No, the iApps aren't new ideas - but similar to Microsoft's Office suite, they provide a way to tie all the pieces together, cohesively.
When Excel first came out, spreadsheets weren't new ideas either. The "magic" was largely in the way it interacted (via OLE) with Word and Powerpoint. Change some data in your spreadsheet, and that chart you pasted into Powerpoint could automatically update itself to reflect the new values. Couple that functionality with a consistent interface across all the related applications, and the fact that they were fairly "usable" programs in their own right, and you had a smash hit.
Until Apple did the iApps, I don't think anyone was really trying to build a suite of media tools that worked together. As a Windows user using iTunes, of course, you're not seeing the whole picture. But on a Mac, it all comes together pretty seamlessly. If you want to create a slideshow of your photos stored in iPhoto, you can select background music right from iTunes playlists, use transitions and special effects from iMovie, and then tell iDVD to make a DVD disc of the results, complete with your own customized, on-screen menus. Heck, the music you created yourself using "Garageband" in the iLife '04 suite can automatically go into iTunes too, so that might be part of said slideshow.
Apple marketing is always "over the top", but that's no different than any of the other players in the marketplace. Certainly, Apple hasn't said anything more of a stretch than Intel's carrying on about the Pentium 4 giving you a "richer, fuller Internet experience".
Yep - I agree completely. Really, the current situation for television is a few conglomerates with the money, deciding what programs should be created, taped, and aired. All in all, they've done a pretty good job (since, after all, that's how they got the money in the first place).
The thing is, that can easily change - and it will, if enough people decide TV isn't a worthwhile medium anymore.
I think today's television suffers from a lack of creativity, primarily. The shows in the sci-fi genre are the most common exceptions to the rule, and that's why so many of them develop rabid, cult followings. But these only appeal to a small segment of society (hard to imagine as it is being a Slashdot reader, most people aren't into "geek" or "high tech" things). The only really good, original idea they've had in the last 5 years or so, other than sci-fi related shows, was the concept of "reality TV". They've milked that for all it's worth - and it's pretty well burnt out.
(I think a good indicator of a dying TV concept is the introduction of as many sexual themes as possible. This is always a sign they're desperate for more viewers. Therefore, you have new reality TV shows springing up that are all centered around relationships, cheating, and sex.)
In some ways, I think the future of TV might be "low budget". Some of the more interesting (or at least humorous) programming I've seen on cable and satellite has been low-budget amateur productions shown on regional access channels.
The big-name TV stars are mainly concentrating on using their jobs as launch-pads to a movie career, where it seems like the better quality scripts and ideas go anyway.
The really fun stuff to watch may turn out to be produced by your neighbor down the street who loves doing interviews and making documentaries with his camcorder, as opposed to the latest sitcom cranked out by stars demanding 17 million per episode.
It's certainly part of the "Apple curse" that anything they build will get attacked by some members of the PC community, claiming it's only "liked because Apple fanatics praise everything the company does".
IMHO though, this just strikes me as jealousy. (Wow - someone actually has a business that's so well liked by their customers that they're excited whenever they release a new product?! That's just not right! We have to tear that down A.S.A.P.!)
The fact is, I *rarely* meet a non Apple user who doesn't at least say "Wow, that really is a nice app/feature/design!" if they really sit down and give the products and software a good look.
The Apple "iApps" are a prime example of this. The point isn't that you can't find flaws in them if you try hard enough. (The new iPhoto, for example, has a bug where photo previews often look blurry... Clicking away from one and back onto it again sometimes makes it snap into focus. Annoying!) But *overall*, they give users a usable, clean interface that's hard to describe as anything but "sensible".
Even if you don't personally like the way iTunes organizes your music library, the point is - it DOES organize it for you. Not every program does this, you know. It lets you create custom playlists based on all sorts of criteria, has the ability to cross-fade the end of one track into the start of the next (nice for playing MP3 songs ripped from "live" albums where normally, you hear a sharp cutoff when the audience is clapping at the end of a song), has easy, *built-in* ability to write to CD (as music or data format), and lots of other good stuff you want in a player. Plus, it's free.
It seems rather obvious to me that the ratio of "original game ideas to sequels/rehashes" would change over time. When the gaming industry was still just getting started, most ideas were fresh and original. After a while, most scenarios you could think of had already been simulated, and thousands and thousands of fantasy/sci-fi type concepts were rendered into games.
So yes, we're seeing much less "new, original" material now than in the Pac-Man and Donkey Kong era. That's inevitable.
That doesn't mean gaming is dying. It just means we're past the point of saying "Wow, a white water rafting game? What a cool concept!", and instead, we've moved on to expecting amazing graphics and sound, plus smooth gameplay and an enjoyable/exciting experience - whether or not the concept itself was "done before".
After all, if you really like driving and racing, you'll probably buy *any* driving or racing game that looks like it's going to be fun to play. Heck, if they feature your favorite car (or at least a car you personally own), you'll probably buy it automatically.
Same goes for pretty much anything. If the general concept sounds good to you, then you'll probably consider the game for purchase. There's absolutely no requirement that it be truly "original".
No, the $20 trip charge is billed to a client the first time we arrive on site, no matter where they're located. (We're waived it maybe 2 times before, for people who happened to live just a mile or two from our office - but it's typically non-negotiable.)
That's to cover costs for wear and tear on the vehicle and gas/oil changes. Actually, last time I called a plumber out, I was billed a $45 trip charge, even though all the guy did was walk in and say "Nope, I can't fix your leaky faucet. You need a whole new one, and I don't have that model on my truck." So I fail to see why this is unreasonable?
