Granted, you're correct. There IS a difference between knowledge and intelligence. BUT, unlike a patient consulting with a doctor - the computer user calling for tech. support is expected to already possess some basic skills required to use the computer properly.
There really are a lot of people out there in professions requiring intelligence (doctors, lawyers, etc.) who still seem to lack a lot of common sense or ability to deal with topics outside the narrow scope of their choice of employment.
For example, one of my first jobs was working as a technican for a computer reseller. One of our big customers was the nearby community college. The head of I.T. there was the guy who did most of the actual purchasing (visiting our store and picking up orders for systems and accessories). He was, quite frankly, incredibly clueless when it came to basic troubleshooting. I'm sure he was by most accounts, an "intelligent" man. Surely he knew a considerable amount about something related to computing (perhaps software development?), or maybe he was just good at managing others - to make sure everyone else kept him from looking bad when problems arose? But whatever the case, it shocked me that as a mostly self-taught 20 year old, I had to give this guy so much basic advice on how to get a disk directory from DOS, how to reformat a disk, etc. etc.
As far as I'm concerned, this equates roughly to getting in a car with an adult who is supposedly a licensed driver, and having them ask you "Where's the gearshift? Do you know how to use the blinker in this thing?"
And I've run into the same ineptness from lawyers and doctors too. Maybe it's not quite accurate to call them "stupid" - but at least in the pop-culture/slang sense, I could see why an angry person trying to assist them would resort to labeling them as such.
Even as a bonafide Mac user/lover myself, sometimes I cringe to see yet another Walt Mossberg WSJ article praising something from Apple.
Does he ever discuss non-Apple products at all? If so, does he ever say anything positive about *any* of them?
Newspaper writers should be writing unbiased reports... not acting on a personal agenda to further their particular favorite products/companies.
I don't get the WSJ on a regular basis, so maybe I'm being a bit unfair to Mossberg? All I know is, it seems like every other week or so, I can find at least one reference to a new Walt Mossberg column telling us how innovative, well-designed or useful an Apple product is.
Apple's marketing has even quoted him, preceding the quotes with claims about him being one of the most respected technology columnists in the media, etc. I'm starting to think they pay him off to write this stuff.
I was just reading an article from this morning's newspaper claiming here in the midwestern U.S. (St. Louis, Missouri area to be precise), our "blue collar" labor force earns closer to the typical "white collar" salary than anyplace else in the country.
They went on to discuss theories of why that might be. Of course, some of the ones you might expect were thrown about. (EG. We're near the middle of the country, geographically, so we have a higher than average number of union truck drivers here, who of course, earn more than, say, laborers picking crops or sewing clothing goods together.)
But the point they neglected to touch on was one that immediately came to my mind. Our I.T. and technology workers generally get paid far below the median pay for comparable jobs nation-wide! It's not so much a situation of the unions really helping those midwestern laborers collect a good paycheck as it is a situation of our business professionals being underpaid!
As far as I'm concerned, one of the other Slashdot posters was absolutely right. A union makes sense (within reason) for workers doing repetitive tasks that require little creativity or deep thought. They're basically doing jobs that could be done by robots or machines... only it happens to currently be more cost-effective to use human labor. When you work like a "humanized robot", you can expect to be thought of rather like one. You're a "fixed expense". Your employer doesn't feel any motivation to keep increasing your pay over whatever was initially agreed upon (just as a machine costs a certain amount in repair and maintenance expenses to keep it going). If you want more leverage in getting pay increases and better working conditions, teaming up with all of your co-workers under one "voice" makes sense.
If, however, you feel you have unique, specialized skills to bring to the table as part of your employment, why pool yourself in with everybody else? Even if you don't, merely having a sharp mind and a willingness to learn puts you leaps and bounds above the "typical worker", and has innate "value".
There's definitely a problem in America with pay-scales and professions. Our grade-school and high-school teachers can often barely scrape by a living on their wages, for example. But I don't see unions as the solution. If anything, they may have indirectly caused part of the problem because it created generations of workers who weren't given much motivation to better themselves. (Why make the effort to learn new things when I get paid more, guaranteed by union contract, to sit here and keep screwing these bolts on these cars?)
Thanks for the info, but what I've really been more interested in for my Treo 650 is a good Bluetooth hands-free car kit. I bought one of Motorola's units that clips onto the visor and cost about $99 at Best Buy. It has good clarity and volume, but the maddening thing is - it powers itself off after several minutes of sitting idle, even if a power adapter/charger is attached to it! If you want to drive around with the convenience of pressing a button on the device to take an incoming call, the device should be able to stay on as long as you're in the car!
Especially considering the Treo's ability to play MP3 music, I thought the wired stereo headset designed for it made the most sense....
To be perfectly honest, I'm having a tougher time "digesting" all of the interesting points you've made, because you seem to have an element of personal attack mixed in with all of it.
EG. "Get off your psuedo-intellectual high horse and go read your Kahlil Gibran. The man knew what the fuck he was talking about."
My pseudo-intellectual high horse? Simply because I had a question for you about your thoughts on the whole issue of "boundaries" and parental enforcement of them?
I get the idea that you have some resentment or bitterness towards your own folks and the way you were raised, and that's why this is such a "hot topic" for you?
In any case, though, I'm in agreement with your statement that children are people, not things, and parents don't "own" them. I'm not so sure I get your point, stated multiple times, that society makes a mistake of "expecting kids to suddenly become adults, magically, when they hit 18"? The law certainly doesn't imply this in any form. We allow people to become employed at age 16, and we issue them driver's licenses at that age as well. By contrast, we don't even allow them to purchase their own alcohol legally until they reach age 21.
