Yep! Back around '98, I decided I wanted to buy a Trans-Am. (Ended up a bad move, since the one I finally got was a lemon anyway... but that's another story.) I went to one of the largest Pontiac dealerships in town and took a look at their inventory.
I was really considering the convertible "Ram Air" model, and they had a red one on the lot that I could have afforded (barely, granted - but would have been doable). The sales guy ignored me for a while, and when he finally realized I was looking at the car too long to just be someone browsing at random - he grudgingly walked over. I asked him about possibly getting a test-drive, and he told me "No way! We only let serious buyers test drive those. There's no way you can afford one of those anyway!" I said "Really? Ok." and walked out.
Went over later that afternoon and bought a black one from a smaller dealership.
Ok, and what's so interesting about this question? For some reason, I don't get it. I'd say either one could cause about an equal number of awkward situations for me as a parent... I'd pretty much feel the same about either. Either way, it'd be my kid and ultimately, he or she has to live his/her life the way they see fit.
The people who opt to live in rural areas will always be the ones complaining that they've been overlooked when new services are rolled out.
I run into this all the time with people complaining that they still can't get a cable modem or DSL service in their area.
When you solve this problem by letting govt. take over and order *everyone* to be hooked up, you simply force all of your customers to subsidize the higher costs of connecting up the people in the rural locations.
Whether that's "good" or "bad" is arguable. With communications services, it seems rather sensible to argue the point that the more people are interconnected, the more overall value is added to the service - justifying everyone paying a little higher price.
In fact, I think private industy eventually looks at things that way, without a need for govt. stepping in and mandating it. That's why you see cellphone carriers making a huge deal out of their "coverage areas".
Comparing electricity to fiber isn't really fair, though. If you live in the "big city" and have electricity, why would you care in the least bit if farmer Fred out in the middle of nowhere gets electricity too? You'd be happier if he didn't, if it meant paying a little less on your own electric bill each month, most likely! Communications services rely on "end to end connectivity" or they're not valuable. The more people on their "grid", the better the net benefit for all users. Basic utilities such as water, gas and electric aren't this way. As long as *you* get service, you're satisfied.
I agree that we're collectively allowing "freedom" to become a meaningless buzzword - but the 60's hippie generation didn't do much of anything to help prevent that. Rather, much of it had seeds in that era.
IMHO, we do an awful lot of worshipping the 60's that's unwarranted. Flower children, hipppies, etc. etc. The fact is, most of the people growing up in the 60's doing their psychadelic drugs, having sex with anyone willing, and protesting Vietnam ended up tightly wrapped up in "corporate America" afterwards anyway. (Hey, take Steve Jobs for example. Still pays lip service to his 60's "hippie past" with all those folk-rock 60's artists he has play music before his Apple keynote speeches and so on. But he's just another big-time corporate C.E.O. today.)
The 60's was great from a cultural standpoint. Lots of really good music and art came from it. But "greed" was never exclusive property of the "corporation". It's a trait shared *individually* by all of us, and properly channeled - can be a good thing. (To some extent, "greed" is what motivates people. If you didn't want more than what you already have, why would you work for someone doing a task you disliked? If there was no such thing as "greed", pay-raises would serve no useful purpose in the workplace.)
The real problem is, most Americans seem to be far too "non-chalant" about political issues. We take a "Who cares? Politics is boring! New law X or Y doesn't affect me directly anyway." attitude, and government grows and grows in power. The founding fathers of our country realized this could be its downfall. That's why they made such statements as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Preserving freedom is *work*. It's not something you attain once and you're finished. You have to fight to keep it every day, or it slips away, one new piece of legislation at a time.
This might be true if we were talking about specific politicians holding a govt. office - but we're not.
The problem I see here is we're basically asking govt. to perform another function normally left to private industry, under the assumption that there's no other way for it to get done efficiently and/or properly.
That pretty much sums up why we have a post office and NASA handling space travel.
But is "fiber to the door" really this type of issue, or is this more a case of people just getting impatient and trying to "force the hand" of corporations to roll out a service?
You know, there's arguably little reason today why we really still require federal govt. to handle all of our mail. Sure, they seem to be doing a respectably good job and most people see no huge reason to upset the "status quo" if it works. But we're long past the "Pony Express" days and the high risks involved for mail carriers. Heck, the USPS sub-contracts much of its express mail delivery to FedEx right now! But when's the last time they really asked you to "vote on it"? I do, however, recall a guy in Texas getting thrown in prison for attempting to compete with the post office a few years ago.
With a private company, you effectively "vote them out" by declining to pay for their service or product. When enough people feel it's not worth the money anymore and quit using them, they go out of business or revamp their offerings.
I know this wanders a little off-topic, but I think your suggestion of making the seats a little bigger and the flight more comfortable is an excellent one.
The thing is, this seems to go well beyond the issue of improving airline safety.... This, I think, is key to improving the success of public transportation in general!
The last time I rode Amtrack to Chicago, I was amazed at the run-down nature of the train car I was in. The seats weren't all that comfortable, but the fabric looked like it was literally rotting away. The "food car" looked like it hadn't been remodeled or rennovated since about 1950, and was pretty "bare bones" back then. The food selection was about the same as you'd expect out of a vending machine, except at higher prices. And to top it all off, we kept stopping in the middle of nowhere - adding at least a full hour to the length of time the trip should have taken. (Apparently, it was to allow other trains up ahead to do something or other..... but annoying!)
Then they wonder why they're going bankrupt? Come on people! When people's own cars are more comfortable to ride around in than taking a plane or train or whatever, something's wrong! Make the trip ENJOYABLE.
You're dead on accurate about there being an awful lot of people out there who read about the "American dream" in school, and falsely assumed that the whole "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" thing must have applied to them too.
I think, unfortunately, you're generally correct about the nature of large corporations today too.