I guess your customer base in Miami must be a little different than ours. I find that putting up with annoying people often gets me a long-term benefit in the way of referrals. (Again, this probably correlates with my original theory that some of the biggest jerks out there control the majority of the money - because they're owners of businesses and/or influential people in the business world.) If I tell someone I refuse to work with them anymore unless X or Y changes, they might change for me - but you can bet they're not clamoring to hand out my business cards to all of their associates, eithe.r
You know, I really *want* to say I agree with you, but I'm running into endless frustration with glitches in my PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz tower at the moment.
In the world of PCs, Dell has pretty consistently come out at the top of the pack - so bashing their quality isn't really fair, IMHO. If you want to do that, there are SO many other PC vendors you could make a better case for. Try Gateway, or eMachines, or Sony's Vaio line of laptops maybe? But Dell? They're FAR from perfect, but better than most.
Back to my G5 woes for a minute, though.... My system constantly freezes up when running games. I suspect it will do the same for anything using openGL type graphics, actually - but games happen to be the easiest way to reproduce the issue for me right now. Anyway, because the system keeps passing all the hardware tests, and will sit and run for days on end when you're not launching a game like Halo, UT2003, Jedi Knight, NASCAR 2003, etc. -- Apple isn't being real helpful.
Under the circumstances, I'm 95% certain I'm just dealing with a faulty ATI Radeon 9600 Pro video card here - but I can't get a soul at Apple to mail me a replacement card to test out that theory. Instead, they charged me $49.95 just to talk to them on the phone about the issue and "troubleshoot". They didn't tell me anything I didn't already try, and basically made me feel "second rate" simply because I was talking about games freezing it up. "Well sir, GAMES are typically buggy and crash on ANY computer. Are you having any problems in any of our business applications?" (No, dumbass - Quickbooks for Mac just doesn't stress the G5's multimedia capabilities, ok?!)
After going through 2 different tech support people, I was more or less told there's no way Apple will EVER just ship me out a replacement card - and I have to drag the whole thing into my local Apple store and let them keep it for a while, to determine if a part like that is needed.
If you've ever lugged a G5 through a crowded shopping mall to the Apple store in the middle of the mall on the 2nd. floor - you'll know why this is less than convenient.
I have to say, if this was my old Dell, I might have to deal with some level 1 phone support moron for 20 or 30 minutes first, but they'd overnight me a new video card without nearly this much hassle, and even provide a postage paid return mailer for the old one.
That's always been a thought. But when you're trying to build up a buisness, soaking people with large bills isn't really a good way to guarantee repeat customers.
Right now, we bill at $75/hr. with a $20 trip charge. Here in the midwest, that seems to be roughly average for on-site PC service. (Well, probably, we're about $10/hr. below many competitors, which is about where we want to be if we want the business of the people who call around for the "best quote".)
I do enough work for retired folks on fixed incomes and the like that I don't think charging more would be beneficial right now. (Sure, there are people I'd love to charge double the rate to, but we do have published rates....)
Ok then, but when do we "change course" and decide that money *is* best spent on space exploration? After our planet is in really bad shape and most of us living here want to live on another planet? (If and when we reach that point, I'm thinking it's too late to start looking into moving mass quantities of people onto a habitat on Mars or some other planet.)
My point is, sure - Bush is probably saying all of this because he's motivated by creating a legacy. Does that mean our initial achievement of putting a man on the moon was worthless, because President Kennedy had similar ideas in his head when that was done?
Presidents aren't scientists or researchers. They're never going to have the same reasons for doing what they do.... The important thing is that useful research gets done, and people advance in knowledge and ability as times goes on.
I read the "Wrong Stuff" article, and there are valid points in it. But at the same time, it occurs to me that spending money to send computerized, unmanned probes and rockets all over the galaxy has limited usefulness too. Sure, we can get back some pretty pictures, and if we cross our fingers and hope every little detail was properly planned in advance, the craft will perform a few preset tasks for us. But right now, we have no substitute for human intelligence and adaptability. If plans change or something isn't quite right, you can talk to a human on the radio and say "Hey Jim, how about we try this instead of plan A?" That option's not often there with an unmanned probe, or some rocket with a chimp in it.
Not only that, but we still won't be ready for the most sensible long-term goal of all... colonizing another planet, if we haven't worked with live, human missions for years first.
I'm generally in agreement with your post, but only 24% of the wealthy population got wealthy through hard work/taking risks/living below their means? That doesn't say much for the wealthy, IMHO. I'd really be interested in the breakdown for the remaining 76% of the wealthy!
Quite frankly, despite my repeated attempts to remain optimistic about my work - this is one of the things that always brings me down again.... I really want to believe that hard work and a job done the best you can do eventually brings reward. But it looks like more often than not, the people who have/control the majority of the money got there just by being in the "right place at the right time" (inheritances, for example - or getting lucky in a huge stock rally and selling out at the right time). Others got there by using/abusing everyone they could along the way.
Not a day goes by in my current job (trying to make a small on-site PC and Mac support/service business work) that I don't give it my all. (It's what I really love to do.) But usually, I end up doing work for rather thankless folks who have more money than I'll ever really dream of having - and it's rare that I'm under the impression they attained their wealth through their sheer hard work and sacrifice.
Yep... Honestly, I have to say I lean towards the "Who cares about Adobe, anyway!?" camp. Frankly, they strike me as a little bit too arrogant for their own good in recent years.
Basically, Adobe is a company that developed several "standards" that everyone uses today, so they seem to think that warrants perpetual allegiance to their product line, no matter what the price or who the competitors are. When the competition gets too stiff for them, they just drop a product rather than compete.
The Mac community probably holds Adobe in higher regard than anyone else, simply because there aren't as many "big name" apps for a Macintosh, and products like Photoshop really helped define the reasons many folks bought their Macs in the first place.