Furthermore, you say: "In most states kids have the legal right to come and go as they please, when they please and with whom they please." It has always been my impression that curfews are imposed in most places. Again, illustrating that the "law of the land" recognizes that children shouldn't necessarily be given all of the rights that we give to adult members of society. (With rights come responsibilites - and I think we, collectively, realize that children, pre-teens and even teens are generally unable to handle the full spectrum of rights/responsibilities efficiently. Therefore, we try to give them those rights piece-meal, in stages, so they aren't simply thrust into an "adult world" and expected to handle all of their freedoms responsibly at one time.)
I grant you that such concepts as "finishing one's homework" aren't technically "boundaries". I also know from my own experience, growing up, that "positive re-inforcement" wouldn't always work to get me to do my assignments. As I got older, I started to see such efforts as patronizing, and thought I was "smart enough to see right through it". On the other hand, the very real possibility of being "grounded" and not being allowed to talk to my friends on the phone, watch TV, etc. was a good reason to rethink my original idea of skipping another night of homework. (It's the whole "lesser of two evils" thing in action at that point. My homework was unpleasant to do, but more pleasant than the alternatives my parents gave me if I didn't do it.) In the "grand scheme" of things, they were setting up some "guardrails" on my "road of life", making it harder for me to steer myself completely off the path they wished I would follow. Looking back, that was more of a favor than a curse....
I'm pretty sure the CPU makers quit caring about the general public's level of understanding about their processors a while ago. It used to be pretty simple, really. You had a primary name of a CPU and then a Mhz speed rating. That was apparently too much for many consumers to comprehend - judging by how many folks had no idea how many generations of Pentiums there were. (EG. "Isn't there a Pentium 5 now, or is the Pentium 4 the best one out?")
But these days, processor sales are geared towards the system builders and enthusiasts. Basically, it's up to Dell or HP or your local "mom and pop" system builder to choose an appropriate CPU for a given machine, and then to sell it on its merits to an end-user.
Really, with all the obfuscation of the true speeds of CPUs lately, not to mention all the variants with different numbers of pins on a socket, different amounts of internal cache, etc. - it seems like they're trying hard to ensure the "average user" *can't* understand exactly where the CPU they own benchmarks relative to the others.
Most of what you said is quite true. I guess my big question for you would be; What are your thoughts about the concept of children challenging authority because of a need to find their boundaries?
I think part of the "mechanics" of parents yelling at their kid and trying to "make them do their homework" or "make them clean their room" or what-not is due to the kid testing the authority figures. If they discover that they don't really "get into trouble" for any of the "bad" things they do - then they tend to experiment with doing even "more wrong" things, until they get a reponse. (Deep down, I think there's a craving for a figure in their daily lives that they can trust to provide some guidance. If they can't generate a negative response to their actions, then they start doubting that figure cares about them.)
As a MacBook Pro owner myself, I followed this whole thermal paste debate since the beginning. In my own situation, my MacBook Pro runs with the CPU at an average operating temp. of around 75-78 degrees C. (At complete idle to the point where the LCD panel blanks, I've seen a low temp. of 47C.) Under 100% processor load for several minutes, the highest peak temperature I ever was able to observe was around 87 degrees C, and that quickly dropped back down after both cooling fans kicked in. I've never opened my unit to check on it, but it was an earlier production model than many people are complaining about - so I have no doubts it has too much heatsink paste applied inside of it.
I've also read where a laptop technician claimed that very similar instructions to over-use the heatsink paste are found in service manuals for Toshiba, Dell, HP, and other popular brands.
Since there are also reports from other MacBook Pro owners on Apple's forums claiming the re-application of thermal paste the proper way didn't address their high temp. issues, I'm starting to think the heat problems may involve more than just thermal paste issues.
After all, even if I put 2 or 3 whole tubes of paste between a CPU and a heatsink, after the heatsink is pressed down and locked/screwed into place, there can only be so much paste left between the two parts. The rest just gets squeezed out around the edges, where it would hopefully get wiped off by the installer - or at least, no longer have anything to do with the cooling of the processor itself.
So what? Yeah, it *might* work the other way around in a few instances.... but I think most of the people with an interest in playing all the latest releases of games already know that Windows is the platform of choice for computer gaming. Every Mac user I've run across either does their gaming on a console (and heck, an XBox is practically a Windows PC without the keyboard and mouse anyway!), or else they also own a Windows PC they use for gaming.
Most people who already use OS X and Macs do so because they've already tried Windows at some point or other, and decided it wasn't really the environment they wanted to be in all day, every day when using their computer. The new ability to boot into XP via Boot Camp isn't likely to open many existing Mac users' eyes to "the undiscovered world of Windows - the platform already used on 95% of the computers out there".
As a hobbyist part-time musician myself (though much more part-time in recent years than before, thanks to a demanding day-job, a kid, etc.) - I do know what the Mackie costs, what studio time runs, and so on.
I'd still argue that producing "something that will sell" doesn't necessarily require all of the pricy gear and studio time. Those things make it *easier* to accomplish the task - but they're not requirements. It's a lot like the movie industry in that regard. You can easily produce a movie that looks "professional" when you have a big budget to spend on special f/x, top-quality HD digital cameras, etc. But some great movies are also done on a very tight budget, and filmed with no more than "prosumer" grade camcorders.
The first place an aspiring musician can "cut corners" is by ditching the high dollar studio time and replacing that with a good education on mixing and recording techniques. Let's face it. Most musicians know very little about such things as the right placement and types of mics to use to record, say, a drum kit or background vocals. For under $2000, anyone can set up a PC (or a Mac even) as a digtial recording studio with clarity and capabilities matching or exceeding the local recording studio's equipment. (Heck, many of the high $ studios in my area brag about having ProTools. Yet a Google search quickly reveals many pros saying ProTools is rather limiting compared to some other packages on the market. It seems to be popular more because of the status and recognition level of the product name.) The biggest limiting factor on "production quality" is the knowledge level of the person working the equipment. So a musician can either take the easy way out, saying "I don't know anything about that!" and shell out $'s for someone who does, OR they can invest some time and effort in *learning* those skills. Like practicing an instrument, the effort will pay back large dividends down the road....
