I was told free markets solve everything. That you don't need government regulation to police corporations because people will simply stop doing business with them if they don't get the service/product they want.
I can't imagine that corporations would put profit over customer service. This must be a mistake.
he is flanked by two attractive flight attendants.
I don't want to sound harsh, but if that's what you consider attractive, more power to you. The one on the right is somewhat attractive, but neither is what I would consider to be the typical "attractive" flight attendant.
the amount of craptacular software that is out there, both free and paid, I would say the answer is yes.
Between the exhaustively documented bugs in Civ and AC (to name two games from the same person/group), to the WTF? in many open source packages, coders, as a group, believe they are too good for code review.
Though I am trying to move into that area from my current support role, the vast majority of people want to see that little piece of paper which claims you know what you're doing despite PMI's own statistics which show that roughly 70% of projects fail.
Which then begs the question: if that many projects are considered a failure, does that mean many PMPs don't know what they're doing and PMI is simply handing out paper, or is the training and such that PMI produces not worth squat?
Considering that one of the two favorite candidate of the Tea Party participants is Herman Caine,
And considering he said he would want any muslim person in his administration, and only muslims, to take a loyalty oath, that says all you need to know about him and the Tea Party.
Absolutely. That was something I had brought up in my Systems Analyst and Design II class to my instructor when he marked me down on a test. The question asked if one should get detailed information from a stakeholder when starting a project.
I answered yes, you should and was marked down. He explained that in the beginning, you get a general idea of what the stakeholder wants followed by more a detailed explanation. It was a subtle point, and I argued it for that extra point, but he didn't budge even though he understood where I was coming from. There was a bit more to the question so don't think he was an idiot. I learned a lot from him about project management (which I would like to move into from the desk jockey I am now).
So for me, you have no worry about what I want. I will tell you, ad nauseum, exactly what I want.
its clear the developers don't actually know what they are doing.
This is precisely why one of my 3 inviolate rules for IT is:
Never let a programmer program your applications.
By that I mean, you need to be very specific in what you want done. You must not leave wiggle room for the programmer to interpret what you mean. Do not allow them to do "shiny" for the sake of "shiny". To do so invites what is happening to Firefox.
I know the programmers out there are going to be up in arms, ranting about how controlling my statements are, and I don't deny that, but having seen and been forced to work with the huge amount of bad software* out there, brutal tactics must be employed to counter the cruft being shoved out.
*Bad software meaning horrible install procedures, horrible interfaces, outright bugs in final releases, games with blatant cheating for the AI, software which does not do what you tell it to do, etc.
In how many places, at how many times, can it be "illegal" to snap a photo, or to record a video?
Concerts (unless told otherwise), Smithsonian exhibits (flag, first lady dresses, similar other exhibits), museums for certain exhibits, shall I go on.
Movie theaters are not public places. They are private places which allow the public in subject to certain rules. Not taking a video of a movie is one of those rules.
No, it wasn't. You, and everyone else, paid taxes so you could get that degree. The same goes for healthcare. It's not free, someone has to pay for it and that someone is you and your neighbors.
The problem is there are those who will not get a degree and so are paying for your education. Is that fair?
This mindset that education, healthcare, etc is free is completely wrong. Everything costs something and someone has to pay for it. Just because you don't pay a chunk of your own money to go to school or go to the doctor does not mean it's free. The money has to come from somewhere and in your case it's taxes.
I'm not sure what's particularly safer about a stick shift
It is all but impossible to 'accidentally' put your car in reverse instead of drive. Think about the number of times you hear a story about someone who did just that.
A similar thing with hitting the gas instead of the brake. You can do it, but you still have your foot on the clutch.
And yes, driving a stick is much more fun. Now if manufacturers would just get rid of the shift indicator. People who drive sticks don't need to be told when to shift. I'm looking at you American car manufacturers.
Why is the industry hell-bent on not giving customers what they want?"
As the title says, industry knows best. One can use nearly any product that has come out in the last ten years and see the same scenario.
Windows 7: No way to see every program installed on your PC in one location, twice as many steps to complete simple tasks, making Programs a flat file rather than seeing everything in one shot (sound familiar?).
Cars: getting rid of stick shifts despite better fuel mileage and better safety (ok, this is mainly due to laziness of Americans who want to talk on their cell phones while driving ghetto style), complicated radio "features", a myriad of bells (literally) going off at every moment to warn you of nothing of importance going on.
Washing machines and dryers: Internet connection (really? They're washer and dryers), an explosion of settings (most of which are never used).
Software: enough said. If there is a time consuming and complicated way of doing something, a programmer will find it. Games which cheat in single-player? Yup. There are numerous forums dedicated to games of all types where this occurs but the developers will deny everything despite evidence to the contrary.