But as both a Mac and a PC owner myself, I think Adobe's product line looks less and less enticing as years go by. Right now, the strongest card in their deck is probably their desktop publishing package. But even there, they "shine" primarily because Quark dropped the ball and took so LONG to finally release a QuarkXpress update for OS X, followed by pricing it too high and having too many copy protection hassles incorporated in it.
Most Photoshop users I see are getting the most usefulness out of 3rd. party plug-ins to the product. (And on the PC, many people can use Paint Shop Pro to fill 99% of their photo editing needs at a much lower price.) Plenty of cheap (or FREE) alternatives now exist to create PDF files from documents created in just about any application. For web development, Adobe GoLive is "ok" for some people, but many others could buy more suitable products for the job with that $395 or so it costs. We all see what happened to their video editing product already.... So that leave what "killer app" from them? Illustrator, maybe?
The FBI seems to base everything on theoretical "dollars lost". Being an open-source, free project - there's no easy way to claim the Gnome developers lost X number of dollars due to the break-in. Therefore, the FBI is uninterested.
Yep - I never meant to imply that this was a bad way of thinking... Only that Novell realizes the validity of the argument, so they're not being too quick to phase out the traditional Netware kernel code.
Of course, when you're talking about Microsoft products, you see the tendency for enterprises to upgrade with each new version, primarily because they *pre-paid* for those upgrades when they purchased "software assurance". IMHO, that's one of the biggest scams in software sales today. Pressure the consumer with the threat of paying "far more for the same product if you buy it later", so they pay for non-existant updates in advance. Then, they feel compelled to use all the updates that come out - because not doing so is "wasting the money spent on software assurance".
Actually, Novell's "Groupwise" software really helps keep the whole server product viable - IMHO.
If you've ever used Groupwise in a Novell Netware environment, it's pretty comparable to what you can do with MS Outlook (and we all know how many people put up with costly, unreliable Exchange servers just because they "can't live without" their Outlook).
They also have lots of remote deployment/desktop upgrade type functionality.
So IMHO, they've got very strong, valid reasons to be considered instead of going the more popular Microsoft route (with SMS, Exchange/Outlook, etc.). They just haven't done the advertising needed to keep people aware of what they offer in the current version of Netware....
I just attended a "computer professionals" meeting here in St. Louis, where a Novell rep. gave a presentation on Novell's product line and roadmap for the future.
As I understand it, the next version of Netware is going to give users the option to install with a traditional Novell kernel at the core of it, or alternately, a Linux kernel.
We asked him why they didn't just "go all the way" and turn Netware into a "value added layer" on top of Linux, rather than bothering with continued support of the old Netware kernel.
Basically, he said that *could* happen in the distant (5+ years away) future - but currently, the old kernel is considered by many to be "robust" and "tried and true", so they'd be hesitant to switch to a Linux kernel in the short term future. Still too many enterprise customers with a "If it works, why change it?" mentality...
In any case, I think Linux may breathe some new life into the Novell Netware line - rather than phase it out. Novell seems interested in such things as the ability to plug in Linux-based additions to Netware, rather than having only.NLM modules written specifically for Netware as options. (EG. Novell shops could turn servers into such things as SQL database servers as well as just file/print servers, without resorting to purchasing additional boxes to do it.)
I wouldn't toss the CNE out as "worthless" just yet. It may enjoy a small resurgence in usefulness, if Novell plays their cards right.
Heh.... That reminds me of something. Years ago, I worked at a small computer store that received a bunch of free Intel marketing material. We were all given "Intel Inside" tie-tacks and rectangular buttons that said "Intel Inside - Ask me about it!"
I never did wear them while I worked there, but I hung onto them. Later, I got a job working at a shop that refurbished older Macs - so I took out the buttons and occasionally wore them there. People would give me strange looks, and say "Intel Inside? But you're a Mac shop, right?" Then, I'd say "Why yes. But since you're asking about it, I don't recommend them at all!":)
Is this really going to change the "big picture"?
on
AT&T Labs' Brain Drain
·
· Score: 1
It occurs to me that researchers of this caliber shouldn't have any problems finding new jobs.
If AT&T no longer thinks it's economically feasible to run an "R&D powerhouse" - that doesn't mean the concept itself is dead or dying.
I'm told 3M is one such company, that does lots of "pure research" in order to come up with new products. Of course, IBM and Microsoft are mentioned - because they're already known to do this and have deep pockets. But R&D is the key to long term advancement of ANY business.
Apple surely knows this, and I think it's fair to say all of the major auto-makers do too. (After all, who do you think designs and builds all the concept cars you see at the auto shows?)
All this signifies, in my mind, is a shift in *where* innovations and new patented ideas/products come from. Perhaps AT&T labs' decline should have been forseen as long ago as the Bell breakup, really. The torch is simply changing hands.
Yeah, you make a valid point that the next step would have been going back to the courts to complain about the judgement going unpaid.
But you don't find it believable that people at SBC would alter your bill in retaliation?
I'm sure it happens more often than you'd think. While SBC makes it incredibly tough for employees to add new services to an existing line (upgrading your DSL to a faster speed, for example, requires approval of several levels of people), it's shockingly *easy* for 3rd. parties to add charges to a monthly phone bill.
Anyone can create a bogus "shell" company that claims to provide long distance services, and proceed to bill customers for usage. It's part of SBC's job to pass these 3rd. party telco charges along on your statement - and good luck getting them removed if they're incorrect!
I've known several people (and companies) that had this happen to them before. Sometimes, people even call pretending to be a well-known service like Sprint, when in reality, they're just a Sprint reseller who tacks a big profit margin onto Sprint's normal rates. Sure, they give you "Sprint" long distance, but not at Sprint's normal prices.