Honestly though, I can't say that I agree at all that supporting "Liberal politics" will get any of this fixed. That's one of the traditional mantras of the left-wing... Vote for us because we're "for the common man" and "against those evil corporations"! Their track record doesn't seem to show that they're able to make any headway towards those ends, though. It's much more of a tool used to keep getting re-elected.
EG. The Democrats are often pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. This one's purely a sham, folks. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if you artificially increase the minimum amount every business in America is allowed to pay for the most basic/unskilled of jobs, it causes an inflationary ripple effect. The folks at the bottom might get that extra $1 an hour or whatever and feel good about it, but when everyone raises prices to cover that increase - how much better off do you think they'll be?
Note that I'm not a "Conservative" either, and I'm not claiming they have a "better" answer to any of this! What I *am* saying is, be careful about blanket statements that a certain political party will solve these economic issues.
I think true change can only come about when a "critical mass" of dissatisfied but capable workers form their own small businesses, and their peers make an effort to shop there instead of with the big corps. The reverse is what made most of the "evil megacorps" in the first place!
Relating this back to movie theaters for a moment... I haven't been to a theater in years myself. Primarily, it's because their ticket prices and lackluster movie releases just don't seem worth my time and money anymore. I would, however, be happy to support the little guys showing good, original films - especially if they cost a little less. So far, my problem is - the local independent theaters largely seem to specialize in the obscure, foreign stuff that they assume they're supposed to be showing. I don't want to see some black and white thing about gay Frenchmen or whatever... I'd be happy just to see a big-screen, high-quality version of some of the more interesting stuff people post to the net these days (AKA. "The Scene").
I understand exactly what you're saying, but I still stand by my original post. I think your argument, if it were really of the utmost importance, would only help explain why it "makes no sense to look at alternatives to Microsoft" as solutions.
I say that because, given your kitchen analogy - any reasonable chef would opt for the brand of kitchen that offered him/her the most options and compatibility with other people's kitchens. He/she would be primarily concerned with such issues as recipes working even though he/she obtained them from other sources.
In today's world of computers, that means Microsoft and Windows. (If I choose my OS based upon concerns like being compatible with almost any software package my neighbor might give me/sell me/loan me, or based upon having the maximum number of choices available to me in a retail outlet - Windows is it.)
Of course, quite a few of us would say "Woah! Wait a minute now! I don't WANT Windows at all!" That's probably true - but then that means there are other factors influencing that decision... not the factors you speak of in your analogy.
The OS is rather irrelevant when you're talking about embedded systems or for that matter, any system which just does its designed tasks with little direct human interaction.
That's why, as long as they keep on reading your ATM card and spitting out money properly, most people don't care a whole lot which OS their ATM machine runs.
The only reason we really have "OS wars" today is because people have differing opinions on the way things should be presented on the screen to them as an interactive user of said OS. (And secondarily, technical debates on such things as security... but let's be honest here. A lot of pretty darn important systems run on Windows, despite all the complaints about it being "insecure". There's a strong 3rd. party market happy to try to shore up those holes for a price - and plenty of customers willing to pay for those "improvements".)
Most of the time, when someone expresses a strong preference for Mac OS X, they're really expressing a fondness for the overall look and feel of the GUI.... Perhaps they favor the drap and drop nature of everything, with file management being done by symbolic folders that automatically open up when you hold the mouse button down while pointing at one? Maybe OS X Tiger users just fell in love with the Dashboard widgets or the Spotlight search feature, or who knows?
Same with any other OS I can think of. Even MS-DOS users argued for it because of it's stark simplicity. "Only one exact way to do a specific task... no confusion of "What does the picture on my screen do that looks like *this*?" Easy to write down a step-by-step instruction sheet so anyone who can type can get a task done in it.
None of these things really matter on a system that nobody interfaces with directly very often. If it just serves up web pages or files or acts as a back-end to a database, or whatever... as long as it keeps running, people don't care what it runs.
Yep! I purchased a Swiffer "power broom" not too long ago, because I needed a new mop anyway, and the ads made it look like a Swiffer did a better job than a mop at collecting debris. (Was hoping to avoid a 2-step process of vacuuming AND mopping in my kitchen to get the floor clean.)
I knew, going into the purchase, that supplies were costly. I priced them before buying the handle, and even stocked up on some of the supplies at the time of initial purchase.
What I didn't know was how quickly it went through said supplies! The "special cloth" you affix to the bottom of the Swiffer is the whole reason the thing really works at all. It's designed like a strong, thick version of a Kleenex, with folded-over edges that act to trap dirt underneath them as you run the Swiffer over particles. The overpriced cleaning solution smells nice, but doesn't seem as good as something like Armstrong floor cleaner, really.
The parent poster is describing one extreme.... and IMHO, your post describes the opposite one.
I've been working in computers and I.T. for 15 years, in the midwest, and I'd have to say the overall picture isn't that great - nor is it a case of "the sky is falling!".
What I definitely *do* agree with the parent poster on is that management types enjoy a certain level of what I'd call "automatic employment" that the rest of us "techies" don't get.
As one example. a good friend of mine works for a mid-sized company in the news and stock-market business (won't name any names here). I've hung out with his immediate boss, and a few of his other co-worker friends, and they've all suggested from time to time that I really need to "come work for them". Reality has been different, however. On two seperate occasions now, I've followed the procedures the company requires (putting my resume and info on their web site for H.R., etc.) when they had openings available. Both times, my friends also made sure to talk to the hiring manager about me, highly recommend me, and left copies of my resume on their desk.
In both cases, all of this was ignored (despite the manager assuring my friends that "he'd give it a look"). Instead, friends of the respective hiring managers were hired for the jobs (and word is, they weren't very good fits for those positions either!).