The fact of the matter is, the industry doesn't care what people want. The industry will tell you what you want. Don't want some doo-dad or widget in your car? Tough. It comes standard. Can't find how to turn something off? Sorry, it's a "feature" (yeah Adobe, your X pdf reader is guilty of this with its permanent splash screen). Want something simple? Ha! You have two choices: nothing or everything. There is no middle ground.
What the user wants is irrelevant. You must take what you are given and be glad about it.
Your monopoly is a PRIVILEGE granted by society, and the privilege can be revoked at any time the People decide it is no longer needed.
Bullshit. It is not a privilege, it's a right. It's called commerce and without commerce society ceases to exist.
If everyone thought they were entitled to take/use/whatever the product that someone else took the time and money to produce, society would very quickly collapse. And no, bartering would not replace capitalism because there would never be enough products produced to compensate people at what they consider a fair value.
resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
So that legitimizes taking someone else's work and not compensating them for it, right? Because the world runs on dreams and kindness and everything should just be given away.
Guess what, someone, usually dozens or hundreds of people, worked to produce the software and they want to be paid for their work. Just because you don't think the price is justified doesn't entitle you to take their work and not compensate them.
And yes, I'm using the word entitled because that is the overwhelming opinion on this site and others that people are somehow entitled to take something which isn't theirs and not have to pay a dime for it.
Maybe you think it's funny or sticking it to the man, but you wouldn't be laughing if it was your stuff being taken and you didn't get paid for it.
And don't bother bringing up how software isn't "real" goods or services. That the cost to produce it is negligible. There are still ongoing costs associated with producing and distributing the software, even via downloads. Or do you think the servers are running on puppy farts?
While the BSA numbers are certainly overstated, the fact remains people are stealing someone else's work and trying to justify that theft by claiming, "But they live in a poor country and can't afford it so it's ok to steal" is bullshit.
You want to code and give your stuff away, that's fine. It's your stuff. Don't try claiming what you think should be done with your stuff applies to someone else's stuff.
what do most people need TBs to local storage for?
For all the software they use but never paid for and have no intention of every paying for, porn, personal documents, porn, backups, porn, backups of porn, music, porn, backups of music and porn, home movies, porn, games, porn, porn games, pictures, porn, emails, porn, porn emails, and of course, porn.
Not everyone wants their stuff in "the cloud". Having something at your location gives you faster access than going to a site, no matter the transmission speed. It's also more secure than letting someone else manage your stuff (as we routinely see).
No, Windows 7 will suffice. Those who were involved with its "design" should be taken out back and beaten together until they are bloody pulp.
There are simply too many "design" issues to list here, but the overall point I'm trying to make is it sucks. Badly. It's almost as if Microsoft was trying to make it impossible to perform the simplest takes.
I want to say that people who "designed" this crap had never heard of UI testing or the KISS principle, but for what they get paid, I find that hard to believe.
As I have said many a time, I still turn up the volume and watch the confrontation episode on Gamilon at night just so the explosions are more pronounced. Nothing like nearly 30 seconds of all out (simulated) combat. Dropping bombs, guns blazing, missiles shooting. What could be better?
I go to NYC twice a year, drive to D.C. about as much, have driven in San Francisco and when I graduated from high school (long before the net was even close to what it is now) I took two weeks off to travel down Skyline through Virginia, crossed over in the Smokey Mountains, back up through Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia and back home again. All by map. Yeah, I think I've been to major cities.
Every try to look at a map while in traffic?
Yes, but only if I absolutely have to. Since I plan out my trip in advance I am familiar with the roads and my internal GPS (not electronic unless you count the brain's electrical activity) keeps me pointed in the correct direction even if I have to take side roads.
So please, Navigation is a great tool, and people who deride the skills of people who use them are jackholes.
I never said they weren't a good tool. My parents use theirs from time to time even though they know where they're going except for those oddball locations that don't show on a map because of their location. In those particular cases it is very helpful, but for every day use, they are merely a crutch for people who can't plan ahead and have no concept of where they're going because they think the electronic device is the cat's meow.
The author is correct, gadgets do degrade our common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I was told free markets solve everything. That you don't need government regulation to police corporations because people will simply stop doing business with them if they don't get the service/product they want.
I can't imagine that corporations would put profit over customer service. This must be a mistake.
he is flanked by two attractive flight attendants.
I don't want to sound harsh, but if that's what you consider attractive, more power to you. The one on the right is somewhat attractive, but neither is what I would consider to be the typical "attractive" flight attendant.
Break out the Precogs! Everyone is suspect!
Your idea is a bit late. Haven't flown recently, have you?
the amount of craptacular software that is out there, both free and paid, I would say the answer is yes.
Between the exhaustively documented bugs in Civ and AC (to name two games from the same person/group), to the WTF? in many open source packages, coders, as a group, believe they are too good for code review.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.
