i disagree. it's always going to be cheaper for a company to manufacture a product where they get 10% failure, vs. say 0.1% failure. it's cheaper for them because the cost of manufacturing a low quality unit is less than the cost of dealing with unsatisfied customers / returns / etc. and when it comes to consumer electronics, price + features rule, not quality.
the consumer wireless router / adapter segment is a good example. almost without exception, all of the products being produced are low quality junk. this is true across all of the major players: netgear, linksys, dlink, etc. if you don't believe that, just google for "netgear problems".
as i said in my original post, companies really do not care about unsatisified customers, or word of mouth. they all have poor reputations, so it becomes meaningless. when you call tech support, there is just some guy or gal that is doing their job. your anger or frustration is not transmitted beyond them. that's their job. they listen, and it ends right there.
moreover, when given the choice between a $50 router with a 10% failure rate, and a $150 router with a %0.1 failure rate, what would you choose? i would choose the $50 router. even though both of my wireless products died, they were under warranty and it only cost me a total of about $30 to replace both of them (for shipping). i am still ahead. you could say that low quality products actually benefit the customer, for home electronics at least.
did i writea netgear flame review on amazon? sure. but i can see that it was to make me feel better, more than anything else.
i don't think anyone is an amoral ass for not giving someone a diamond. i was trying to show the utter subjectivity of the situation. but never mind, that post was foggy at best and i would retract it if i could.
i do however think it's ascinine, when your partner wants a diamond, or anything, to give them a book to read that explains how wrong they are to want it. it's like saying "oh here hunny, you want a ring? read this, it will prove how naive you are."
as to your point about kids & tv, i don't have a strong opinion on that.
p.s., there is a certain non-zero percentage of your partner's friends, relatives, and aquintances that think her husband is a cheap ass. that is a fact of the society you live in. it doesn't matter if they are a hippie or a wall street exec.
it's no problem if you don't care what they think about you. but you are subjecting you wife to those opinions as well. i think you're an amoral ass for subjecting her to that. that's my morals.
You're not an amoral ass because you don't live by the same rules I do; you're an amoral ass because you are willing to compromise your morals just to make someone happy. Or, in other words, you don't have any.
just because someone doesn't do what you do doesn't mean they are "compromising their morals". in most cases it probably means that they choose to focus their energy on things that are more important to them in life. in my case, i think my effort is much better spent doing day-day things like biking to work, or recycling, or conserving in other ways. buying a diamond is a once or twice in a lifetime thing for me.
so everyone that buys diamonds is an amoral ass, because they are willing to compromise their morals. right? because of course, "treat others as you wish to be treated" is universal, right? you said it. okay... is everyone that drives a car an amoral ass? i mean, everyone agrees that polluting the environment is negative, right? just like they agree that human rights violations are bad, right? it's all very clear cut, right? black and white.
next, please enumerate what reasons are acceptable when it comes to compromising morals. if you can't do that, then bug off; you aren't making sense. either you are full of shit and putting on a show for./, or you don't have many friends.
let me give an example. i USED TO be a vegetarian. my grandparents are ipso-facto old-school on this topic. they simply would never even begin to understand. when i would visit for thanksgiving, i would eat whatever they put in front of me. why? it wasn't worth it to make them uncomfortable, to make them concerned that i did not like their cooking, or that i was judging them for their choice to eat meat. am i amoral? apparently.
Just living in the US doesn't make you a hypocrite, unless you don't realize your impact.
there is a lot more to it than realization. so if i realize i am wrong about purchasing diamonds, then it's no longer amoral, and there's no issue with me doing so?
i am sure you don't agree with your government's policy. but you use toilet paper i suppose. you flush. you take showers every day. you eat three meals a day. you probably own a car (maybe not). while you recycle, you throw some non-zero % of your refuse in the trash, and what you do recycle a large % of it ends up in a land fill anyway. you own a computer. you wash dishes, you might use a dishwasher. you wash your clothes. all of these things consume massive resources. even if you conserve by US standards, it is still MASSIVE resource use compared to the rest of the world.