It's important to "throw poorly researched stories to the wolves" once in a while, so people can pick them apart.
I, for one, am happy when Slashdot finds these stories with ridiculous claims or patently false information and brings them to our collective attention. Otherwise, as an I.T. professional, it can become really frustrating when a client drags one of them out as ammunition to back up a potentially bad business decision. If you're previously unaware of such an article and it suddenly gets thrown in your face - you're put on the spot to defend against it.
This whole discussion centers around the best 3D gaming cards for the money. This is only *barely* a concern for the Mac using audience, much less Linux users. Just because you can play a few games like Quake or Doom in a native Linux version doesn't mean it's a primary concern of many Linux users to have optimal 3D gaming performance.
The OS just doesn't really have gaming as a primary focus. So ATI's lack of focus on Linux compatibility isn't all that surprising on their $300-500 cards made for gamers, is it?
Personally, I don't feel a corporation has to do *anything* about this. It's up to the person possessing the data to determine whether his/her information is too "private" to release to others. IMHO, it's just a cop-out to say that despite knowing enough about using a computer to store years worth of your sensitive information in one, you have no idea how to get rid of it afterwards.
There are numerous freeware, shareware and even commercial utilities out there that do secure disk wipes. And even if you're incapable of buying or downloading one of these yourself, asking around should find you somebody among your friends or family who could help with it.
But even having said all of that - sure, some people will be too lazy to make an effort. (Easier to just shrug your shoulders and say "I'm not a computer geek! How the heck should I know how to erase my stuff securely?!") Doesn't mean it becomes Apple's (or even Microsoft's) responsibility to ensure their old data is destroyed for them. Realistically, it should be since recycling a computer probably means tearing it down, piece by piece. The hard drive is going to get disassembled too. But if some weird case pops up where a recycler is scavenging old drives for data and reselling people's credit card info on the net - then so be it. They're still subject to prosecution under the law... and the victims were the ones most deserving of any inconvenience they got anyway.
Yep... at least in the primaries and local elections. Maybe things will change as electronic voting machines are introduced... but traditionally, they asked you which party you belonged to, and they gave you a colored card to punch based on your party choice. (I believe Libertarians had a beige card, and Republicans were dark blue? Something like that....)
I remember being a little shocked that I was asked.... but I guess it doesn't end up making a lot of difference anyway. Someone can easily vote any way they like, no matter which card they select. I think it just allows for an easy way to vote unanimously for your party of choice with a single hole-punch, for those wishing to do that.
Your suggestion to simply "remove all web browsers" is about as sensible as removing the telephone from an employee's desk or office, citing the fact that "Many of you don't really need one to get your job done."
It could probably be done, but it creates a hostile work environment. People expect to be able to check their personal email during lunch breaks and so forth, and these things usually require web access. Furthermore, it's increasingly difficult to make a determination that "employee X never needs Internet access". What if their boss suddenly asks them to "find me some documentation on how this machine is disassembled", or maybe "get me some price quotes on a new air compressor"? Does it makes sense to limit them to making phone calls from numbers they can find in the phone book, and talking to a few salespeople to find out "the best possible price"? If they had Internet access, a few searches on a search engine could yield them much better results.
Even your secretaries/administrative assistants (who many bosses think do nothing with the Internet besides play online games and waste time chatting) often save a company money when they realize they can use the net to get better pricing on toner or ink cartridge refills, paper, and other office supplies than what they've always gotten through their normal vendors. And if your company still uses a travel agent to book flights - shame on them. Give your employees access to the airline web sites and car rental/hotel chain sites, and let them take care of those things themselves!
Bottom line: Giving people more tools to accomplish tasks is never a "bad" thing. The issues only come about when poor management allows employees to waste too much time. It doesn't really matter if we're talking about the Internet, trips to the water cooler, or reading books.
I can relate to what you're saying... Thankfully, I haven't had any personal friends die in the war so far, but many people I know have gone through it.
But rather than taking an attitude of "It's hopeless!", I try to take a long-term outlook on everything. Bush can't stay in office forever, and it's becoming increasingly clear to people that the "war on terror" is mostly an excuse to pass new laws. What this means is, our next elected president is going to be a Democrat. He (she?) may not be any better at running things than the Bush administration.... but few people would really want to run for office parroting the same policies that generated one of the lowest approval poll ratings in history. So you can be assured that there will at least be a change in direction.
As a Libertarian myself, I plan on voting in that manner. Of course it isn't accomplishing much right now, but at least I'm casting a vote for what I believe in. And by the mere fact that it's still a relatively unknown platform, it prods some people to take interest. (EG. I went to the polling place for a local election a couple years ago, and when I asked for a Libertarian card - they didn't even have the right colored punch-cards readily available. My district is strongly Democrat, so I was apparently the first voter in the place who asked for that. They had to rummage around for the proper card, and it generated noticeable attention in the room. I suspect at least one of the people there got more curious about what the L.P. was all about, just from that situation.)
I've also noticed a marked increase in random people I meet who mention an interest in a 3rd. political party. Not that long ago, if you mentioned the Green Party or Libertarians, most people had no idea what you were talking about. ("Libertarians? Are they real liberal, or some version of that Socialist party?") Nowdays, quite a few people say they're at least aware of the alternatives, and usually know some friends who belong to those parties.
Ok, I have to ask... How is it possible to be such a thing as "religiously lazy"? Since religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts, there's really no point in making an effort to "find out the facts" about religion, is there?
Religion can *always* be used to support whatever personal beliefs a person holds. I don't see how that's restricted to this "god as cosmic watchmaker" idea.