Meanwhile, I met another woman who worked for this firm, except she was a middle-level manager. She proceeded to tell me how it was a great job with good pay/benefits, and she got it purely based on submitting her resume/application - not knowing anyone there ahead of time. I find this is quite common for management types.... They look out for each other and will hire them based on actually having a decent-looking resume and references. For the other stuff, it's much more "who you know" than "what you know".
I lived this one out, years ago.... The beauty of it for many large companies today is, there's this expectation of meeting various quality standards (ISO compliance, etc. etc.) - and your employer can use that as a convenient excuse for why he/she is demanding that you "Document, document, document!" everything that you do.
Sure, these standards rules might dictate that "every procedure you do needs to be documented somewhere" - but where do you draw the line? If all your job really required was following a set of written instructions for each situation that occurred, the only job qualifications H.R. should ever need to look for are people who can read and follow a set of directions.
The stark reality is, they want you documenting your work primarily so they have free training materials handy for your replacement. Other than that, the only sensible documentation they SHOULD have you doing is taking notes for YOURSELF, so you don't have to keep looking the same thing up over and over, if you need to refer back to it for future troubleshooting.
I'm not familiar with "Carl's Jr." at all, but here in the midwest, I've seen a number of fast food places play games with the labels, as some sort of marketing strategy.
EG. Penn Station subs has a small, regular, and large size sandwich... but the "small" is what I think the majority of people would expect a sub shop to serve as the "regular" size. (You can sort of tell this is the case by looking at the pricing though. The "regular" and "large" sandwiches get awfully pricy for "fast food"!)
It's not necessarily that most Americans are eating such large meals that we define "medium" differently than you would in Canada. It may just be a place trying to avoid using labels like "super size" or "jumbo size", so they can sell bigger, more costly meals to people without them avoiding them due to a guilt factor. (Gee, I don't want to look like a pig in front of my friends, ordering something with JUMBO written all over the wrapper and cup.)
Umm... actually, I find that quite OFTEN, major Hollywood movies pose as "simple entertainment" while trying to cram some sort of political message down my throat.
(EG. Did you ever see a movie called "The Contender"? I actually wasted $10 or so on the DVD, never having seen it before in the theater - because it looked like it might be an entertaining political thriller. Started out with some promise, in fact, but by the end, turned into mindless stereotyping of conservatives followed by ramming home a feminist liberal political agenda.) I could have thought of at least 2 or 3 alternate endings that would have made it a much more interesting movie, really - if they could have just let go of the apparent need to shove a certain "message" in the audience's faces.)
The new Star Wars movies are no exception, really, other than being less blatant than some stuff out there. Look at it this way. The original 3 films barely even touched on "politics", other than some vague references. That didn't make them less interesting. But now, it seems like half of the last 2 movies revolved around senate meetings and jedis in the thick of political decision-making. It just seems to me like none of this made for a better, more "entertaining" movie experience at all. So why is it there? Allows insertion of political messages....
Bah... I think you're missing the point. Yes, companies should be able to protect their trademarked names from abuse. Yes, they may be at a disadvantage if they DON'T sue when appropriate opportunities arise to protect said name.
*BUT*, this was a case where the threat of customer confusion was non-existant. Apple already had an established trend of using names of wild animals for each of their OS releases (Jaguar, Panther, etc.), and it's obvious they went with "Tiger" this time around simply to continue that trend... not to try to steal customer-share from Tiger Direct!
I'm sure Tiger Direct tried to argue that they were "both in the computer business!".... but IMHO, that's simply not good enough. Tiger Direct is a *reseller*. They don't even make their own software or hardware. If someone WAS actually confused and thought they should shop for a copy of OS X Tiger via Tiger Direct, how would this hurt Tiger Direct in any way, shape or form? (Heck, they might end up selling them something else and getting a new customer out of the deal.)
This isn't the same thing as, say, Apple's old lawsuit against "Orange Computer" - who was directly competing with Apple and trying to sell clones of their systems.
I realized as soon as I submitted my message that I had mistakenly said "cellphone makers" when I meant to say "cellphone carriers". In any case though, the net result is about the same. No cellphone manufacturer wants to be caught in a situation where none of the major carriers will officially use their phone - because it creates too many "loopholes" in their plans to levy fees on the features you use. By the same token, I think they have a vested interest in building cellphones so they start falling apart after 2 or 3 years. It makes people pay for extended warranties, which ultimately just pay for new, replacement phones for you (more profit to that manufacturer!) any time you drop yours and break it, or something dies on it.
Actually, I was much more sure of this a few years ago than I am today. I say that because of 2 things.
1. Cellphone service still hasn't really come down much in price. Years ago, everyone seemed to think the emergence of more competing services would bring monthly charges way down, but it hasn't really worked out like that. Anyone can buy themselves a music player or even a PDA and get lots of use out of it, out of the box, without subscribing to anything. Cellphones, on the other hand, are useless paperweights as soon as you stop paying for monthly service. You can argue that cellphones are much more of a "necessity" - but that really depends on who YOU are. For quite a few people, they're just a convenience - as they could wait until they got home or to work to make/return their calls.
2. Cellphone makers have been horribly clueless in building a "convergence device" that really meets people's needs. Look at the latest "cream of the crop" PDA/camera/phones, for example. Take the Treo 650. Still so new, you can't even get on through many major carriers like Verizon, but if you do - you find out it's very fragile/breakable, not to mention still almost too large to carry around comfortably. Battery life could be better too, and as a portable music player, it doesn't hold a candle to something like even a first generation iPod. Meanwhile, like most all other camera phones, it takes lousy low-resolution photos. Where's the desirability in that??
I think the truth is, cellphone makers are really only interested in one thing... selling you expensive monthly service plans. The phones are just a means to an end for them, and you'll always see them crippling functionality if it allows them to charge extra for using a feature the way THEY want you to use it. Think "Jack of all trades, master of none." when you think "all in one cellphones". That's all you're gonna get.