i knight thee "amoral ass #2". hopefully you'll learn that taking a hard line on every issue just alienates you from people. if your goal is to affect change in others, your approach is counter productive. if your goal is to come across as superior, then good show mate.
when i was looking to buy an MP3 player, i started researching my first choice, player A. to my dismay, i found tons of negative feedback about A. i then looked at B. tons of feedback about B. then C... etc. every player i looked at had a lot of negative feedback. the point is, there are always some number of disgruntled customers. such online reporting cannot be used as an accurate guage of quality. if five people cry foul, you cannot say if it's 5 out of 10, or 5 out of a million.
there is one item which is held more or less universally; treat others as you wish to be treated
i think the state of the world proves otherwise. but anyway...
are you an american? or a westerner? if so, you are supporting slavery and oppression throughout the third world. in many, many ways. you are consuming some 20x the resources of the average human. hypocrisy? i think so.
i am sure you are a great fellow who does what he can. i am also sure that you are a hypocrit in some ways, as we all are. so someone is an amoral ass because they don't live by all the same rules that you do? hmmm.
If you think it's okay to support slavery to get laid...
i am sorry you think that me wanting to make my spouse happy is about sex. is that your motivation for making your partner happy? is this your motivation for getting married? if so, that is really sad. i feel sorry for you.
p.s., you seem to be getting really upset. can i offer you a valium?
the first point is that if i choose to express my morals by doing method A, and someone else does not, it does not mean they "have no morals". it just means that they are picking their battles elsewhere.
second, if i express my morals by doing A, B, and C, and someone else just does A, that does not mean that their efforts are any less important. everyone does what they can. different peoples lives, and their responsibilities therein, afford them different freedoms when it comes to what they can and cannot afford to spend their limited time and energy on.
i am pretty sure that if i knew you better, i could find a few things about you that could be considered amoral. do you eat meat? do you own a car? do you have a composter in your back yard? do you check that all of the workers that make your clothes are paid fairly and work in safe conditions? maybe. but the point is made.
morals are subjective. just because someone has different morals than you, or chooses to apply their energy in different areas doesn't make them wrong. if you refuse to accept that, then discussing anything with you is pointless, obviously.
secondly, when choosing how to express your morals and ideals, it's always a good idea to take a look at how it will affect others. for your wife, it quite possibly meant giving up her childhood dream. but you got your way, right? you were able to express your morals. good, for you.
I explicitly stated that it is not about the money
yes, if you say so. you can never really tell if someone's intentions are true, only the person can know that in their head. however, it's almost always spot-on to look at their motivations. your morals clearly benefit you. just an observation.
i think the point was that if your ideals prevent you from using a closed source browser, then maybe you need to get out more. really, there are bigger things in the world to focus your energy on.
as for your point on diamonds... do you know that most women have dreamed of receiving a bling-bling diamond ring for engagement and getting married with a bling-bling wedding, since they were 5 years old? it's nice that your "ideals" deprived her of that. at some point, if you really love them, you say "who freaking cares?" yeah, it is totally ridiculous by any measure to spend tens of thousands of $$$ on a ring that is only good for showing off to her friends. but so what? if it makes her happy...
Why then can Solaris,Linux,BeOS, QNX access the internet without a integrated browser installed?
ummm. i suspect that MSHTML.dll is not the entire TCP/IP stack, just HTML rendering. a lot of MS apps do a sort of embedded browser thing, and i suspect that is the purpose of this library.
i can only go on what you write: MSFT would be better off buying Sun- they both sell propriatary systems, both dislike linux (not Sun so much, but they do)
you said sun dislikes linux. evidence suggests otherwise. that is all i am saying. so what if they came late in the game, when they had to? instead of dissing sun because they changed their business model to incorporate linux, maybe you should be applauding them? or is that not good enough? unless a company has been 100% pro linux since the beginning of time, they are crap?