A dishonest employee could easily find some way to mess up your phone bill, without resorting to the difficult-to-implement method of upgrading the services you already pay for on your line. It only takes a few seconds to check-mark a few things in the computer and you might be paying a monthly "line maintenance fee" you never requested, or a change to your preferred long distance calling plan that costs you many $'s more than before.
IMHO, there's a GOOD reason why the hardware router guys are pushing you to the "professional $200+ lineup" for these needs. They're "professional level" uses of the firewall product.
If you're so cheap, you can't see spending $200-250 or so for a hardware firewall/router product to protect your developmental web/database server - then the product you're developing must not be of much value to you?
Honestly, if money is really too tight and $200 is too much to spend on security, I'd look at Linux-based solutions running on an older, dedicated PC. I've seen several really nice firewall products you can download free ISO images of and burn to a CDR install disc, for non-commercial use. I'd feel much safer having my firewall on a seperate, dedicated box than running as a service on my desktop (where it's impacting my CPU and RAM usage, too).
I wish I still saved a quote I read at the end of a message post from a while back. Basically, it was a rant on the degeneration of society, and how today's kids are disrespectful, etc. Only thing is, the quote came from ancient Greece.
I think it's easy to look around us and make blanket statements about how bad things are getting, without realizing that society's perceived "issues" today are quite similar to what they've been since the dawn of time.
The only things that change are the details. (EG. 75 years ago, a woman was considered "indecent" if she went out in public wearing pants cut above the knee. Today, she'd have to wear much less than that to shock anyone. However, go back far enough in time, and you can find situations where complete nudity in some public situations was perfectly acceptable and normal.)
Personally, I find it a bit ironic that we're collectively so upset over Janet Jackson's incident at the Superbowl, yet we're perfectly fine with the concepts behind the game itself. (As I recall, many Chrisitan religions refer to the human body as the "temple of God" and claim it's wrong/immoral to purposefully cause injury/harm to it.) Even the completely non-religious could surely question the sanity and society's valuing making a sport out of slamming guys into each other, tackling each other, and so forth. After all, we have plenty of other sports that revolve around the same basic idea; get a ball from one side of a playing field to the other. Purposely trying to injure each other doesn't seem like a necessity.
Actually, I could see Microsoft buying out AOL and it being a sensible business move.
The thing is, they wouldn't be running both AOL and MSN simultaneously. What they'd be paying for is the existing AOL customer base, which they'd then be able to migrate over to their service. (There are a number of ways this could be accomplished, but an "optimal" method might be creating a new "AOL 10" type CD that asks users if they'd prefer the "old AOL style" front-end, or just a direct connection to the Internet without it. This new CD could be modified to connect to MSN's existing phone numbers or gateways, allowing Microsoft to slowly phase out and sell off the hardware they obtained from the AOL purchase.)
As it stands, MSN competes pretty directly with AOL. (The "rest of us" don't generally consider either one a viable option for our internet needs.) If they absorb AOL, they might have enough customers to make it profitable.
Absolutely! And wasn't it just a couple days ago, judges *again* ordered the Dept. of the Interior web sites be shut down due to security issues? What makes people think this CAPS II computer database is going to be so secure that there won't be problems of hackers getting in and modifying data in it?
It seems to me it wouldn't be that difficult for someone to "green light" a few marked individuals by hacking into the system, so those people could then get on a plane for terrorist purposes. (Or for that matter, one could get "revenge" on an enemy by making sure they get red flagged in the system, to harass them when they attempt to fly.)
Scarcely a month goes by that we don't get at least one news story of hackers stealing massive numbers of credit cards from someone's e-commerce server.
At the risk of going out on a limb and getting labeled "sexist!", I'm going to (hesitatingly) share my own experiences.
While it's true that, often, women complain about being treated as "unknowledgeable" or "stupid" by sales or tech. support staff - it's also true that generally, they're not very "technically inclined".
I think what most women really want is to be able to go in and make a purchase, or ask questions, and not be made to *feel* stupid or unknowledgeable - no matter what their actual level of knowledge of the product is.
In other words, don't talk down to them - or arbitrarily decide the woman "isn't interested" in a particular feature, when explaining a product.
It's exceedingly rare when I run across a woman who honestly fully understands and cares about all the small, technical details of a product (such as a printer). That doesn't mean they want you to ignore having that discussion with them about the 1440DPI resolution capability of a new inkjet. It just means you're expected to explain what that really is ("DPI stands for dots per inch, and it refers to how many dots the inkjet printer can make on an inch of paper"), without acting like they're clueless for not knowing that in advance.
Actually, this was a huge issue with the "Home Shopping Network" type shows on cable and satellite TV, long before Internet "spam" existed.
I recall reading stories of people who had homes filled from floor to ceiling with boxes, almost all still unopened, ordered from these TV networks. In fact, folks with this disorder probably account for a surprisingly large portion of these station's sales of goods - so it's little wonder the media hasn't done more to make people aware of it.
On the other hand, I've done my share of flea market sales, and I can assure you that the vast majority of these "bargain hunter" shoppers simply get a thrill out of finding a "deal" on items. It's almost a sport or hobby for them. Typically, they make decent money, or they're retired with plenty of income (investments, pensions, etc.), and the amount they spend on needless shopping doesn't put that much of a dent in their total income.
Just like some folks like to spend $50 or so at the bar on a weekend, or spend it on dinner and movie for entertainment value - these people like to blow a little cash on their flea market or online bargain hunts.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I can't personally say I really agree. Connectivity is a must for today's fast-paced business. But high-speed wireless connectivity at high prices? Count me out.
I already have to shell out close to $100 per month for my cellular service, but that gives me the *voice* communications I *need* to do business, plus the ability to get online at a slower speed to send/receive short messages, or look something up on the net.