For example, I grew up with Catholic parents. In the Catholic church, you have a bible packed full of stories that speak of everything from the creation of the earth (Genesis) to insight as to how it's supposed to come to an end (Revelations), yet *very few* Catholics (priests or parishoners) would try to claim that any of it is more than stories written to get general ideas across. (EG. The church may say the bible is the "word of God" and irrefutable, but they sure aren't going to defend your position if you run around claiming everyone really did come directly from 2 humans, Adam and Eve, who sat around talking to a snake about this apple.) That means, all of this is open to all sorts of personal interpretation. Sort of a "whatever explanation sits well with you and allows you to keep coming back to our church, feeling good about yourself" mentality. Given that, one may as well be "lazy" in a religious sense - because all the effort in the world to find a "right way" to interpret it all holds no more value to anyone than another of the "faithful" rattling off a quickly thought-up summary of his/her own beliefs.
Well, regardless of that fact that *some* people like radar detectors because they help them avoid speeding (the cop watching out for speeders IS suppoed to be a "deterrent" - so if he simply makes a device in your car start beeping wildly, vs. pulling you over with lights and a siren, he's still done an equivalent job)... radar detectors are simply passive radios that tell you when certain frequencies have been received.
On that principle alone, it's scary that legislation can be written against their usage.
When I think of Symantec, I think of a company that hasn't truly developed a single application from the ground up! (If they have, which one was it?) It seems like they just buy out other products after other people make them good, hire programmers to change the installers and splash screens to say "Symantec" all over them, and resell the result.
Their "staple" items, the Norton products, were all technically bought out - since Peter Norton had no part of "Symantec Corp." when he was doing his thing. I don't believe "PC Anywhere" was originally their product? Ghost used to be made by a company called "Innoval", as I recall. And their backup product has been shuffled around from company to company - but I *think* Veritas was the original developer of Backup Exec?
Washington D.C.? Connecticut? New York? New Jersey? Hey - the same bunch that outlawed radar detectors first!
Fact is, these are notoriously liberal states who, in typical liberal fashion, want to pass legislation that protects people from themselves. (Big Brother knows better than you what behavior is "safe!")
From personal experience, I've definitely found that driving with a hands-free kit is easier for me than trying to hold a cellphone up to my ear while driving. Sure, it's possible to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel, but having both hands available is better. You tend to do things like use a turn-signal more smoothly if you're not trying to keep from dropping that phone while doing it, etc. I don't think having a phone conversation is any more of a mental distraction than having a conversation with another passenger in your vehicle, though. And let's face it, some people can't do that well without becoming unsafe drivers - but that's because they lack the ability to focus on more than one task at a time.
This, simply, gets into an area where individuals vary wildly on their ability to talk and drive at the same time. Attacking the problem with blanket legislation is another case of "killing an ant with a shotgun".
Is it just me, or does it seem a bit odd that so many people posting here have commented that although they like Thinkpads, they'd "have to consider a MacBook Pro, now that they can boot Windows"?
I have a MacBook Pro myself, and I love it! But I'm still finding it a little confusing that of all people, long-time Thinkpad owners might find it a promising alternative?
The IBM Thinkpad was largely purchased for its ruggedness - and as nice as a MacBook Pro is, "rugged" hardly comes to mind with one. It's more like "stylish and meant to be treated with care". The aluminum case will easily get scratched, scuffed up, or dented/dinged up (with a minority of users even having problems with sweaty hands causing corrosion around the wrist-wrest area!). The elegant backlit keyboards are great, but don't seem to take huge amounts of abuse either, judging from the floor samples at several CompUSA stores with missing keys on them.
You certainly wouldn't just "toss a MacBook Pro in the back of a trunk or truck-bed" and expect it to be ok upon arrival. Old Thinkpads were known for getting abused this way on a regular basis. (The black textured plastic case helped hide scratches and dings.)
Just recently, I learned *far* more than I ever wanted to about attempting to claim a domain after a previous owner lets it expire. It's amazing what a racket that whole thing has become!
One of my clients paid a consultant to set up a web site and some email hosting for his daycare centers a couple years ago. Well, recently, that consultant ran into some personal problems (divorce, etc.) and became very difficult to reach/unresponsive. So finally, the daycare owner decided what he needed to do was redirect the registered domain to a new location, build a new site, and have it hosted elsewhere.
Problem was, the consultant registered it under his info, and we had no real way to obtain the password to make the changes needed.
Luckily, I noticed the domain was just about to expire, so I decided to keep an eye on it and planned to buy it upon its expiration. Now, the *traditional* rules say domains are back "up for grabs" after about a 30 day grace period, after expiration. But nowdays, it seems most registrars don't play fair. Instead, many just transfer the domains to their name, and sit on them indefinitely - charging an inflated price to re-purchase them. (I guess the line of thought is, if a name was good enough for someone to pay to register it once, then it's got an above-average chance of having some value to someone else - or even to the same person if they just let the renewal slide....)
In other cases, the expired domains automatically get put up for auctions to the highest bidder. (Some registrars like GoDaddy let you bypass this step by paying a $25 or so fee while the domain you want is still in their "grace period", but of course, that still means you're paying about 5x as much as you would have if it was some random name that was never registered before - AND, you're forced to become a captive GoDaddy customer in order to get it.)
The ones in auction can *really* turn into a money-grab, because companies have been formed to do nothing but automatically bid and re-bid on your behalf, for a stiff up-front fee, promising they'll guarantee to get you the domain you want. (Basically, if you're a normal human following manual bidding procedures, you're absolutely going to lose to their mechanized system.) You're fine if you're the only one bidding on the name you want -- but if it's a reasonably attractive/popular name, it can escalate into a very expensive bidding war involving 3rd. party services really quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, you're correct. There IS a difference between knowledge and intelligence. BUT, unlike a patient consulting with a doctor - the computer user calling for tech. support is expected to already possess some basic skills required to use the computer properly.