E is updated automatically via our SUS server (and settings pushed to clients via group policies) and Office updates will be included soon.
the $15k is for licensing + the auto update service. you can try to read between the lines that there is some vast amount of manual intervention involved to push updates, but the artical did not state that at all... even if there is, it is clearly insignificant to the writer or they would have mentioned it.
...customers suspect that they are mortal enemy of the platform being serviced...
remember,/. does not represent reality. in the real word, this is far, far from the truth. there are a subset of IT techies that feel this way, but the people that make decisions don't base them on emotions.
sun sells a linux dist, JDS. so they dislike linux? curious conclusion you've drawn. they may have been slow to come around, but it's seems like a far stretch to say that a company that is selling linux dists dislikes linux.
we can get over it as a society, or perish. nuclear energy sources are really our only chance to keep our heads above water in the next 100 years. especially fusion reactors. either that, or say hello to a dark ages 2.0.
remember when everyone had a palm, and a phone? now almost every cell phone has advanced PDA-like features. phones are also replacing the dedicated handheld game console. really, no coolness factor or neato user interface is going to make me carry around two devices when i can have one.
agreed. spammers are had to catch, but the companies that advertise obviously must exist and be readily accessible or there is no point. an analogy would be arresting drug users. while i don't agree with law enforcement targeting drug users, i would hope at least that they apply the same logic to spammers and their customers.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
it is really curious to me how if just about any other company other than apple were to do this,/. would be crying bloody murder. apple is a for-profit company like everyone else, and just like everyone else, they will use OSS when it will make them money and turn their backs on it when it doesn't.
this is a clear case where it doesn't. apple saw things differently than the OSS project, and went in a different direction. they clearly did not put any effort into reconciling their differences to come up with a direction that is suitable to both parties. coming to agreement with the OSS project would mean extra cycles for their paid developers. qed.
i am not calling this good or bad. just pointing out the hypocricy that exists in/.'s opinions when it comes to apple's business practices.
oh yes, you are making a lot of perfectly VALID (--- sarcasm) assumption. because OO has trouble with 64 bit processors, therefore, all sun code and products suck. well done indeed.
don't read between the lines. sun depends on unix. instead of fighting the battle that IBM is now fighting, sun chose to avoid the battle and pay off SCO. it was about calculating risks.
if you think sun had some ulterior motive to destroy linux by backing SCO's bid to do so, you're just blowing smoke up the rest of/.'s ass. if you want to take the simplistic approach where SCO is evil and therefore anyone who deals with SCO is evil also, go ahead though, but you're just guessing.
also, sun's deal with SCO in the past has NOTHING to do with their aquisition of tarantella. tarantella has nothing to do with operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
the consumer wireless router / adapter segment is a good example. almost without exception, all of the products being produced are low quality junk. this is true across all of the major players: netgear, linksys, dlink, etc. if you don't believe that, just google for "netgear problems".
as i said in my original post, companies really do not care about unsatisified customers, or word of mouth. they all have poor reputations, so it becomes meaningless. when you call tech support, there is just some guy or gal that is doing their job. your anger or frustration is not transmitted beyond them. that's their job. they listen, and it ends right there.
moreover, when given the choice between a $50 router with a 10% failure rate, and a $150 router with a %0.1 failure rate, what would you choose? i would choose the $50 router. even though both of my wireless products died, they were under warranty and it only cost me a total of about $30 to replace both of them (for shipping). i am still ahead. you could say that low quality products actually benefit the customer, for home electronics at least.
did i writea netgear flame review on amazon? sure. but i can see that it was to make me feel better, more than anything else.
i do however think it's ascinine, when your partner wants a diamond, or anything, to give them a book to read that explains how wrong they are to want it. it's like saying "oh here hunny, you want a ring? read this, it will prove how naive you are."
as to your point about kids & tv, i don't have a strong opinion on that.
it's no problem if you don't care what they think about you. but you are subjecting you wife to those opinions as well. i think you're an amoral ass for subjecting her to that. that's my morals.