It's funny you mention that old Tandy laptop, because I was thinking something similar myself! I don't own one of those myself, but I remember their "golden age" of popularity. A *good* number of news reporters carried one with them to write all of their articles on while traveling.
This very well might be just what people over in India need to get into the "computer revolution". But as you've pointed out, it seems that keeping it real basic/simple is the way MOST of us got started.
I used computers for years before ever considering the purchase of a hard drive for one of them! For a long time, I couldn't even imagine possessing enough code to need something that big to store it on! When you create a computer that has all of its basic applications and functionality built into ROM memory, you create a framework... boundaries if you will, on what that particular computer is *meant* to do. As long as you've got the "sweet spot" of what folks need to get done contained in that "framework" and the price is right, you probably have yourself a very useful little tool.
Ok, first off, it's really odd sitting here reading this article right now, since I just went through a similar situation and have been out of work since earlier this week.
(In my case, it appears that my boss intends to withhold my last paycheck until I return a database of his customers he claims I took from his office. The most obvious problem with this is I have no such database to return! In fact, as far as I was aware, he kept this stuff on his laptop computer, which wasn't even in the office the last few times I came in.)
But anyway, this site may help you with the legalities of employers keeping your last paycheck:
Personally, I think the burden should be placed on the individual demanding to hear a very low level of outside noise to properly soundproof his/her dwelling to achieve the desired effect.
If a "gated community" meets their needs, teriffic. Move there then!
I know myself, I live in a house next to a neighbor who happens to enjoy loud music, and also enjoys repairing old stereo equipment and speakers that other people threw away. He's got quite a collection of recent and vintage speakers, amps, receivers, tape decks, and so forth -- all of which he successfully repaired with no formal electronics knowledge. (He simply takes them apart carefully looking for burnt spots on the boards, and matches up the burnt parts with identical replacements from Radio Shack or whatever, and solders them back in.)
Sure, once in a while, I might be a little annoyed that I hear his stereo cranked up loud enough so I can tell what he's listening to from my own bedroom at night. But my solution is simply to turn on some music of my own that I'd prefer to listen to, and drown his out. Problem solved.
I'm actually really happy I have this type of neighbor, rather than the nit-picky tattle-tale types who dial 911 as soon as they hear your TV set or stereo in any way, shape or form. If I feel like throwing a party and it gets loud, at least I feel confident I won't have my neighbor ruining all the fun....
Everything has limits, but IMHO, the vast majority of noise complaints generated are from people expecting an unreasonable level of quiet, or simply those who enjoy getting someone else in trouble. The military aircraft that occasionally fly over my house are FAR more annoying, noise-wise, than my neighbor's music.
Well, you're DEFINITELY correct about this. It was only a scant few months ago that Apple finally put up a page on their web site geared towards the Enterprise customer. This is one area they're really only starting to dabble in right now.
Traditionally, Apple's server products were really only purchased by *departments* running all Macs.... so basically, "workgroup servers". In these scenarios, it's really not unreasonable to tell your group of 5-15 artists/designers that "Hey, as part of our troubleshooting - we'd like you to try swapping out your server with the latest release." Might be a bit frustrating and time-consuming, but hopefully less so than the error you're trying so hard to fix.
But yeah, this is *nothing* like the way things need to be handled in large, corporate settings. I'm not even sure it's fair to be "very unhappy with Apple" for any of this, though? Anyone making the decision to purchase Apple server products for use in an enterprise setting should have taken all of this into consideration first, IMHO. This is exactly why the company I used to work for skipped over the XServe products, despite thinking the ease of administration might be a huge plus. Apple is not yet really ready for the "enterprise", except in the ways another free Unix like BSD or Linux is. Stable, yes? Reliable, yes? Guaranteed fast problem resolution and long-term support for existing software versions, uh.... who knows, really?
Yes, it appears you're correct - although most home users I encounter make absolutely no use of security restrictions on their home LANs anyway.
The biggest concern they tend to have is making sure outsiders (on the Internet) can't view/access their local shares - and this is usually accomplished by a decent firewall/router.
Even on my own LAN at my house, all of my computers have full access to whichever resources I've chosen to share. In a controlled environment such as one's home or apartment, you typically don't have concerns such as "Will one of my employees run off with my confidential data I keep in folder X?"
XP Home is just as it says, a version of XP appropriate for most *home* applications.
I totally agree with your basic point, but to be fair, the argument of "XP Pro" being MUCH closer to OS X than "XP Home" is usually moot.
The only real significant difference between XP Pro and Home is the fact that Pro is required to authenticate against a server in a domain and support "roaming profiles" from said domain server. It's exceedingly rare that I find a home user who actually needs his/her machines to join a domain, instead of simply do peer-to-peer workgroup type sharing.
For that matter, if a business uses Novell Netware, they'll find that installing Novell's client for Windows on an XP Home box gives them all of those capabilities via Netware anyway. (Novell states on their web site something about XP Home being "unsupported", and recommends XP Pro - but that seems to really only be relevant for folks trying to use Microsoft's built-in Novell connector support rather than loading the free Novell client.)
If Apple was willing to shave even another $25 or so off the price of OS X for a version that couldn't work with NT/2000/XP domains and only handled workgroups, I imagine quite a few Mac users would opt to save the money and go with that one....
I'm not a huge "console gamer" to begin with, so maybe this should be taken with a helping of salt... But my experiences have been, Nintendo is focused pretty sharply on the younger gamers out there. Being a "30 something" myself, Nintendo has no real charm for me. I think of GameCube as something my daughter might enjoy playing with in a few more years.
Whether they're especially "innovative" or not, I think it's all being lost on their target market. Younger kids tend to be happy with even the "been done a million times already" titles, because they're not old enough to remember playing the originals they're based on.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep! Back around '98, I decided I wanted to buy a Trans-Am. (Ended up a bad move, since the one I finally got was a lemon anyway... but that's another story.) I went to one of the largest Pontiac dealerships in town and took a look at their inventory.
