size restrictions and screw the limit." mug.
For one thing, this really depends on how you use remote administration. That statement from the Bible "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime," holds true here. If every time your user has a problem, you fix it without explaining what caused it, you're going to potentially decrease the learning rate of your user base. In other words, users will commonly repeat the same mistakes, and you will commonly repeat the same fix.
On top of this, many users do not want a remote administration client stored on their machine - as many think of it as "their machine," and as long as they are paying for a service, chances are they are right. By allowing a 3rd party support technician to access their machine, they are opening themselves up to a wide variety of personal investigation (regardless of the morals, intent or actions of the support personel). Lets add to that, the common tendency for people to say 'mine!' and not want you to touch their toy (remember computers aren't tools for everyone - to some they are just toys) and whatnot.
Then lets ask some other questions about if you do attatch using a remote administrative client... IANAL but, what if they have porn as their background and the helpdesk person is offended by this? I'm pretty sure this fits the definition of sexual harrassment of the employee, and requesting the client to change their background constitutes a violation of their rights - unless you prevented them from having any in your EULA...which I have problems with too... My point being, that sometimes you can indiscriminantly wander a step too far into someone's life by using a remote administration tool, and everybody can be unhappy.
Last, what about the fact that some users want phone support and not you to do something... Hey, it may inconvenience you, but some people prefer it... Phone support is common in all industries (even power tools) so it is a familiar medium of communication for many people. If you toss them on the recieving end of a remote administrative procedure, they may be less than comfortable, and therefore, less likely to continue business with you. Remote administration is great for servers, but you had better *know* your user base, and know what they want.
I guess, the bottom line is: while, it may be helpful to some, not everybody will want it. You risk dumbing your user base, and creating an unnecessary tension between employees and clients. And most importantly, you risk the security of their machine for your convenience.
Perhaps this is a good solution in major cases, but I might suggest this as a last alternative as opposed to your standard care.
Point well taken, however... I'd rather make a correction than a complete recindment.
If a new technology is not presented in a manner which is similar enough to an old technology, that a significant (signifcant does not mean over 50%) proportion of the proponents of the old technology embrace it, and fails to establish a strong new customer base then that technology will fail.
This has been seen in DvX, where the subscription component was too foriegn for people who are now willing to rent a DVD at blockbuster.
Yes, I agree that we will see changes, but changes which only the current industries allow. As we move towards a mega-corp erra (where people have less and less of a problem with massive mergers) then our choices as to what we use and what we do become limited. Yes, thousands of smaller businesses will be founded, and most will be swatted away. Yes, there will be a handful which create true new elements of technology, but unless they eventually rise themselves to a megacorp status, they will be swallowed, consumed, or ruined by a rival company. Diversification of a company to control all aspects of distrabution is an economic goldmine. This is how Rockafeller(sp?) used the railroads to make his money. If you control the steel, the barrels, the rails, and the trains, then you control the cost of whatever good someone wants to ship, and every real means necessary to do so.
While yes, tech development has increased in quantity, I would argue that we have developed a greater quantity of less-useful inventions. I will site as an exception though, the biomedical industry, which has continued to always look for a better stick.
The electric lighting system, the car, the plane, the rocket, the television, the computer, and the semiconductor were all revolutionary. TiVo, the Ab-Rocker, the juicer, and the palm pilot however are not in the same league of invention quality. Should I begin to discuss pattents on "one click shopping?"
While I believe rapid product development would be in the "revolutionary" category, I believe there are enough interests threatened by this, that it will be discouraged.
One of our most successful inventions from a "it works" standpoint was an autonomous natural gas pipe inspection unit. It was requested to be developed by several natural gas companies. The problem with many utility companies is that when they know about a problem, the must continute to monitor the problem, or fix it. This is expensive, so the utilities chose not to develop the product any more. Really, they would have been happier with a little box that blinked and told them nothing. It is all too common for a product which provides useful or corporately unhealthy information to a given utility to be... "dumbed" to the point of uselessness (the little blinking box).
When you develop a product which builds "anything," your manufacturers will be threatened. I can garountee that it is not in their best interest to devlop it... hence, at best we'll get a "widget maker" or an "enhanced widget maker." Even still, as the joke goes, they would make sure that it only works using the substance unobtainium.