For me, that's really good enough. DSL gives me plenty of bandwidth for around $30 per month when I'm at home. A similar arrangement does the trick at the office. Why spend another $80 per month for a high speed connection when I'm between those points and a customer site?
Your points all have some validity, but IMHO, OS/2 *primarily* failed because the owners of the OS (IBM) refused to take it very seriously.
It's pretty hard get people to trust in a software product that the publisher themself only half-heartedly supports!
Plenty of IBM machines were sold without an option of getting OS/2 pre-loaded on them, and by the time important additions were put in Warp (v4.0 "Merlin"), IBM practically stopped advertising it.
Practically everyone I knew who really tried OS/2 liked the GUI and the features in it. They also strongly *disliked* having to run Windows apps inside it. The goal always seemed to be "get everything in native 32-bit OS/2 code if possible". I don't think Microsoft changing the APIs really sunk OS/2 (though it certainly didn't help matters). The larger problem was always the feeling that IBM was about to pull the rug out from under the whole thing and render the OS obsolete. Driver support was "iffy", anyway, and nobody wanted to be stuck with an operating system that couldn't work with their new digital camera, scanner, copier/printer/fax, or what-have-you.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the iApps aren't new ideas - but similar to Microsoft's Office suite, they provide a way to tie all the pieces together, cohesively.
When Excel first came out, spreadsheets weren't new ideas either. The "magic" was largely in the way it interacted (via OLE) with Word and Powerpoint. Change some data in your spreadsheet, and that chart you pasted into Powerpoint could automatically update itself to reflect the new values. Couple that functionality with a consistent interface across all the related applications, and the fact that they were fairly "usable" programs in their own right, and you had a smash hit.
Until Apple did the iApps, I don't think anyone was really trying to build a suite of media tools that worked together. As a Windows user using iTunes, of course, you're not seeing the whole picture. But on a Mac, it all comes together pretty seamlessly. If you want to create a slideshow of your photos stored in iPhoto, you can select background music right from iTunes playlists, use transitions and special effects from iMovie, and then tell iDVD to make a DVD disc of the results, complete with your own customized, on-screen menus. Heck, the music you created yourself using "Garageband" in the iLife '04 suite can automatically go into iTunes too, so that might be part of said slideshow.
Apple marketing is always "over the top", but that's no different than any of the other players in the marketplace. Certainly, Apple hasn't said anything more of a stretch than Intel's carrying on about the Pentium 4 giving you a "richer, fuller Internet experience".
Yep - I agree completely. Really, the current situation for television is a few conglomerates with the money, deciding what programs should be created, taped, and aired. All in all, they've done a pretty good job (since, after all, that's how they got the money in the first place).
The thing is, that can easily change - and it will, if enough people decide TV isn't a worthwhile medium anymore.
I think today's television suffers from a lack of creativity, primarily. The shows in the sci-fi genre are the most common exceptions to the rule, and that's why so many of them develop rabid, cult followings. But these only appeal to a small segment of society (hard to imagine as it is being a Slashdot reader, most people aren't into "geek" or "high tech" things). The only really good, original idea they've had in the last 5 years or so, other than sci-fi related shows, was the concept of "reality TV". They've milked that for all it's worth - and it's pretty well burnt out.
(I think a good indicator of a dying TV concept is the introduction of as many sexual themes as possible. This is always a sign they're desperate for more viewers. Therefore, you have new reality TV shows springing up that are all centered around relationships, cheating, and sex.)
In some ways, I think the future of TV might be "low budget". Some of the more interesting (or at least humorous) programming I've seen on cable and satellite has been low-budget amateur productions shown on regional access channels.
The big-name TV stars are mainly concentrating on using their jobs as launch-pads to a movie career, where it seems like the better quality scripts and ideas go anyway.
The really fun stuff to watch may turn out to be produced by your neighbor down the street who loves doing interviews and making documentaries with his camcorder, as opposed to the latest sitcom cranked out by stars demanding 17 million per episode.
It's certainly part of the "Apple curse" that anything they build will get attacked by some members of the PC community, claiming it's only "liked because Apple fanatics praise everything the company does".
IMHO though, this just strikes me as jealousy. (Wow - someone actually has a business that's so well liked by their customers that they're excited whenever they release a new product?! That's just not right! We have to tear that down A.S.A.P.!)
The fact is, I *rarely* meet a non Apple user who doesn't at least say "Wow, that really is a nice app/feature/design!" if they really sit down and give the products and software a good look.
The Apple "iApps" are a prime example of this. The point isn't that you can't find flaws in them if you try hard enough. (The new iPhoto, for example, has a bug where photo previews often look blurry... Clicking away from one and back onto it again sometimes makes it snap into focus. Annoying!) But *overall*, they give users a usable, clean interface that's hard to describe as anything but "sensible".
Even if you don't personally like the way iTunes organizes your music library, the point is - it DOES organize it for you. Not every program does this, you know. It lets you create custom playlists based on all sorts of criteria, has the ability to cross-fade the end of one track into the start of the next (nice for playing MP3 songs ripped from "live" albums where normally, you hear a sharp cutoff when the audience is clapping at the end of a song), has easy, *built-in* ability to write to CD (as music or data format), and lots of other good stuff you want in a player. Plus, it's free.
It seems rather obvious to me that the ratio of "original game ideas to sequels/rehashes" would change over time. When the gaming industry was still just getting started, most ideas were fresh and original. After a while, most scenarios you could think of had already been simulated, and thousands and thousands of fantasy/sci-fi type concepts were rendered into games.
So yes, we're seeing much less "new, original" material now than in the Pac-Man and Donkey Kong era. That's inevitable.