I was really considering the convertible "Ram Air" model, and they had a red one on the lot that I could have afforded (barely, granted - but would have been doable). The sales guy ignored me for a while, and when he finally realized I was looking at the car too long to just be someone browsing at random - he grudgingly walked over. I asked him about possibly getting a test-drive, and he told me "No way! We only let serious buyers test drive those. There's no way you can afford one of those anyway!" I said "Really? Ok." and walked out.
Went over later that afternoon and bought a black one from a smaller dealership.
Ok, and what's so interesting about this question? For some reason, I don't get it. I'd say either one could cause about an equal number of awkward situations for me as a parent... I'd pretty much feel the same about either. Either way, it'd be my kid and ultimately, he or she has to live his/her life the way they see fit.
The people who opt to live in rural areas will always be the ones complaining that they've been overlooked when new services are rolled out.
I run into this all the time with people complaining that they still can't get a cable modem or DSL service in their area.
When you solve this problem by letting govt. take over and order *everyone* to be hooked up, you simply force all of your customers to subsidize the higher costs of connecting up the people in the rural locations.
Whether that's "good" or "bad" is arguable. With communications services, it seems rather sensible to argue the point that the more people are interconnected, the more overall value is added to the service - justifying everyone paying a little higher price.
In fact, I think private industy eventually looks at things that way, without a need for govt. stepping in and mandating it. That's why you see cellphone carriers making a huge deal out of their "coverage areas".
Comparing electricity to fiber isn't really fair, though. If you live in the "big city" and have electricity, why would you care in the least bit if farmer Fred out in the middle of nowhere gets electricity too? You'd be happier if he didn't, if it meant paying a little less on your own electric bill each month, most likely! Communications services rely on "end to end connectivity" or they're not valuable. The more people on their "grid", the better the net benefit for all users. Basic utilities such as water, gas and electric aren't this way. As long as *you* get service, you're satisfied.
I agree that we're collectively allowing "freedom" to become a meaningless buzzword - but the 60's hippie generation didn't do much of anything to help prevent that. Rather, much of it had seeds in that era.
IMHO, we do an awful lot of worshipping the 60's that's unwarranted. Flower children, hipppies, etc. etc. The fact is, most of the people growing up in the 60's doing their psychadelic drugs, having sex with anyone willing, and protesting Vietnam ended up tightly wrapped up in "corporate America" afterwards anyway. (Hey, take Steve Jobs for example. Still pays lip service to his 60's "hippie past" with all those folk-rock 60's artists he has play music before his Apple keynote speeches and so on. But he's just another big-time corporate C.E.O. today.)
The 60's was great from a cultural standpoint. Lots of really good music and art came from it. But "greed" was never exclusive property of the "corporation". It's a trait shared *individually* by all of us, and properly channeled - can be a good thing. (To some extent, "greed" is what motivates people. If you didn't want more than what you already have, why would you work for someone doing a task you disliked? If there was no such thing as "greed", pay-raises would serve no useful purpose in the workplace.)
The real problem is, most Americans seem to be far too "non-chalant" about political issues. We take a "Who cares? Politics is boring! New law X or Y doesn't affect me directly anyway." attitude, and government grows and grows in power. The founding fathers of our country realized this could be its downfall. That's why they made such statements as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Preserving freedom is *work*. It's not something you attain once and you're finished. You have to fight to keep it every day, or it slips away, one new piece of legislation at a time.
This might be true if we were talking about specific politicians holding a govt. office - but we're not.
The problem I see here is we're basically asking govt. to perform another function normally left to private industry, under the assumption that there's no other way for it to get done efficiently and/or properly.
That pretty much sums up why we have a post office and NASA handling space travel.
But is "fiber to the door" really this type of issue, or is this more a case of people just getting impatient and trying to "force the hand" of corporations to roll out a service?
You know, there's arguably little reason today why we really still require federal govt. to handle all of our mail. Sure, they seem to be doing a respectably good job and most people see no huge reason to upset the "status quo" if it works. But we're long past the "Pony Express" days and the high risks involved for mail carriers. Heck, the USPS sub-contracts much of its express mail delivery to FedEx right now! But when's the last time they really asked you to "vote on it"? I do, however, recall a guy in Texas getting thrown in prison for attempting to compete with the post office a few years ago.
With a private company, you effectively "vote them out" by declining to pay for their service or product. When enough people feel it's not worth the money anymore and quit using them, they go out of business or revamp their offerings.
Since you asked...
www.voyeurweb.com
Free to view most of the sections, and loads of examples of this going on every week.
I know this wanders a little off-topic, but I think your suggestion of making the seats a little bigger and the flight more comfortable is an excellent one.
The thing is, this seems to go well beyond the issue of improving airline safety.... This, I think, is key to improving the success of public transportation in general!
The last time I rode Amtrack to Chicago, I was amazed at the run-down nature of the train car I was in. The seats weren't all that comfortable, but the fabric looked like it was literally rotting away. The "food car" looked like it hadn't been remodeled or rennovated since about 1950, and was pretty "bare bones" back then. The food selection was about the same as you'd expect out of a vending machine, except at higher prices. And to top it all off, we kept stopping in the middle of nowhere - adding at least a full hour to the length of time the trip should have taken. (Apparently, it was to allow other trains up ahead to do something or other..... but annoying!)
Then they wonder why they're going bankrupt? Come on people! When people's own cars are more comfortable to ride around in than taking a plane or train or whatever, something's wrong! Make the trip ENJOYABLE.
You're dead on accurate about there being an awful lot of people out there who read about the "American dream" in school, and falsely assumed that the whole "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" thing must have applied to them too.
I think, unfortunately, you're generally correct about the nature of large corporations today too.