So are you saying that the guy who wrote that will discover it?
I doubt it. Plus I'd argue that flying represented a greater technological step than manufacturing systems. The air previously was only accessed by zeplins or hot air baloons, everybody wanted to fly (which has a controlable movement portion which neither baloon nor zeplin achieved). We have a myriad of ways to produce any one product nowdays. As I've said in other responses, there are different methods of manufacturing which are suited for different products, but some are better or worse.
Nowdays screws and nails are stamped out, but previously they were spun on a lathe, cast or smelt. There are companies which still do the other older methods, but for the most part that is because of custom dimensions or technological availability. The point is, flying hadn't been done. Making a screw - well that already exists.
And I'd point out that the same quote applies to the prediction that this technology will exist. Its use is an oxymoron, and I hope you really meant it as such.
The original poster probably did know what he was talking about. If nothing else, the fact that this could elimiate or reduce shipping will prevent and delay this... that's taking on the teamsters.
As the technology gets better RP manafucturing processes will be able to build structures far lighter and stronger, with desired resonance frequencies and all sorts of other cool exotic shit. It's not there yet, but give it 10 years, maybe 20... the technology will improve.
On a limited scale, with a limited scope, an astounding *maybe*. There become timeframe issues of getting everybody to want to upgrade their equipment. The logistics of Y2K alone was only as successful as it was because it had to be. This is a technology which is optional, requires the retooling of major industries, and so on.
Take the rain gutter industry. Extrusion technology has been around long since before the first playdough press, but only within the last 5 years have custom length rain gutters extruded from the back of a truck become a reality.
All I'm saying is, I can fully agree that the technology for this stuff will be available in 10 to 20 years, but personal use and wide manufacturing use will be nearly non-existant. Technology can only be accepted as long as it does not interfere (now) with the status quo.
No parts manufacturer would want to be without one of these to build thier own parts with, but they would be about as unwilling as a dog at the veteranarian to just give up the schematics and plans for their flux capacitor and have it fabbed at a given store.
So my predicted timeframe for just this event (keep in mind this is basically wild guessing):
10 years technology to fab parts in an timely viable way.
15 years technology to fab parts in a structurally viable way.
20 years technology to fab parts of a limited variety of materials
50 years technology to fab single material parts in a economically vaiable way
65 years technology for a handfull of manufacturers to use the current product to construct their products (as opposed to a C&C mill/lathe, manufacturing process)
75 years to model internal parts (not just outside skeleton - think chips and such)
85 years to fab internal parts as well as external parts.
95 years to do this quickly.
100 years to make these machines cost effective
105 years parts stores such as NAPA have those fabbers and no longer have their small parts distributed
... and so on...
The egg or the chicken (which ever came first) was the start of replicator technology. This is, however, a major advancement in synthetic replication technology. We're a far cry from "Tea...Earl Grey...Hot" and really much closer to "Widget...Plastic...Useless"
Yes, though, holgraphic image displays do have interesting similarities, but so do 3d video cards.
Cocaine and THC are chemical compounds. Prototyping machines produce a physical component from an original polymer. Unless this polymer were already Cocane or THC, these prototypers are not going to build you one. You can probably though make a 1 kilo brick of resin. (which if you smoked would make you pretty high).
The technology for downloading molecules is relatively non-existant, as the alchemists of the middle ages found out. While scientists of the 20th century have since proved, you can make gold from lead - it just costs more than the made gold is worth, "simple molecules" (which are way more complex than an element) will be nigh impossible to construct from "thin air."
But overall, yes, at home labs will become more prevalent, advances in plant biology will allow for more divers growing climates for various greeneries to grow in, and ultimately the WoD will be called off in persuit of easier and cheaper legislation...
If you like to read sci-fi, I highly reccomend "Chung Kuo" by David Wingrove. The cities themselves are grown out of "ice", though it seems that they regard "ice" as an industrial grown crystaline, and not the same sort of frozen H20 that is normally stipulated. Unfortunately the rest of the book is not about that (though it is good), and this is only like one of those cool side notes.