There really are a lot of people out there in professions requiring intelligence (doctors, lawyers, etc.) who still seem to lack a lot of common sense or ability to deal with topics outside the narrow scope of their choice of employment.
For example, one of my first jobs was working as a technican for a computer reseller. One of our big customers was the nearby community college. The head of I.T. there was the guy who did most of the actual purchasing (visiting our store and picking up orders for systems and accessories). He was, quite frankly, incredibly clueless when it came to basic troubleshooting. I'm sure he was by most accounts, an "intelligent" man. Surely he knew a considerable amount about something related to computing (perhaps software development?), or maybe he was just good at managing others - to make sure everyone else kept him from looking bad when problems arose? But whatever the case, it shocked me that as a mostly self-taught 20 year old, I had to give this guy so much basic advice on how to get a disk directory from DOS, how to reformat a disk, etc. etc.
As far as I'm concerned, this equates roughly to getting in a car with an adult who is supposedly a licensed driver, and having them ask you "Where's the gearshift? Do you know how to use the blinker in this thing?"
And I've run into the same ineptness from lawyers and doctors too. Maybe it's not quite accurate to call them "stupid" - but at least in the pop-culture/slang sense, I could see why an angry person trying to assist them would resort to labeling them as such.
Even as a bonafide Mac user/lover myself, sometimes I cringe to see yet another Walt Mossberg WSJ article praising something from Apple.
... not acting on a personal agenda to further their particular favorite products/companies.
Does he ever discuss non-Apple products at all? If so, does he ever say anything positive about *any* of them?
Newspaper writers should be writing unbiased reports
I don't get the WSJ on a regular basis, so maybe I'm being a bit unfair to Mossberg? All I know is, it seems like every other week or so, I can find at least one reference to a new Walt Mossberg column telling us how innovative, well-designed or useful an Apple product is.
Apple's marketing has even quoted him, preceding the quotes with claims about him being one of the most respected technology columnists in the media, etc. I'm starting to think they pay him off to write this stuff.
Substitute "Communist" for terrorist, and you'll quickly see that we've been through this B.S. before.
Good night, and good luck.
Exactly.... The sharks don't come after you in the water until you start bleeding.
I was just reading an article from this morning's newspaper claiming here in the midwestern U.S. (St. Louis, Missouri area to be precise), our "blue collar" labor force earns closer to the typical "white collar" salary than anyplace else in the country.
... only it happens to currently be more cost-effective to use human labor. When you work like a "humanized robot", you can expect to be thought of rather like one. You're a "fixed expense". Your employer doesn't feel any motivation to keep increasing your pay over whatever was initially agreed upon (just as a machine costs a certain amount in repair and maintenance expenses to keep it going). If you want more leverage in getting pay increases and better working conditions, teaming up with all of your co-workers under one "voice" makes sense.
They went on to discuss theories of why that might be. Of course, some of the ones you might expect were thrown about. (EG. We're near the middle of the country, geographically, so we have a higher than average number of union truck drivers here, who of course, earn more than, say, laborers picking crops or sewing clothing goods together.)
But the point they neglected to touch on was one that immediately came to my mind. Our I.T. and technology workers generally get paid far below the median pay for comparable jobs nation-wide! It's not so much a situation of the unions really helping those midwestern laborers collect a good paycheck as it is a situation of our business professionals being underpaid!
As far as I'm concerned, one of the other Slashdot posters was absolutely right. A union makes sense (within reason) for workers doing repetitive tasks that require little creativity or deep thought. They're basically doing jobs that could be done by robots or machines
If, however, you feel you have unique, specialized skills to bring to the table as part of your employment, why pool yourself in with everybody else? Even if you don't, merely having a sharp mind and a willingness to learn puts you leaps and bounds above the "typical worker", and has innate "value".
There's definitely a problem in America with pay-scales and professions. Our grade-school and high-school teachers can often barely scrape by a living on their wages, for example. But I don't see unions as the solution. If anything, they may have indirectly caused part of the problem because it created generations of workers who weren't given much motivation to better themselves. (Why make the effort to learn new things when I get paid more, guaranteed by union contract, to sit here and keep screwing these bolts on these cars?)
Thanks for the info, but what I've really been more interested in for my Treo 650 is a good Bluetooth hands-free car kit. I bought one of Motorola's units that clips onto the visor and cost about $99 at Best Buy. It has good clarity and volume, but the maddening thing is - it powers itself off after several minutes of sitting idle, even if a power adapter/charger is attached to it! If you want to drive around with the convenience of pressing a button on the device to take an incoming call, the device should be able to stay on as long as you're in the car!
Especially considering the Treo's ability to play MP3 music, I thought the wired stereo headset designed for it made the most sense....
To be perfectly honest, I'm having a tougher time "digesting" all of the interesting points you've made, because you seem to have an element of personal attack mixed in with all of it.
EG. "Get off your psuedo-intellectual high horse and go read your Kahlil Gibran. The man knew what the fuck he was talking about."
My pseudo-intellectual high horse? Simply because I had a question for you about your thoughts on the whole issue of "boundaries" and parental enforcement of them?
I get the idea that you have some resentment or bitterness towards your own folks and the way you were raised, and that's why this is such a "hot topic" for you?
In any case, though, I'm in agreement with your statement that children are people, not things, and parents don't "own" them. I'm not so sure I get your point, stated multiple times, that society makes a mistake of "expecting kids to suddenly become adults, magically, when they hit 18"? The law certainly doesn't imply this in any form. We allow people to become employed at age 16, and we issue them driver's licenses at that age as well. By contrast, we don't even allow them to purchase their own alcohol legally until they reach age 21.