Honestly though, I can't say that I agree at all that supporting "Liberal politics" will get any of this fixed. That's one of the traditional mantras of the left-wing... Vote for us because we're "for the common man" and "against those evil corporations"! Their track record doesn't seem to show that they're able to make any headway towards those ends, though. It's much more of a tool used to keep getting re-elected.
EG. The Democrats are often pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. This one's purely a sham, folks. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if you artificially increase the minimum amount every business in America is allowed to pay for the most basic/unskilled of jobs, it causes an inflationary ripple effect. The folks at the bottom might get that extra $1 an hour or whatever and feel good about it, but when everyone raises prices to cover that increase - how much better off do you think they'll be?
Note that I'm not a "Conservative" either, and I'm not claiming they have a "better" answer to any of this! What I *am* saying is, be careful about blanket statements that a certain political party will solve these economic issues.
I think true change can only come about when a "critical mass" of dissatisfied but capable workers form their own small businesses, and their peers make an effort to shop there instead of with the big corps. The reverse is what made most of the "evil megacorps" in the first place!
Relating this back to movie theaters for a moment... I haven't been to a theater in years myself. Primarily, it's because their ticket prices and lackluster movie releases just don't seem worth my time and money anymore. I would, however, be happy to support the little guys showing good, original films - especially if they cost a little less. So far, my problem is - the local independent theaters largely seem to specialize in the obscure, foreign stuff that they assume they're supposed to be showing. I don't want to see some black and white thing about gay Frenchmen or whatever... I'd be happy just to see a big-screen, high-quality version of some of the more interesting stuff people post to the net these days (AKA. "The Scene").
I understand exactly what you're saying, but I still stand by my original post. I think your argument, if it were really of the utmost importance, would only help explain why it "makes no sense to look at alternatives to Microsoft" as solutions.
I say that because, given your kitchen analogy - any reasonable chef would opt for the brand of kitchen that offered him/her the most options and compatibility with other people's kitchens. He/she would be primarily concerned with such issues as recipes working even though he/she obtained them from other sources.
In today's world of computers, that means Microsoft and Windows. (If I choose my OS based upon concerns like being compatible with almost any software package my neighbor might give me/sell me/loan me, or based upon having the maximum number of choices available to me in a retail outlet - Windows is it.)
Of course, quite a few of us would say "Woah! Wait a minute now! I don't WANT Windows at all!" That's probably true - but then that means there are other factors influencing that decision... not the factors you speak of in your analogy.
The OS is rather irrelevant when you're talking about embedded systems or for that matter, any system which just does its designed tasks with little direct human interaction.
... but let's be honest here. A lot of pretty darn important systems run on Windows, despite all the complaints about it being "insecure". There's a strong 3rd. party market happy to try to shore up those holes for a price - and plenty of customers willing to pay for those "improvements".)
... as long as it keeps running, people don't care what it runs.
That's why, as long as they keep on reading your ATM card and spitting out money properly, most people don't care a whole lot which OS their ATM machine runs.
The only reason we really have "OS wars" today is because people have differing opinions on the way things should be presented on the screen to them as an interactive user of said OS. (And secondarily, technical debates on such things as security
Most of the time, when someone expresses a strong preference for Mac OS X, they're really expressing a fondness for the overall look and feel of the GUI.... Perhaps they favor the drap and drop nature of everything, with file management being done by symbolic folders that automatically open up when you hold the mouse button down while pointing at one? Maybe OS X Tiger users just fell in love with the Dashboard widgets or the Spotlight search feature, or who knows?
Same with any other OS I can think of. Even MS-DOS users argued for it because of it's stark simplicity. "Only one exact way to do a specific task... no confusion of "What does the picture on my screen do that looks like *this*?" Easy to write down a step-by-step instruction sheet so anyone who can type can get a task done in it.
None of these things really matter on a system that nobody interfaces with directly very often. If it just serves up web pages or files or acts as a back-end to a database, or whatever
Yep! I purchased a Swiffer "power broom" not too long ago, because I needed a new mop anyway, and the ads made it look like a Swiffer did a better job than a mop at collecting debris. (Was hoping to avoid a 2-step process of vacuuming AND mopping in my kitchen to get the floor clean.)
I knew, going into the purchase, that supplies were costly. I priced them before buying the handle, and even stocked up on some of the supplies at the time of initial purchase.
What I didn't know was how quickly it went through said supplies! The "special cloth" you affix to the bottom of the Swiffer is the whole reason the thing really works at all. It's designed like a strong, thick version of a Kleenex, with folded-over edges that act to trap dirt underneath them as you run the Swiffer over particles. The overpriced cleaning solution smells nice, but doesn't seem as good as something like Armstrong floor cleaner, really.
The parent poster is describing one extreme.... and IMHO, your post describes the opposite one.
I've been working in computers and I.T. for 15 years, in the midwest, and I'd have to say the overall picture isn't that great - nor is it a case of "the sky is falling!".
What I definitely *do* agree with the parent poster on is that management types enjoy a certain level of what I'd call "automatic employment" that the rest of us "techies" don't get.
As one example. a good friend of mine works for a mid-sized company in the news and stock-market business (won't name any names here). I've hung out with his immediate boss, and a few of his other co-worker friends, and they've all suggested from time to time that I really need to "come work for them". Reality has been different, however. On two seperate occasions now, I've followed the procedures the company requires (putting my resume and info on their web site for H.R., etc.) when they had openings available. Both times, my friends also made sure to talk to the hiring manager about me, highly recommend me, and left copies of my resume on their desk.
In both cases, all of this was ignored (despite the manager assuring my friends that "he'd give it a look"). Instead, friends of the respective hiring managers were hired for the jobs (and word is, they weren't very good fits for those positions either!).