I would fathom a guess that crystal growth is probably the more likely prototyping technology of the future, as you can impart specific structural qualities in a given substance. But, until you can "grow" a random glass in a specific form, this won't be massively useful either...
Your comment about very few substances fitting the layer by layer construction paradigm is well thought out.
Whoah, someones been sniffing glue while reading a little to much William Gibson. I hope you meant this post as "+X Funny" because as far as reality, your understanding of manufacturing, the human body, what this article was about, "the Net" (as you like to call it) and nanotech are quite questionable.
...its drivel?
Rapid prototyping does not replicate anything more than physical form. Nanotech (currently) is little else than a trained circus of bacteria for fleas to watch. "The Net" already allows people to trade ideas in raw data format (But, I assume you want to trade - say 250 Megs worth of (related) data comprising a particular person's complete understanding of a given topic, in a relatively instantaneous timeframe though - which isn't possible).
Everything we do "shatters our world view," as it (the world) is a noncausal system and until we do someting, we don't know the full implications of our actions upon it (think about predicting the stock market for an example).
Your predictions seem based in a very bizare non-reality and are generally, unrelated to the story at hand. As humor, spoof and satire of some of the other posts here, your posting ranks high, as an actual new thought...
Manafacturers don't have to hang up their boots just yet though. The current machines generally print in a single material, plastic, wax, or some such. It will be a while before you go to the mechanic and he prints out a new transmission instead of ordering one from Ford. However already, you can create a cast and injection mold a small run of parts, accuracy is around 1/1000 of an inch on the better machines. Currently takes around 10 hours of so for a 10 inch cubed model.
However, the technology will improve. An auto-parts company *will* download the part instead of ordering it. Eventually manafacturing will be an information business too.
Cool that you wrote the stuff. That's gotta be some pretty cool code. However, manufacturing will probably not make that kind of switch *ANY* time soon.
Manufactured parts come in a variety of materials formed in a variety of ways. Not all parts can be built in any one specific way - not because of the cost - but because of the material structure, the stresses which the material will experience, and so on. Casting is cool for engine blocks, but I would hate to see it used for body panels.
Different parts not only have different thicknesses of materials, but different structural makeups. Pressing a metal weakens and strengthens it vastly different from stamping, forging, or casting. Sheet alumininum will respond quite differently to outside forces than say, a part spun from aluminum bar stock.
I guess, that plastic parts have a better chance of being usefully replicated, but traditionally the processes used (injection blow molding, rotational molding, extrusions, and so on) are usually used to produce the original product because it is simple, easy and quick. Ten hours to build a shampoo bottle, or a half a dozen legos is unacceptable when the manufacturing process for producing them turns out hundreds or thousands in that amount of time.
While I agree, there will be an increased role of these prototype modelers in the coming decade, the replicators from star trek are - well - not. This story is FUD.
Ok, Having had a close friend who worked in a prototyping lab in college and myself now working in a job where we build and design custom automated machinery - this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Ok, so the prototype models I've seen are made usually out of a few different types of things. Either a solid piece of plastic or wax is cut with a laserlight, or a resin is hardened with a lazer level by level (and the structure is effectively grown).
The former is the older process, and it does not lend itself to irregularites in the material, requires additional material (as a bunch is thrown away) and builds solid objects which cannot be hollow. The latter (resin) allows a structure to be grown hollow, but commonly you spend a couple hours with a exacto blade cutting out the flange as it builds these wells in which to build the resin figure. Basically, you can model more complex parts with the latter process (things with slots, ball joints and so on).
The bottom line is however, you can't copy - say - the schematic of a board. We won't see people copying electronics, building their own chips, and/or duplicating custom ASIC designs...
From my experience, the only things useful for these kinds of prototyping could remotely be useful in is prototyping parts which a good machinist could build quicker, faster, and cheaper with or without a C&C mill/lathe. I guess you could also use it to build / research custom orthodics, as they used the resin prototyper to commonly build feet. But once again, the resin material is relatively toxic to the touch and prone to breakage, so this would probably not be an ideal application either.