Though I am trying to move into that area from my current support role, the vast majority of people want to see that little piece of paper which claims you know what you're doing despite PMI's own statistics which show that roughly 70% of projects fail.
Which then begs the question: if that many projects are considered a failure, does that mean many PMPs don't know what they're doing and PMI is simply handing out paper, or is the training and such that PMI produces not worth squat?
Considering that one of the two favorite candidate of the Tea Party participants is Herman Caine,
And considering he said he would want any muslim person in his administration, and only muslims, to take a loyalty oath, that says all you need to know about him and the Tea Party.
For reference
Of course he retracted his statement, two months later, but he said what he said so obviously he means it.
Absolutely. That was something I had brought up in my Systems Analyst and Design II class to my instructor when he marked me down on a test. The question asked if one should get detailed information from a stakeholder when starting a project.
I answered yes, you should and was marked down. He explained that in the beginning, you get a general idea of what the stakeholder wants followed by more a detailed explanation. It was a subtle point, and I argued it for that extra point, but he didn't budge even though he understood where I was coming from. There was a bit more to the question so don't think he was an idiot. I learned a lot from him about project management (which I would like to move into from the desk jockey I am now).
So for me, you have no worry about what I want. I will tell you, ad nauseum, exactly what I want.
its clear the developers don't actually know what they are doing.
This is precisely why one of my 3 inviolate rules for IT is:
Never let a programmer program your applications.
By that I mean, you need to be very specific in what you want done. You must not leave wiggle room for the programmer to interpret what you mean. Do not allow them to do "shiny" for the sake of "shiny". To do so invites what is happening to Firefox.
I know the programmers out there are going to be up in arms, ranting about how controlling my statements are, and I don't deny that, but having seen and been forced to work with the huge amount of bad software* out there, brutal tactics must be employed to counter the cruft being shoved out.
*Bad software meaning horrible install procedures, horrible interfaces, outright bugs in final releases, games with blatant cheating for the AI, software which does not do what you tell it to do, etc.
.before a little girl passes through a wall at the federal reserve!
But only if it's Kit from the first X-Men movie. Nothing against Ellen Page, but Sumela Kay is cuter.
In how many places, at how many times, can it be "illegal" to snap a photo, or to record a video?
Concerts (unless told otherwise), Smithsonian exhibits (flag, first lady dresses, similar other exhibits), museums for certain exhibits, shall I go on.
Movie theaters are not public places. They are private places which allow the public in subject to certain rules. Not taking a video of a movie is one of those rules.
My physics B.Sc. was free,
No, it wasn't. You, and everyone else, paid taxes so you could get that degree. The same goes for healthcare. It's not free, someone has to pay for it and that someone is you and your neighbors.
The problem is there are those who will not get a degree and so are paying for your education. Is that fair?
This mindset that education, healthcare, etc is free is completely wrong. Everything costs something and someone has to pay for it. Just because you don't pay a chunk of your own money to go to school or go to the doctor does not mean it's free. The money has to come from somewhere and in your case it's taxes.
On my Hyndai, you have to lift a ring on the stick and move it to the left and up, just next to first.
However, because you have to lift the ring, it's impossible to accidentally get into reverse.
Also, my dad had a Mercedes at one time and to get into reverse you had to lift the stick up then move back, next to fourth, to get into reverse.
Again, in both situations, it's impossible to get into reverse without effort compared to an automatic.
"That ain't no woman, that's a man, man!"
I'm not sure what's particularly safer about a stick shift
It is all but impossible to 'accidentally' put your car in reverse instead of drive. Think about the number of times you hear a story about someone who did just that.
A similar thing with hitting the gas instead of the brake. You can do it, but you still have your foot on the clutch.
And yes, driving a stick is much more fun. Now if manufacturers would just get rid of the shift indicator. People who drive sticks don't need to be told when to shift. I'm looking at you American car manufacturers.
Why is the industry hell-bent on not giving customers what they want?"
As the title says, industry knows best. One can use nearly any product that has come out in the last ten years and see the same scenario.
Windows 7: No way to see every program installed on your PC in one location, twice as many steps to complete simple tasks, making Programs a flat file rather than seeing everything in one shot (sound familiar?).
Cars: getting rid of stick shifts despite better fuel mileage and better safety (ok, this is mainly due to laziness of Americans who want to talk on their cell phones while driving ghetto style), complicated radio "features", a myriad of bells (literally) going off at every moment to warn you of nothing of importance going on.
Washing machines and dryers: Internet connection (really? They're washer and dryers), an explosion of settings (most of which are never used).
Software: enough said. If there is a time consuming and complicated way of doing something, a programmer will find it. Games which cheat in single-player? Yup. There are numerous forums dedicated to games of all types where this occurs but the developers will deny everything despite evidence to the contrary.