Meanwhile, I met another woman who worked for this firm, except she was a middle-level manager. She proceeded to tell me how it was a great job with good pay/benefits, and she got it purely based on submitting her resume/application - not knowing anyone there ahead of time. I find this is quite common for management types.... They look out for each other and will hire them based on actually having a decent-looking resume and references. For the other stuff, it's much more "who you know" than "what you know".
I lived this one out, years ago.... The beauty of it for many large companies today is, there's this expectation of meeting various quality standards (ISO compliance, etc. etc.) - and your employer can use that as a convenient excuse for why he/she is demanding that you "Document, document, document!" everything that you do.
Sure, these standards rules might dictate that "every procedure you do needs to be documented somewhere" - but where do you draw the line? If all your job really required was following a set of written instructions for each situation that occurred, the only job qualifications H.R. should ever need to look for are people who can read and follow a set of directions.
The stark reality is, they want you documenting your work primarily so they have free training materials handy for your replacement. Other than that, the only sensible documentation they SHOULD have you doing is taking notes for YOURSELF, so you don't have to keep looking the same thing up over and over, if you need to refer back to it for future troubleshooting.
I'm not familiar with "Carl's Jr." at all, but here in the midwest, I've seen a number of fast food places play games with the labels, as some sort of marketing strategy.
... but the "small" is what I think the majority of people would expect a sub shop to serve as the "regular" size. (You can sort of tell this is the case by looking at the pricing though. The "regular" and "large" sandwiches get awfully pricy for "fast food"!)
EG. Penn Station subs has a small, regular, and large size sandwich
It's not necessarily that most Americans are eating such large meals that we define "medium" differently than you would in Canada. It may just be a place trying to avoid using labels like "super size" or "jumbo size", so they can sell bigger, more costly meals to people without them avoiding them due to a guilt factor. (Gee, I don't want to look like a pig in front of my friends, ordering something with JUMBO written all over the wrapper and cup.)
Umm... actually, I find that quite OFTEN, major Hollywood movies pose as "simple entertainment" while trying to cram some sort of political message down my throat.
(EG. Did you ever see a movie called "The Contender"? I actually wasted $10 or so on the DVD, never having seen it before in the theater - because it looked like it might be an entertaining political thriller. Started out with some promise, in fact, but by the end, turned into mindless stereotyping of conservatives followed by ramming home a feminist liberal political agenda.) I could have thought of at least 2 or 3 alternate endings that would have made it a much more interesting movie, really - if they could have just let go of the apparent need to shove a certain "message" in the audience's faces.)
The new Star Wars movies are no exception, really, other than being less blatant than some stuff out there. Look at it this way. The original 3 films barely even touched on "politics", other than some vague references. That didn't make them less interesting. But now, it seems like half of the last 2 movies revolved around senate meetings and jedis in the thick of political decision-making. It just seems to me like none of this made for a better, more "entertaining" movie experience at all. So why is it there? Allows insertion of political messages....
Bah... I think you're missing the point. Yes, companies should be able to protect their trademarked names from abuse. Yes, they may be at a disadvantage if they DON'T sue when appropriate opportunities arise to protect said name.
... not to try to steal customer-share from Tiger Direct!
.... but IMHO, that's simply not good enough. Tiger Direct is a *reseller*. They don't even make their own software or hardware. If someone WAS actually confused and thought they should shop for a copy of OS X Tiger via Tiger Direct, how would this hurt Tiger Direct in any way, shape or form? (Heck, they might end up selling them something else and getting a new customer out of the deal.)
*BUT*, this was a case where the threat of customer confusion was non-existant. Apple already had an established trend of using names of wild animals for each of their OS releases (Jaguar, Panther, etc.), and it's obvious they went with "Tiger" this time around simply to continue that trend
I'm sure Tiger Direct tried to argue that they were "both in the computer business!"
This isn't the same thing as, say, Apple's old lawsuit against "Orange Computer" - who was directly competing with Apple and trying to sell clones of their systems.
I realized as soon as I submitted my message that I had mistakenly said "cellphone makers" when I meant to say "cellphone carriers". In any case though, the net result is about the same. No cellphone manufacturer wants to be caught in a situation where none of the major carriers will officially use their phone - because it creates too many "loopholes" in their plans to levy fees on the features you use. By the same token, I think they have a vested interest in building cellphones so they start falling apart after 2 or 3 years. It makes people pay for extended warranties, which ultimately just pay for new, replacement phones for you (more profit to that manufacturer!) any time you drop yours and break it, or something dies on it.
Actually, I was much more sure of this a few years ago than I am today. I say that because of 2 things.
... selling you expensive monthly service plans. The phones are just a means to an end for them, and you'll always see them crippling functionality if it allows them to charge extra for using a feature the way THEY want you to use it. Think "Jack of all trades, master of none." when you think "all in one cellphones". That's all you're gonna get.
1. Cellphone service still hasn't really come down much in price. Years ago, everyone seemed to think the emergence of more competing services would bring monthly charges way down, but it hasn't really worked out like that. Anyone can buy themselves a music player or even a PDA and get lots of use out of it, out of the box, without subscribing to anything. Cellphones, on the other hand, are useless paperweights as soon as you stop paying for monthly service. You can argue that cellphones are much more of a "necessity" - but that really depends on who YOU are. For quite a few people, they're just a convenience - as they could wait until they got home or to work to make/return their calls.
2. Cellphone makers have been horribly clueless in building a "convergence device" that really meets people's needs. Look at the latest "cream of the crop" PDA/camera/phones, for example. Take the Treo 650. Still so new, you can't even get on through many major carriers like Verizon, but if you do - you find out it's very fragile/breakable, not to mention still almost too large to carry around comfortably. Battery life could be better too, and as a portable music player, it doesn't hold a candle to something like even a first generation iPod. Meanwhile, like most all other camera phones, it takes lousy low-resolution photos. Where's the desirability in that??
I think the truth is, cellphone makers are really only interested in one thing
It's funny you mention that old Tandy laptop, because I was thinking something similar myself!