Yeah, so remember, when you buy that rolex off the guy on the street in NYC, while it probably isn't real, it wasn't (and probably won't be) fabbed by rapid-prototyping equipment - just a couple hundred kids working in a sweat-shop in southeast asia...
Did you ever notice that they always cross two very strange breeds of things, like in this case Nigerian Dwarf Goats? I wonder how cheaper the research could have been if they'd done something a little bit more common.
Plus, they always give these animals dumb names, once again, these two are named Mille and Muscade. I mean, is it me, or do you get the idea they named them after they made the breakthrough - just so they were something memorable. I highly doubt anybody initially named an animal Muscade. I figure, if you wouldn't name your child it, you wouldn't name your "pet" or "project" it as well.
And why did they choose spider silk as their concentrated trait. I find that as random as say the 3-asses from the south park episide. Next thing we'll be hearing about monkeys which milk silk, and ponies which milk silk, and so on...
Which brings me to my final thought: How stupid does "milk silk" sound. I tell you, its about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Next we'll be able to get red-meated chickens, chickens with four sets of breasts, and of course, pork with 3 asses (increasing the number of rump roasts available).
Genetics, B'AH!
two comments.
1. a buddy of mine is working on pattenting a process for using light to create an image on a screen. Of course, he's doing it with particles a couple of microns wide - and the technology will not be directly applied to monitors for *a couple* of years.
2. I think most people feel ashamed to live in the US. There are problems with our electoral process, our president, our "human rights", no national health care, our stance on various social programs common to other countries, our drug culture, the DMCA, the MPAA, our lawyers, SUV's, our constant complaining about the cost of fuel, immagration, the role of the US military, american football, OJ is guilty, professional wrestlers as govenors, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thermond are embarassments to both parties - despite their "experience", scientologists. Pattent law is only a miniscule (in comparrison) reason why we should be ashamed to live here.
Would it be great if you were
writing beautiful code...
on a beautiful computer,
while you eat beautiful nacho chips,
and gaze longlingly out your beautiful window,
at a beautiful butterfly,
and a beautiful rabbit,
playing in your beautiful yard...
Oh, - and your drunk.
sorry... props go to SNL and the Jack Handey deep thoughts... but this is the first thing that popped into my mind.
Ah, exageration to a point.
While sales tax is not as much of a problem here, I still look at stores. The steps which I labeled were not necessarily in order, nor all necessary for every purchase (insert no ops where necessary). The point I was trying to make was: find a product you are interested in, do the research, comparrision shop a little, then purchase from someone you trust.
I believe, that the concept of "retail" pricing for electronics is headed out. Buy.com is just what it says it is, its a superstore. Yes, their pricing is low on every item, but pay attention to sales sheets in the sunday paper and you can achieve the same thing.
I'm with you 100% on PayPal... that just sounds like "Checks Cashed Here: NO ID Required!"
#1. I hear about a really cool product.
#2. I look for information on the web.
#3. I go to a local electronics store (best buy, circuit city, tweeter, radio shack (sic), other small local ones)
#4. I check the products existance.
#5. I comparision shop online.
#6. If the internet is substancially cheaper, I purchase it from a reputable source online. If it isn't cheaper at a reputable source online, I pay the store price - At least I have a place to take my product back to in the event that it breaks.
#7. I purchase most major electronics at local stores.
#8. The internet is great for books, music, and pet su-... scratch that last one.
A Netsclusive(TM pending) company should raise some serious flags by now. The internet business model has become more and more questionable. Even top quality advertizing, like the Pets.com dog doesn't mean success. If I have even the slightest question as to how long a company will survive, I check f*ckedcompany.com for any information. If they say the CFO had the stomach flu I avoid business with them.
Note: I got burned by purchasing a computer through QUANTEX online. The computer was cheap, but I've got a 2 more years on a 3 year service contract with nobody. The compter works fine, but I now know that I was still hosed.
Boy, you showed them. What better way to get your revenge then to quit school. Personally, I'd have made every effort to sit in the front of my classes, voulenteer to take messages to the office, and otherwise make my presence as known as possible. Considering that it seems you alluded to them driving you out of school, that would have make them nuts. When the system screws you, use the system to screw with the system. By dropping out, you eliminated yourself as a potential threat - whether real or not, and solved their problem. Rather than do that run for student council, and get the school computer policy revoked - or at least establish a students computing rights - one which conflicted with the previous said document. Get enough students to agree with you, a small bit of backing student legislation, and you can twist the arm of the administration. Even making the effort gets your point.