The fact of the matter is, the industry doesn't care what people want. The industry will tell you what you want. Don't want some doo-dad or widget in your car? Tough. It comes standard. Can't find how to turn something off? Sorry, it's a "feature" (yeah Adobe, your X pdf reader is guilty of this with its permanent splash screen). Want something simple? Ha! You have two choices: nothing or everything. There is no middle ground.
What the user wants is irrelevant. You must take what you are given and be glad about it.
Your monopoly is a PRIVILEGE granted by society, and the privilege can be revoked at any time the People decide it is no longer needed.
Bullshit. It is not a privilege, it's a right. It's called commerce and without commerce society ceases to exist.
If everyone thought they were entitled to take/use/whatever the product that someone else took the time and money to produce, society would very quickly collapse. And no, bartering would not replace capitalism because there would never be enough products produced to compensate people at what they consider a fair value.
resort to piracy is because they can't afford Western-style pricing.
So that legitimizes taking someone else's work and not compensating them for it, right? Because the world runs on dreams and kindness and everything should just be given away.
Guess what, someone, usually dozens or hundreds of people, worked to produce the software and they want to be paid for their work. Just because you don't think the price is justified doesn't entitle you to take their work and not compensate them.
And yes, I'm using the word entitled because that is the overwhelming opinion on this site and others that people are somehow entitled to take something which isn't theirs and not have to pay a dime for it.
Maybe you think it's funny or sticking it to the man, but you wouldn't be laughing if it was your stuff being taken and you didn't get paid for it.
And don't bother bringing up how software isn't "real" goods or services. That the cost to produce it is negligible. There are still ongoing costs associated with producing and distributing the software, even via downloads. Or do you think the servers are running on puppy farts?
While the BSA numbers are certainly overstated, the fact remains people are stealing someone else's work and trying to justify that theft by claiming, "But they live in a poor country and can't afford it so it's ok to steal" is bullshit.
You want to code and give your stuff away, that's fine. It's your stuff. Don't try claiming what you think should be done with your stuff applies to someone else's stuff.
As Stan Smith showed, he taught Steve how to communicate with dolphins and all they, the dolphins, want to talk about is mackerel.
This article, from a 2008 edition of Skeptic magazine, spells out the good, bad and ugly of using hydrogen to power cars.
In short, not a good or easy thing to do.
The article.
what do most people need TBs to local storage for?
For all the software they use but never paid for and have no intention of every paying for, porn, personal documents, porn, backups, porn, backups of porn, music, porn, backups of music and porn, home movies, porn, games, porn, porn games, pictures, porn, emails, porn, porn emails, and of course, porn.
Not everyone wants their stuff in "the cloud". Having something at your location gives you faster access than going to a site, no matter the transmission speed. It's also more secure than letting someone else manage your stuff (as we routinely see).
And Maetel, Trilana and Nova are all the same (drawn) character.
No, Windows 7 will suffice. Those who were involved with its "design" should be taken out back and beaten together until they are bloody pulp.
There are simply too many "design" issues to list here, but the overall point I'm trying to make is it sucks. Badly. It's almost as if Microsoft was trying to make it impossible to perform the simplest takes.
I want to say that people who "designed" this crap had never heard of UI testing or the KISS principle, but for what they get paid, I find that hard to believe.
StarBlazers. You forgot StarBlazers.
As I have said many a time, I still turn up the volume and watch the confrontation episode on Gamilon at night just so the explosions are more pronounced. Nothing like nearly 30 seconds of all out (simulated) combat. Dropping bombs, guns blazing, missiles shooting. What could be better?
needs to deliver 45 wombat hides
Hey! Don't you confuse us with those nasty rodents, womprats. Our hides may not be as nice, but we smell better.
Have you been in a major city?
I go to NYC twice a year, drive to D.C. about as much, have driven in San Francisco and when I graduated from high school (long before the net was even close to what it is now) I took two weeks off to travel down Skyline through Virginia, crossed over in the Smokey Mountains, back up through Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia and back home again. All by map. Yeah, I think I've been to major cities.
Every try to look at a map while in traffic?
Yes, but only if I absolutely have to. Since I plan out my trip in advance I am familiar with the roads and my internal GPS (not electronic unless you count the brain's electrical activity) keeps me pointed in the correct direction even if I have to take side roads.
So please, Navigation is a great tool, and people who deride the skills of people who use them are jackholes.
I never said they weren't a good tool. My parents use theirs from time to time even though they know where they're going except for those oddball locations that don't show on a map because of their location. In those particular cases it is very helpful, but for every day use, they are merely a crutch for people who can't plan ahead and have no concept of where they're going because they think the electronic device is the cat's meow.
The author is correct, gadgets do degrade our common sense.