That doesn't mean gaming is dying. It just means we're past the point of saying "Wow, a white water rafting game? What a cool concept!", and instead, we've moved on to expecting amazing graphics and sound, plus smooth gameplay and an enjoyable/exciting experience - whether or not the concept itself was "done before".
After all, if you really like driving and racing, you'll probably buy *any* driving or racing game that looks like it's going to be fun to play. Heck, if they feature your favorite car (or at least a car you personally own), you'll probably buy it automatically.
Same goes for pretty much anything. If the general concept sounds good to you, then you'll probably consider the game for purchase. There's absolutely no requirement that it be truly "original".
No, the $20 trip charge is billed to a client the first time we arrive on site, no matter where they're located. (We're waived it maybe 2 times before, for people who happened to live just a mile or two from our office - but it's typically non-negotiable.)
That's to cover costs for wear and tear on the vehicle and gas/oil changes. Actually, last time I called a plumber out, I was billed a $45 trip charge, even though all the guy did was walk in and say "Nope, I can't fix your leaky faucet. You need a whole new one, and I don't have that model on my truck." So I fail to see why this is unreasonable?
I guess your customer base in Miami must be a little different than ours. I find that putting up with annoying people often gets me a long-term benefit in the way of referrals. (Again, this probably correlates with my original theory that some of the biggest jerks out there control the majority of the money - because they're owners of businesses and/or influential people in the business world.) If I tell someone I refuse to work with them anymore unless X or Y changes, they might change for me - but you can bet they're not clamoring to hand out my business cards to all of their associates, eithe.r
You know, I really *want* to say I agree with you, but I'm running into endless frustration with glitches in my PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz tower at the moment.
In the world of PCs, Dell has pretty consistently come out at the top of the pack - so bashing their quality isn't really fair, IMHO. If you want to do that, there are SO many other PC vendors you could make a better case for. Try Gateway, or eMachines, or Sony's Vaio line of laptops maybe? But Dell? They're FAR from perfect, but better than most.
Back to my G5 woes for a minute, though.... My system constantly freezes up when running games. I suspect it will do the same for anything using openGL type graphics, actually - but games happen to be the easiest way to reproduce the issue for me right now. Anyway, because the system keeps passing all the hardware tests, and will sit and run for days on end when you're not launching a game like Halo, UT2003, Jedi Knight, NASCAR 2003, etc. -- Apple isn't being real helpful.
Under the circumstances, I'm 95% certain I'm just dealing with a faulty ATI Radeon 9600 Pro video card here - but I can't get a soul at Apple to mail me a replacement card to test out that theory. Instead, they charged me $49.95 just to talk to them on the phone about the issue and "troubleshoot". They didn't tell me anything I didn't already try, and basically made me feel "second rate" simply because I was talking about games freezing it up. "Well sir, GAMES are typically buggy and crash on ANY computer. Are you having any problems in any of our business applications?" (No, dumbass - Quickbooks for Mac just doesn't stress the G5's multimedia capabilities, ok?!)
After going through 2 different tech support people, I was more or less told there's no way Apple will EVER just ship me out a replacement card - and I have to drag the whole thing into my local Apple store and let them keep it for a while, to determine if a part like that is needed.
If you've ever lugged a G5 through a crowded shopping mall to the Apple store in the middle of the mall on the 2nd. floor - you'll know why this is less than convenient.
I have to say, if this was my old Dell, I might have to deal with some level 1 phone support moron for 20 or 30 minutes first, but they'd overnight me a new video card without nearly this much hassle, and even provide a postage paid return mailer for the old one.
That's always been a thought. But when you're trying to build up a buisness, soaking people with large bills isn't really a good way to guarantee repeat customers.
Right now, we bill at $75/hr. with a $20 trip charge. Here in the midwest, that seems to be roughly average for on-site PC service. (Well, probably, we're about $10/hr. below many competitors, which is about where we want to be if we want the business of the people who call around for the "best quote".)
I do enough work for retired folks on fixed incomes and the like that I don't think charging more would be beneficial right now. (Sure, there are people I'd love to charge double the rate to, but we do have published rates....)
Ok then, but when do we "change course" and decide that money *is* best spent on space exploration? After our planet is in really bad shape and most of us living here want to live on another planet? (If and when we reach that point, I'm thinking it's too late to start looking into moving mass quantities of people onto a habitat on Mars or some other planet.)
My point is, sure - Bush is probably saying all of this because he's motivated by creating a legacy. Does that mean our initial achievement of putting a man on the moon was worthless, because President Kennedy had similar ideas in his head when that was done?
Presidents aren't scientists or researchers. They're never going to have the same reasons for doing what they do.... The important thing is that useful research gets done, and people advance in knowledge and ability as times goes on.
I read the "Wrong Stuff" article, and there are valid points in it. But at the same time, it occurs to me that spending money to send computerized, unmanned probes and rockets all over the galaxy has limited usefulness too. Sure, we can get back some pretty pictures, and if we cross our fingers and hope every little detail was properly planned in advance, the craft will perform a few preset tasks for us. But right now, we have no substitute for human intelligence and adaptability. If plans change or something isn't quite right, you can talk to a human on the radio and say "Hey Jim, how about we try this instead of plan A?" That option's not often there with an unmanned probe, or some rocket with a chimp in it.
Not only that, but we still won't be ready for the most sensible long-term goal of all... colonizing another planet, if we haven't worked with live, human missions for years first.
I'm generally in agreement with your post, but only 24% of the wealthy population got wealthy through hard work/taking risks/living below their means? That doesn't say much for the wealthy, IMHO. I'd really be interested in the breakdown for the remaining 76% of the wealthy!