just because someone doesn't do what you do doesn't mean they are "compromising their morals". in most cases it probably means that they choose to focus their energy on things that are more important to them in life. in my case, i think my effort is much better spent doing day-day things like biking to work, or recycling, or conserving in other ways. buying a diamond is a once or twice in a lifetime thing for me.
so everyone that buys diamonds is an amoral ass, because they are willing to compromise their morals. right? because of course, "treat others as you wish to be treated" is universal, right? you said it. okay ... is everyone that drives a car an amoral ass? i mean, everyone agrees that polluting the environment is negative, right? just like they agree that human rights violations are bad, right? it's all very clear cut, right? black and white.
next, please enumerate what reasons are acceptable when it comes to compromising morals. if you can't do that, then bug off; you aren't making sense. either you are full of shit and putting on a show for ./, or you don't have many friends.
let me give an example. i USED TO be a vegetarian. my grandparents are ipso-facto old-school on this topic. they simply would never even begin to understand. when i would visit for thanksgiving, i would eat whatever they put in front of me. why? it wasn't worth it to make them uncomfortable, to make them concerned that i did not like their cooking, or that i was judging them for their choice to eat meat. am i amoral? apparently.
Just living in the US doesn't make you a hypocrite, unless you don't realize your impact.
there is a lot more to it than realization. so if i realize i am wrong about purchasing diamonds, then it's no longer amoral, and there's no issue with me doing so?
i am sure you don't agree with your government's policy. but you use toilet paper i suppose. you flush. you take showers every day. you eat three meals a day. you probably own a car (maybe not). while you recycle, you throw some non-zero % of your refuse in the trash, and what you do recycle a large % of it ends up in a land fill anyway. you own a computer. you wash dishes, you might use a dishwasher. you wash your clothes. all of these things consume massive resources. even if you conserve by US standards, it is still MASSIVE resource use compared to the rest of the world.
i knight thee "amoral ass #2". hopefully you'll learn that taking a hard line on every issue just alienates you from people. if your goal is to affect change in others, your approach is counter productive. if your goal is to come across as superior, then good show mate.
when i was looking to buy an MP3 player, i started researching my first choice, player A. to my dismay, i found tons of negative feedback about A. i then looked at B. tons of feedback about B. then C ... etc. every player i looked at had a lot of negative feedback. the point is, there are always some number of disgruntled customers. such online reporting cannot be used as an accurate guage of quality. if five people cry foul, you cannot say if it's 5 out of 10, or 5 out of a million.
i think the state of the world proves otherwise. but anyway ...
are you an american? or a westerner? if so, you are supporting slavery and oppression throughout the third world. in many, many ways. you are consuming some 20x the resources of the average human. hypocrisy? i think so.
i am sure you are a great fellow who does what he can. i am also sure that you are a hypocrit in some ways, as we all are. so someone is an amoral ass because they don't live by all the same rules that you do? hmmm.
If you think it's okay to support slavery to get laid...
i am sorry you think that me wanting to make my spouse happy is about sex. is that your motivation for making your partner happy? is this your motivation for getting married? if so, that is really sad. i feel sorry for you.
p.s., you seem to be getting really upset. can i offer you a valium?
the first point is that if i choose to express my morals by doing method A, and someone else does not, it does not mean they "have no morals". it just means that they are picking their battles elsewhere.
second, if i express my morals by doing A, B, and C, and someone else just does A, that does not mean that their efforts are any less important. everyone does what they can. different peoples lives, and their responsibilities therein, afford them different freedoms when it comes to what they can and cannot afford to spend their limited time and energy on.
i am pretty sure that if i knew you better, i could find a few things about you that could be considered amoral. do you eat meat? do you own a car? do you have a composter in your back yard? do you check that all of the workers that make your clothes are paid fairly and work in safe conditions? maybe. but the point is made.
morals are subjective. just because someone has different morals than you, or chooses to apply their energy in different areas doesn't make them wrong. if you refuse to accept that, then discussing anything with you is pointless, obviously.
secondly, when choosing how to express your morals and ideals, it's always a good idea to take a look at how it will affect others. for your wife, it quite possibly meant giving up her childhood dream. but you got your way, right? you were able to express your morals. good, for you.