I don't own one of those myself, but I remember their "golden age" of popularity. A *good* number of news reporters carried one with them to write all of their articles on while traveling.
This very well might be just what people over in India need to get into the "computer revolution". But as you've pointed out, it seems that keeping it real basic/simple is the way MOST of us got started.
I used computers for years before ever considering the purchase of a hard drive for one of them! For a long time, I couldn't even imagine possessing enough code to need something that big to store it on! When you create a computer that has all of its basic applications and functionality built into ROM memory, you create a framework... boundaries if you will, on what that particular computer is *meant* to do. As long as you've got the "sweet spot" of what folks need to get done contained in that "framework" and the price is right, you probably have yourself a very useful little tool.
Ok, first off, it's really odd sitting here reading this article right now, since I just went through a similar situation and have been out of work since earlier this week.
- 9CB1-47F8-BA6C70E1318E65FE/111/259/188/ART/
(In my case, it appears that my boss intends to withhold my last paycheck until I return a database of his customers he claims I took from his office. The most obvious problem with this is I have no such database to return! In fact, as far as I was aware, he kept this stuff on his laptop computer, which wasn't even in the office the last few times I came in.)
But anyway, this site may help you with the legalities of employers keeping your last paycheck:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/7D5D0C62
Personally, I think the burden should be placed on the individual demanding to hear a very low level of outside noise to properly soundproof his/her dwelling to achieve the desired effect.
If a "gated community" meets their needs, teriffic. Move there then!
I know myself, I live in a house next to a neighbor who happens to enjoy loud music, and also enjoys repairing old stereo equipment and speakers that other people threw away. He's got quite a collection of recent and vintage speakers, amps, receivers, tape decks, and so forth -- all of which he successfully repaired with no formal electronics knowledge. (He simply takes them apart carefully looking for burnt spots on the boards, and matches up the burnt parts with identical replacements from Radio Shack or whatever, and solders them back in.)
Sure, once in a while, I might be a little annoyed that I hear his stereo cranked up loud enough so I can tell what he's listening to from my own bedroom at night. But my solution is simply to turn on some music of my own that I'd prefer to listen to, and drown his out. Problem solved.
I'm actually really happy I have this type of neighbor, rather than the nit-picky tattle-tale types who dial 911 as soon as they hear your TV set or stereo in any way, shape or form. If I feel like throwing a party and it gets loud, at least I feel confident I won't have my neighbor ruining all the fun....
Everything has limits, but IMHO, the vast majority of noise complaints generated are from people expecting an unreasonable level of quiet, or simply those who enjoy getting someone else in trouble. The military aircraft that occasionally fly over my house are FAR more annoying, noise-wise, than my neighbor's music.
Well, you're DEFINITELY correct about this. It was only a scant few months ago that Apple finally put up a page on their web site geared towards the Enterprise customer. This is one area they're really only starting to dabble in right now.
Traditionally, Apple's server products were really only purchased by *departments* running all Macs.... so basically, "workgroup servers". In these scenarios, it's really not unreasonable to tell your group of 5-15 artists/designers that "Hey, as part of our troubleshooting - we'd like you to try swapping out your server with the latest release." Might be a bit frustrating and time-consuming, but hopefully less so than the error you're trying so hard to fix.
But yeah, this is *nothing* like the way things need to be handled in large, corporate settings. I'm not even sure it's fair to be "very unhappy with Apple" for any of this, though? Anyone making the decision to purchase Apple server products for use in an enterprise setting should have taken all of this into consideration first, IMHO. This is exactly why the company I used to work for skipped over the XServe products, despite thinking the ease of administration might be a huge plus. Apple is not yet really ready for the "enterprise", except in the ways another free Unix like BSD or Linux is. Stable, yes? Reliable, yes? Guaranteed fast problem resolution and long-term support for existing software versions, uh.... who knows, really?
Yes, it appears you're correct - although most home users I encounter make absolutely no use of security restrictions on their home LANs anyway.
The biggest concern they tend to have is making sure outsiders (on the Internet) can't view/access their local shares - and this is usually accomplished by a decent firewall/router.
Even on my own LAN at my house, all of my computers have full access to whichever resources I've chosen to share. In a controlled environment such as one's home or apartment, you typically don't have concerns such as "Will one of my employees run off with my confidential data I keep in folder X?"
XP Home is just as it says, a version of XP appropriate for most *home* applications.
I totally agree with your basic point, but to be fair, the argument of "XP Pro" being MUCH closer to OS X than "XP Home" is usually moot.
The only real significant difference between XP Pro and Home is the fact that Pro is required to authenticate against a server in a domain and support "roaming profiles" from said domain server. It's exceedingly rare that I find a home user who actually needs his/her machines to join a domain, instead of simply do peer-to-peer workgroup type sharing.
For that matter, if a business uses Novell Netware, they'll find that installing Novell's client for Windows on an XP Home box gives them all of those capabilities via Netware anyway. (Novell states on their web site something about XP Home being "unsupported", and recommends XP Pro - but that seems to really only be relevant for folks trying to use Microsoft's built-in Novell connector support rather than loading the free Novell client.)
If Apple was willing to shave even another $25 or so off the price of OS X for a version that couldn't work with NT/2000/XP domains and only handled workgroups, I imagine quite a few Mac users would opt to save the money and go with that one....
I'm not a huge "console gamer" to begin with, so maybe this should be taken with a helping of salt... But my experiences have been, Nintendo is focused pretty sharply on the younger gamers out there. Being a "30 something" myself, Nintendo has no real charm for me. I think of GameCube as something my daughter might enjoy playing with in a few more years.
Whether they're especially "innovative" or not, I think it's all being lost on their target market. Younger kids tend to be happy with even the "been done a million times already" titles, because they're not old enough to remember playing the originals they're based on.