Quite frankly, despite my repeated attempts to remain optimistic about my work - this is one of the things that always brings me down again.... I really want to believe that hard work and a job done the best you can do eventually brings reward. But it looks like more often than not, the people who have/control the majority of the money got there just by being in the "right place at the right time" (inheritances, for example - or getting lucky in a huge stock rally and selling out at the right time). Others got there by using/abusing everyone they could along the way.
Not a day goes by in my current job (trying to make a small on-site PC and Mac support/service business work) that I don't give it my all. (It's what I really love to do.) But usually, I end up doing work for rather thankless folks who have more money than I'll ever really dream of having - and it's rare that I'm under the impression they attained their wealth through their sheer hard work and sacrifice.
Yep... Honestly, I have to say I lean towards the "Who cares about Adobe, anyway!?" camp. Frankly, they strike me as a little bit too arrogant for their own good in recent years.
Basically, Adobe is a company that developed several "standards" that everyone uses today, so they seem to think that warrants perpetual allegiance to their product line, no matter what the price or who the competitors are. When the competition gets too stiff for them, they just drop a product rather than compete.
The Mac community probably holds Adobe in higher regard than anyone else, simply because there aren't as many "big name" apps for a Macintosh, and products like Photoshop really helped define the reasons many folks bought their Macs in the first place.
But as both a Mac and a PC owner myself, I think Adobe's product line looks less and less enticing as years go by. Right now, the strongest card in their deck is probably their desktop publishing package. But even there, they "shine" primarily because Quark dropped the ball and took so LONG to finally release a QuarkXpress update for OS X, followed by pricing it too high and having too many copy protection hassles incorporated in it.
Most Photoshop users I see are getting the most usefulness out of 3rd. party plug-ins to the product. (And on the PC, many people can use Paint Shop Pro to fill 99% of their photo editing needs at a much lower price.) Plenty of cheap (or FREE) alternatives now exist to create PDF files from documents created in just about any application. For web development, Adobe GoLive is "ok" for some people, but many others could buy more suitable products for the job with that $395 or so it costs. We all see what happened to their video editing product already.... So that leave what "killer app" from them? Illustrator, maybe?
The FBI seems to base everything on theoretical "dollars lost". Being an open-source, free project - there's no easy way to claim the Gnome developers lost X number of dollars due to the break-in. Therefore, the FBI is uninterested.
Yep - I never meant to imply that this was a bad way of thinking... Only that Novell realizes the validity of the argument, so they're not being too quick to phase out the traditional Netware kernel code.
Of course, when you're talking about Microsoft products, you see the tendency for enterprises to upgrade with each new version, primarily because they *pre-paid* for those upgrades when they purchased "software assurance". IMHO, that's one of the biggest scams in software sales today. Pressure the consumer with the threat of paying "far more for the same product if you buy it later", so they pay for non-existant updates in advance. Then, they feel compelled to use all the updates that come out - because not doing so is "wasting the money spent on software assurance".
Actually, Novell's "Groupwise" software really helps keep the whole server product viable - IMHO.
If you've ever used Groupwise in a Novell Netware environment, it's pretty comparable to what you can do with MS Outlook (and we all know how many people put up with costly, unreliable Exchange servers just because they "can't live without" their Outlook).
They also have lots of remote deployment/desktop upgrade type functionality.
So IMHO, they've got very strong, valid reasons to be considered instead of going the more popular Microsoft route (with SMS, Exchange/Outlook, etc.). They just haven't done the advertising needed to keep people aware of what they offer in the current version of Netware....
I just attended a "computer professionals" meeting here in St. Louis, where a Novell rep. gave a presentation on Novell's product line and roadmap for the future.
.NLM modules written specifically for Netware as options. (EG. Novell shops could turn servers into such things as SQL database servers as well as just file/print servers, without resorting to purchasing additional boxes to do it.)
As I understand it, the next version of Netware is going to give users the option to install with a traditional Novell kernel at the core of it, or alternately, a Linux kernel.
We asked him why they didn't just "go all the way" and turn Netware into a "value added layer" on top of Linux, rather than bothering with continued support of the old Netware kernel.
Basically, he said that *could* happen in the distant (5+ years away) future - but currently, the old kernel is considered by many to be "robust" and "tried and true", so they'd be hesitant to switch to a Linux kernel in the short term future. Still too many enterprise customers with a "If it works, why change it?" mentality...
In any case, I think Linux may breathe some new life into the Novell Netware line - rather than phase it out. Novell seems interested in such things as the ability to plug in Linux-based additions to Netware, rather than having only
I wouldn't toss the CNE out as "worthless" just yet. It may enjoy a small resurgence in usefulness, if Novell plays their cards right.
Heh.... That reminds me of something. Years ago, I worked at a small computer store that received a bunch of free Intel marketing material. We were all given "Intel Inside" tie-tacks and rectangular buttons that said "Intel Inside - Ask me about it!"
:)
I never did wear them while I worked there, but I hung onto them. Later, I got a job working at a shop that refurbished older Macs - so I took out the buttons and occasionally wore them there. People would give me strange looks, and say "Intel Inside? But you're a Mac shop, right?" Then, I'd say "Why yes. But since you're asking about it, I don't recommend them at all!"
It occurs to me that researchers of this caliber shouldn't have any problems finding new jobs.
If AT&T no longer thinks it's economically feasible to run an "R&D powerhouse" - that doesn't mean the concept itself is dead or dying.
I'm told 3M is one such company, that does lots of "pure research" in order to come up with new products. Of course, IBM and Microsoft are mentioned - because they're already known to do this and have deep pockets. But R&D is the key to long term advancement of ANY business.
Apple surely knows this, and I think it's fair to say all of the major auto-makers do too. (After all, who do you think designs and builds all the concept cars you see at the auto shows?)