:) (This is an attempt at humor / psychology)
Oh, and not to nag you - but please, at least go back and get a GED. I know it sounds like a silly peice of paper but you'll thank yourself in 10 years. If you don't want to do college, that's fine, but sooner or later a high school diploma will haunt you big time.
As a further note, Bill Gates never finished college. Do you want to be a quitter like Bill Gates?
The argument is about what he _should_ be allowed to do, not what the law currently allows him to do.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the AC was on the board of directors for Apple.
Ok, sorry that was rude. But I do have a point. For starters, it is Apple's obligation to its board of directors to make money. The board of directors has the right to make money any way they can legally see how. The problems stem, when a company's board of directors forget to consider the full legal implications of their actions (a-la the aggressive monopolistic behaviors associated with Microsoft). In the case of Apple - clearly this is something which is associated with their company. And clearly they were being ripped off - albeit a small amount of praise/fan worship coming from linux users.
The lemonade analogy completely fell apart where I noted, and therefore I commented.
Now, if you have a problem with the actions the board of directors have allowed their company to take, I suggest you chastize them as to your ethics. Please recognize though, that if they are within their legal bounds, and obvious harm can be seen from allowing other use (and I can elaborate what the obvious harm is), then ethically they are in the right.
--
pardon the digression in the way of amazon.com...
Wow. That's hitting the nail right on the head, as to the issues surrounding IP. You have taken an ideal statment, and pointed out the real dillema facing current Intellectual Property law.
The company that I work for designs many pattentable proccesses and devices. Sometimes we pattent a process, sometimes we pattent a device - these are very distinct differences. When you pattent a device, you are the only one who can make a device which performs the funcionality described under the pattent. When you pattent a process, anybody can produce the product, but you are the only one allowed to produce the product in your pattented manner.
With software, you produce a finished product - a device,or tool. But you really take and construct it through a carefully developed process. If noone has come up with this way, or this product before, then you have truly created something new. The problem with software, however, is that the instruction set is small enough that it is intuitively easy to see how someone created "one click shopping" or, in this case "a really bitchin' GUI." Thousands of people have done it, a portion of it, or can see how to do exactly what you did. There is a necessity to prevent copycat coders to instantaneously produce an identical product, claiming it as their own. Face it, Amazon (in an old case) beat everybody to the punch - albeit a stupid punch. Obviously, amazon couldn't pattent selling books, obviously amazon couldn't pattent a quality of care, but they had obviously produced something which when examined, everyone would want. They had designed something really cool. Anyways, yes...
I now don't like what amazon has done, but I can't fault them for it.
You have given me new insight into many things about pattent law, IP, and whether Amazon.com is truly evil...
--
,i>I use Secret Recipe #1 for my lemonade. Jim Bob analyzes the chemical structure, duplicates it, calls it Secret Recipe #2, and starts marketing it under that name. Should I have the right to sue him for stealing my intellectual property?
Well, if he pattented his lemonade, actually yes. That's called reverse engineering. If he can prove that you performed tests on his lemonade prior to your procuring "Secret Recipe #2", he can and should sue you. If he doesn't have a pattent, and it is a trade secret, then you have decided that your lemonade is so superior to anyone else that even after your pattent runs out no one will successfully duplicate a glass of lemonade equal in quality that pattenting it will only hurt you. If someone develops the same "lemonade technology" then, unfortunately for you, more power to them.
Jim Bob comes over to my stand one day and starts talking with my customers, trying to get them to come over to his stand and try his own Secret Recipe. Should I have the right to sue him for manipulating my customers?
Well, if you own the property you have the right to have him removed for trespassing, soliciting your customers (as long as it is posted), and potential harrassment if he fails to leave when you ask him. Immediately off of your property, he can do whatever he wants. This is why there are so many people standing on the other side of the street from an abortion clinic protesting abortion normally, and not in the front lobby.
--