Furthermore, you say: "In most states kids have the legal right to come and go as they please, when they please and with whom they please." It has always been my impression that curfews are imposed in most places. Again, illustrating that the "law of the land" recognizes that children shouldn't necessarily be given all of the rights that we give to adult members of society. (With rights come responsibilites - and I think we, collectively, realize that children, pre-teens and even teens are generally unable to handle the full spectrum of rights/responsibilities efficiently. Therefore, we try to give them those rights piece-meal, in stages, so they aren't simply thrust into an "adult world" and expected to handle all of their freedoms responsibly at one time.)
I grant you that such concepts as "finishing one's homework" aren't technically "boundaries". I also know from my own experience, growing up, that "positive re-inforcement" wouldn't always work to get me to do my assignments. As I got older, I started to see such efforts as patronizing, and thought I was "smart enough to see right through it". On the other hand, the very real possibility of being "grounded" and not being allowed to talk to my friends on the phone, watch TV, etc. was a good reason to rethink my original idea of skipping another night of homework. (It's the whole "lesser of two evils" thing in action at that point. My homework was unpleasant to do, but more pleasant than the alternatives my parents gave me if I didn't do it.) In the "grand scheme" of things, they were setting up some "guardrails" on my "road of life", making it harder for me to steer myself completely off the path they wished I would follow. Looking back, that was more of a favor than a curse....
I'm pretty sure the CPU makers quit caring about the general public's level of understanding about their processors a while ago. It used to be pretty simple, really. You had a primary name of a CPU and then a Mhz speed rating. That was apparently too much for many consumers to comprehend - judging by how many folks had no idea how many generations of Pentiums there were. (EG. "Isn't there a Pentium 5 now, or is the Pentium 4 the best one out?")
But these days, processor sales are geared towards the system builders and enthusiasts. Basically, it's up to Dell or HP or your local "mom and pop" system builder to choose an appropriate CPU for a given machine, and then to sell it on its merits to an end-user.
Really, with all the obfuscation of the true speeds of CPUs lately, not to mention all the variants with different numbers of pins on a socket, different amounts of internal cache, etc. - it seems like they're trying hard to ensure the "average user" *can't* understand exactly where the CPU they own benchmarks relative to the others.
Most of what you said is quite true. I guess my big question for you would be; What are your thoughts about the concept of children challenging authority because of a need to find their boundaries?
I think part of the "mechanics" of parents yelling at their kid and trying to "make them do their homework" or "make them clean their room" or what-not is due to the kid testing the authority figures. If they discover that they don't really "get into trouble" for any of the "bad" things they do - then they tend to experiment with doing even "more wrong" things, until they get a reponse. (Deep down, I think there's a craving for a figure in their daily lives that they can trust to provide some guidance. If they can't generate a negative response to their actions, then they start doubting that figure cares about them.)
As a MacBook Pro owner myself, I followed this whole thermal paste debate since the beginning. In my own situation, my MacBook Pro runs with the CPU at an average operating temp. of around 75-78 degrees C. (At complete idle to the point where the LCD panel blanks, I've seen a low temp. of 47C.) Under 100% processor load for several minutes, the highest peak temperature I ever was able to observe was around 87 degrees C, and that quickly dropped back down after both cooling fans kicked in. I've never opened my unit to check on it, but it was an earlier production model than many people are complaining about - so I have no doubts it has too much heatsink paste applied inside of it.
I've also read where a laptop technician claimed that very similar instructions to over-use the heatsink paste are found in service manuals for Toshiba, Dell, HP, and other popular brands.
Since there are also reports from other MacBook Pro owners on Apple's forums claiming the re-application of thermal paste the proper way didn't address their high temp. issues, I'm starting to think the heat problems may involve more than just thermal paste issues.
After all, even if I put 2 or 3 whole tubes of paste between a CPU and a heatsink, after the heatsink is pressed down and locked/screwed into place, there can only be so much paste left between the two parts. The rest just gets squeezed out around the edges, where it would hopefully get wiped off by the installer - or at least, no longer have anything to do with the cooling of the processor itself.
So what? Yeah, it *might* work the other way around in a few instances.... but I think most of the people with an interest in playing all the latest releases of games already know that Windows is the platform of choice for computer gaming. Every Mac user I've run across either does their gaming on a console (and heck, an XBox is practically a Windows PC without the keyboard and mouse anyway!), or else they also own a Windows PC they use for gaming.
Most people who already use OS X and Macs do so because they've already tried Windows at some point or other, and decided it wasn't really the environment they wanted to be in all day, every day when using their computer. The new ability to boot into XP via Boot Camp isn't likely to open many existing Mac users' eyes to "the undiscovered world of Windows - the platform already used on 95% of the computers out there".
As a hobbyist part-time musician myself (though much more part-time in recent years than before, thanks to a demanding day-job, a kid, etc.) - I do know what the Mackie costs, what studio time runs, and so on.
I'd still argue that producing "something that will sell" doesn't necessarily require all of the pricy gear and studio time. Those things make it *easier* to accomplish the task - but they're not requirements. It's a lot like the movie industry in that regard. You can easily produce a movie that looks "professional" when you have a big budget to spend on special f/x, top-quality HD digital cameras, etc. But some great movies are also done on a very tight budget, and filmed with no more than "prosumer" grade camcorders.
The first place an aspiring musician can "cut corners" is by ditching the high dollar studio time and replacing that with a good education on mixing and recording techniques. Let's face it. Most musicians know very little about such things as the right placement and types of mics to use to record, say, a drum kit or background vocals. For under $2000, anyone can set up a PC (or a Mac even) as a digtial recording studio with clarity and capabilities matching or exceeding the local recording studio's equipment. (Heck, many of the high $ studios in my area brag about having ProTools. Yet a Google search quickly reveals many pros saying ProTools is rather limiting compared to some other packages on the market. It seems to be popular more because of the status and recognition level of the product name.) The biggest limiting factor on "production quality" is the knowledge level of the person working the equipment. So a musician can either take the easy way out, saying "I don't know anything about that!" and shell out $'s for someone who does, OR they can invest some time and effort in *learning* those skills. Like practicing an instrument, the effort will pay back large dividends down the road....
http://train.apple.com/certification/
Perhaps you've heard of it?