I explicitly stated that it is not about the money
yes, if you say so. you can never really tell if someone's intentions are true, only the person can know that in their head. however, it's almost always spot-on to look at their motivations. your morals clearly benefit you. just an observation.
as for your point on diamonds ... do you know that most women have dreamed of receiving a bling-bling diamond ring for engagement and getting married with a bling-bling wedding, since they were 5 years old? it's nice that your "ideals" deprived her of that. at some point, if you really love them, you say "who freaking cares?" yeah, it is totally ridiculous by any measure to spend tens of thousands of $$$ on a ring that is only good for showing off to her friends. but so what? if it makes her happy ...
ummm. i suspect that MSHTML.dll is not the entire TCP/IP stack, just HTML rendering. a lot of MS apps do a sort of embedded browser thing, and i suspect that is the purpose of this library.
welcome to 1992 and shared libraries.
you could make the same argument for radio. hey, it's FREE to listen to the radio, so the maximum RIAA damages should be $0.00 right?
MSFT would be better off buying Sun- they both sell propriatary systems, both dislike linux (not Sun so much, but they do)
you said sun dislikes linux. evidence suggests otherwise. that is all i am saying. so what if they came late in the game, when they had to? instead of dissing sun because they changed their business model to incorporate linux, maybe you should be applauding them? or is that not good enough? unless a company has been 100% pro linux since the beginning of time, they are crap?
SCO != linux. SCO is a unix product. like AIX or solaris. so ... huh?
the $15k is for licensing + the auto update service. you can try to read between the lines that there is some vast amount of manual intervention involved to push updates, but the artical did not state that at all ... even if there is, it is clearly insignificant to the writer or they would have mentioned it.
remember, /. does not represent reality. in the real word, this is far, far from the truth. there are a subset of IT techies that feel this way, but the people that make decisions don't base them on emotions.
sun sells a linux dist, JDS. so they dislike linux? curious conclusion you've drawn. they may have been slow to come around, but it's seems like a far stretch to say that a company that is selling linux dists dislikes linux.
we can get over it as a society, or perish. nuclear energy sources are really our only chance to keep our heads above water in the next 100 years. especially fusion reactors. either that, or say hello to a dark ages 2.0.
remember when everyone had a palm, and a phone? now almost every cell phone has advanced PDA-like features. phones are also replacing the dedicated handheld game console. really, no coolness factor or neato user interface is going to make me carry around two devices when i can have one.
agreed. spammers are had to catch, but the companies that advertise obviously must exist and be readily accessible or there is no point. an analogy would be arresting drug users. while i don't agree with law enforcement targeting drug users, i would hope at least that they apply the same logic to spammers and their customers.
this is a clear case where it doesn't. apple saw things differently than the OSS project, and went in a different direction. they clearly did not put any effort into reconciling their differences to come up with a direction that is suitable to both parties. coming to agreement with the OSS project would mean extra cycles for their paid developers. qed.
i am not calling this good or bad. just pointing out the hypocricy that exists in /.'s opinions when it comes to apple's business practices.
oh yes, you are making a lot of perfectly VALID (--- sarcasm) assumption. because OO has trouble with 64 bit processors, therefore, all sun code and products suck. well done indeed.
if you think sun had some ulterior motive to destroy linux by backing SCO's bid to do so, you're just blowing smoke up the rest of /.'s ass. if you want to take the simplistic approach where SCO is evil and therefore anyone who deals with SCO is evil also, go ahead though, but you're just guessing.
also, sun's deal with SCO in the past has NOTHING to do with their aquisition of tarantella. tarantella has nothing to do with operating systems.
i know i'll be losing sleep over this.
nobody has to like her, or carry her articles in the future, but pulling existing articles is censorship, plain and simple.