It's important to "throw poorly researched stories to the wolves" once in a while, so people can pick them apart.
I, for one, am happy when Slashdot finds these stories with ridiculous claims or patently false information and brings them to our collective attention. Otherwise, as an I.T. professional, it can become really frustrating when a client drags one of them out as ammunition to back up a potentially bad business decision. If you're previously unaware of such an article and it suddenly gets thrown in your face - you're put on the spot to defend against it.
This whole discussion centers around the best 3D gaming cards for the money. This is only *barely* a concern for the Mac using audience, much less Linux users. Just because you can play a few games like Quake or Doom in a native Linux version doesn't mean it's a primary concern of many Linux users to have optimal 3D gaming performance.
The OS just doesn't really have gaming as a primary focus. So ATI's lack of focus on Linux compatibility isn't all that surprising on their $300-500 cards made for gamers, is it?
Personally, I don't feel a corporation has to do *anything* about this. It's up to the person possessing the data to determine whether his/her information is too "private" to release to others. IMHO, it's just a cop-out to say that despite knowing enough about using a computer to store years worth of your sensitive information in one, you have no idea how to get rid of it afterwards.
... and the victims were the ones most deserving of any inconvenience they got anyway.
There are numerous freeware, shareware and even commercial utilities out there that do secure disk wipes. And even if you're incapable of buying or downloading one of these yourself, asking around should find you somebody among your friends or family who could help with it.
But even having said all of that - sure, some people will be too lazy to make an effort. (Easier to just shrug your shoulders and say "I'm not a computer geek! How the heck should I know how to erase my stuff securely?!") Doesn't mean it becomes Apple's (or even Microsoft's) responsibility to ensure their old data is destroyed for them. Realistically, it should be since recycling a computer probably means tearing it down, piece by piece. The hard drive is going to get disassembled too. But if some weird case pops up where a recycler is scavenging old drives for data and reselling people's credit card info on the net - then so be it. They're still subject to prosecution under the law
Yep... at least in the primaries and local elections. Maybe things will change as electronic voting machines are introduced ... but traditionally, they asked you which party you belonged to, and they gave you a colored card to punch based on your party choice. (I believe Libertarians had a beige card, and Republicans were dark blue? Something like that....)
.... but I guess it doesn't end up making a lot of difference anyway. Someone can easily vote any way they like, no matter which card they select. I think it just allows for an easy way to vote unanimously for your party of choice with a single hole-punch, for those wishing to do that.
I remember being a little shocked that I was asked
Your suggestion to simply "remove all web browsers" is about as sensible as removing the telephone from an employee's desk or office, citing the fact that "Many of you don't really need one to get your job done."
It could probably be done, but it creates a hostile work environment. People expect to be able to check their personal email during lunch breaks and so forth, and these things usually require web access. Furthermore, it's increasingly difficult to make a determination that "employee X never needs Internet access". What if their boss suddenly asks them to "find me some documentation on how this machine is disassembled", or maybe "get me some price quotes on a new air compressor"? Does it makes sense to limit them to making phone calls from numbers they can find in the phone book, and talking to a few salespeople to find out "the best possible price"? If they had Internet access, a few searches on a search engine could yield them much better results.
Even your secretaries/administrative assistants (who many bosses think do nothing with the Internet besides play online games and waste time chatting) often save a company money when they realize they can use the net to get better pricing on toner or ink cartridge refills, paper, and other office supplies than what they've always gotten through their normal vendors. And if your company still uses a travel agent to book flights - shame on them. Give your employees access to the airline web sites and car rental/hotel chain sites, and let them take care of those things themselves!
Bottom line: Giving people more tools to accomplish tasks is never a "bad" thing. The issues only come about when poor management allows employees to waste too much time. It doesn't really matter if we're talking about the Internet, trips to the water cooler, or reading books.
I can relate to what you're saying... Thankfully, I haven't had any personal friends die in the war so far, but many people I know have gone through it.
But rather than taking an attitude of "It's hopeless!", I try to take a long-term outlook on everything. Bush can't stay in office forever, and it's becoming increasingly clear to people that the "war on terror" is mostly an excuse to pass new laws. What this means is, our next elected president is going to be a Democrat. He (she?) may not be any better at running things than the Bush administration.... but few people would really want to run for office parroting the same policies that generated one of the lowest approval poll ratings in history. So you can be assured that there will at least be a change in direction.
As a Libertarian myself, I plan on voting in that manner. Of course it isn't accomplishing much right now, but at least I'm casting a vote for what I believe in. And by the mere fact that it's still a relatively unknown platform, it prods some people to take interest. (EG. I went to the polling place for a local election a couple years ago, and when I asked for a Libertarian card - they didn't even have the right colored punch-cards readily available. My district is strongly Democrat, so I was apparently the first voter in the place who asked for that. They had to rummage around for the proper card, and it generated noticeable attention in the room. I suspect at least one of the people there got more curious about what the L.P. was all about, just from that situation.)
I've also noticed a marked increase in random people I meet who mention an interest in a 3rd. political party. Not that long ago, if you mentioned the Green Party or Libertarians, most people had no idea what you were talking about. ("Libertarians? Are they real liberal, or some version of that Socialist party?") Nowdays, quite a few people say they're at least aware of the alternatives, and usually know some friends who belong to those parties.
Ok, I have to ask... How is it possible to be such a thing as "religiously lazy"? Since religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts, there's really no point in making an effort to "find out the facts" about religion, is there?
Religion can *always* be used to support whatever personal beliefs a person holds. I don't see how that's restricted to this "god as cosmic watchmaker" idea.
For example, I grew up with Catholic parents. In the Catholic church, you have a bible packed full of stories that speak of everything from the creation of the earth (Genesis) to insight as to how it's supposed to come to an end (Revelations), yet *very few* Catholics (priests or parishoners) would try to claim that any of it is more than stories written to get general ideas across. (EG. The church may say the bible is the "word of God" and irrefutable, but they sure aren't going to defend your position if you run around claiming everyone really did come directly from 2 humans, Adam and Eve, who sat around talking to a snake about this apple.) That means, all of this is open to all sorts of personal interpretation. Sort of a "whatever explanation sits well with you and allows you to keep coming back to our church, feeling good about yourself" mentality. Given that, one may as well be "lazy" in a religious sense - because all the effort in the world to find a "right way" to interpret it all holds no more value to anyone than another of the "faithful" rattling off a quickly thought-up summary of his/her own beliefs.
Well, regardless of that fact that *some* people like radar detectors because they help them avoid speeding (the cop watching out for speeders IS suppoed to be a "deterrent" - so if he simply makes a device in your car start beeping wildly, vs. pulling you over with lights and a siren, he's still done an equivalent job) ... radar detectors are simply passive radios that tell you when certain frequencies have been received.
On that principle alone, it's scary that legislation can be written against their usage.
When I think of Symantec, I think of a company that hasn't truly developed a single application from the ground up! (If they have, which one was it?) It seems like they just buy out other products after other people make them good, hire programmers to change the installers and splash screens to say "Symantec" all over them, and resell the result.
Their "staple" items, the Norton products, were all technically bought out - since Peter Norton had no part of "Symantec Corp." when he was doing his thing. I don't believe "PC Anywhere" was originally their product? Ghost used to be made by a company called "Innoval", as I recall. And their backup product has been shuffled around from company to company - but I *think* Veritas was the original developer of Backup Exec?
Washington D.C.? Connecticut? New York? New Jersey? Hey - the same bunch that outlawed radar detectors first!
Fact is, these are notoriously liberal states who, in typical liberal fashion, want to pass legislation that protects people from themselves. (Big Brother knows better than you what behavior is "safe!")
From personal experience, I've definitely found that driving with a hands-free kit is easier for me than trying to hold a cellphone up to my ear while driving. Sure, it's possible to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel, but having both hands available is better. You tend to do things like use a turn-signal more smoothly if you're not trying to keep from dropping that phone while doing it, etc. I don't think having a phone conversation is any more of a mental distraction than having a conversation with another passenger in your vehicle, though. And let's face it, some people can't do that well without becoming unsafe drivers - but that's because they lack the ability to focus on more than one task at a time.
This, simply, gets into an area where individuals vary wildly on their ability to talk and drive at the same time. Attacking the problem with blanket legislation is another case of "killing an ant with a shotgun".
Is it just me, or does it seem a bit odd that so many people posting here have commented that although they like Thinkpads, they'd "have to consider a MacBook Pro, now that they can boot Windows"?
I have a MacBook Pro myself, and I love it! But I'm still finding it a little confusing that of all people, long-time Thinkpad owners might find it a promising alternative?
The IBM Thinkpad was largely purchased for its ruggedness - and as nice as a MacBook Pro is, "rugged" hardly comes to mind with one. It's more like "stylish and meant to be treated with care". The aluminum case will easily get scratched, scuffed up, or dented/dinged up (with a minority of users even having problems with sweaty hands causing corrosion around the wrist-wrest area!). The elegant backlit keyboards are great, but don't seem to take huge amounts of abuse either, judging from the floor samples at several CompUSA stores with missing keys on them.
You certainly wouldn't just "toss a MacBook Pro in the back of a trunk or truck-bed" and expect it to be ok upon arrival. Old Thinkpads were known for getting abused this way on a regular basis. (The black textured plastic case helped hide scratches and dings.)
Just recently, I learned *far* more than I ever wanted to about attempting to claim a domain after a previous owner lets it expire. It's amazing what a racket that whole thing has become!
One of my clients paid a consultant to set up a web site and some email hosting for his daycare centers a couple years ago. Well, recently, that consultant ran into some personal problems (divorce, etc.) and became very difficult to reach/unresponsive. So finally, the daycare owner decided what he needed to do was redirect the registered domain to a new location, build a new site, and have it hosted elsewhere.
Problem was, the consultant registered it under his info, and we had no real way to obtain the password to make the changes needed.
Luckily, I noticed the domain was just about to expire, so I decided to keep an eye on it and planned to buy it upon its expiration. Now, the *traditional* rules say domains are back "up for grabs" after about a 30 day grace period, after expiration. But nowdays, it seems most registrars don't play fair. Instead, many just transfer the domains to their name, and sit on them indefinitely - charging an inflated price to re-purchase them. (I guess the line of thought is, if a name was good enough for someone to pay to register it once, then it's got an above-average chance of having some value to someone else - or even to the same person if they just let the renewal slide....)
In other cases, the expired domains automatically get put up for auctions to the highest bidder. (Some registrars like GoDaddy let you bypass this step by paying a $25 or so fee while the domain you want is still in their "grace period", but of course, that still means you're paying about 5x as much as you would have if it was some random name that was never registered before - AND, you're forced to become a captive GoDaddy customer in order to get it.)
The ones in auction can *really* turn into a money-grab, because companies have been formed to do nothing but automatically bid and re-bid on your behalf, for a stiff up-front fee, promising they'll guarantee to get you the domain you want. (Basically, if you're a normal human following manual bidding procedures, you're absolutely going to lose to their mechanized system.) You're fine if you're the only one bidding on the name you want -- but if it's a reasonably attractive/popular name, it can escalate into a very expensive bidding war involving 3rd. party services really quickly.