All this signifies, in my mind, is a shift in *where* innovations and new patented ideas/products come from. Perhaps AT&T labs' decline should have been forseen as long ago as the Bell breakup, really. The torch is simply changing hands.
Yeah, you make a valid point that the next step would have been going back to the courts to complain about the judgement going unpaid.
But you don't find it believable that people at SBC would alter your bill in retaliation?
I'm sure it happens more often than you'd think. While SBC makes it incredibly tough for employees to add new services to an existing line (upgrading your DSL to a faster speed, for example, requires approval of several levels of people), it's shockingly *easy* for 3rd. parties to add charges to a monthly phone bill.
Anyone can create a bogus "shell" company that claims to provide long distance services, and proceed to bill customers for usage. It's part of SBC's job to pass these 3rd. party telco charges along on your statement - and good luck getting them removed if they're incorrect!
I've known several people (and companies) that had this happen to them before. Sometimes, people even call pretending to be a well-known service like Sprint, when in reality, they're just a Sprint reseller who tacks a big profit margin onto Sprint's normal rates. Sure, they give you "Sprint" long distance, but not at Sprint's normal prices.
A dishonest employee could easily find some way to mess up your phone bill, without resorting to the difficult-to-implement method of upgrading the services you already pay for on your line. It only takes a few seconds to check-mark a few things in the computer and you might be paying a monthly "line maintenance fee" you never requested, or a change to your preferred long distance calling plan that costs you many $'s more than before.
IMHO, there's a GOOD reason why the hardware router guys are pushing you to the "professional $200+ lineup" for these needs. They're "professional level" uses of the firewall product.
If you're so cheap, you can't see spending $200-250 or so for a hardware firewall/router product to protect your developmental web/database server - then the product you're developing must not be of much value to you?
Honestly, if money is really too tight and $200 is too much to spend on security, I'd look at Linux-based solutions running on an older, dedicated PC. I've seen several really nice firewall products you can download free ISO images of and burn to a CDR install disc, for non-commercial use. I'd feel much safer having my firewall on a seperate, dedicated box than running as a service on my desktop (where it's impacting my CPU and RAM usage, too).
I wish I still saved a quote I read at the end of a message post from a while back. Basically, it was a rant on the degeneration of society, and how today's kids are disrespectful, etc. Only thing is, the quote came from ancient Greece.
I think it's easy to look around us and make blanket statements about how bad things are getting, without realizing that society's perceived "issues" today are quite similar to what they've been since the dawn of time.
The only things that change are the details. (EG. 75 years ago, a woman was considered "indecent" if she went out in public wearing pants cut above the knee. Today, she'd have to wear much less than that to shock anyone. However, go back far enough in time, and you can find situations where complete nudity in some public situations was perfectly acceptable and normal.)
Personally, I find it a bit ironic that we're collectively so upset over Janet Jackson's incident at the Superbowl, yet we're perfectly fine with the concepts behind the game itself. (As I recall, many Chrisitan religions refer to the human body as the "temple of God" and claim it's wrong/immoral to purposefully cause injury/harm to it.) Even the completely non-religious could surely question the sanity and society's valuing making a sport out of slamming guys into each other, tackling each other, and so forth. After all, we have plenty of other sports that revolve around the same basic idea; get a ball from one side of a playing field to the other. Purposely trying to injure each other doesn't seem like a necessity.
Actually, I could see Microsoft buying out AOL and it being a sensible business move.
The thing is, they wouldn't be running both AOL and MSN simultaneously. What they'd be paying for is the existing AOL customer base, which they'd then be able to migrate over to their service. (There are a number of ways this could be accomplished, but an "optimal" method might be creating a new "AOL 10" type CD that asks users if they'd prefer the "old AOL style" front-end, or just a direct connection to the Internet without it. This new CD could be modified to connect to MSN's existing phone numbers or gateways, allowing Microsoft to slowly phase out and sell off the hardware they obtained from the AOL purchase.)
As it stands, MSN competes pretty directly with AOL. (The "rest of us" don't generally consider either one a viable option for our internet needs.) If they absorb AOL, they might have enough customers to make it profitable.
Absolutely! And wasn't it just a couple days ago, judges *again* ordered the Dept. of the Interior web sites be shut down due to security issues? What makes people think this CAPS II computer database is going to be so secure that there won't be problems of hackers getting in and modifying data in it?
It seems to me it wouldn't be that difficult for someone to "green light" a few marked individuals by hacking into the system, so those people could then get on a plane for terrorist purposes. (Or for that matter, one could get "revenge" on an enemy by making sure they get red flagged in the system, to harass them when they attempt to fly.)
Scarcely a month goes by that we don't get at least one news story of hackers stealing massive numbers of credit cards from someone's e-commerce server.
At the risk of going out on a limb and getting labeled "sexist!", I'm going to (hesitatingly) share my own experiences.
While it's true that, often, women complain about being treated as "unknowledgeable" or "stupid" by sales or tech. support staff - it's also true that generally, they're not very "technically inclined".
I think what most women really want is to be able to go in and make a purchase, or ask questions, and not be made to *feel* stupid or unknowledgeable - no matter what their actual level of knowledge of the product is.
In other words, don't talk down to them - or arbitrarily decide the woman "isn't interested" in a particular feature, when explaining a product.
It's exceedingly rare when I run across a woman who honestly fully understands and cares about all the small, technical details of a product (such as a printer). That doesn't mean they want you to ignore having that discussion with them about the 1440DPI resolution capability of a new inkjet. It just means you're expected to explain what that really is ("DPI stands for dots per inch, and it refers to how many dots the inkjet printer can make on an inch of paper"), without acting like they're clueless for not knowing that in advance.
Actually, this was a huge issue with the "Home Shopping Network" type shows on cable and satellite TV, long before Internet "spam" existed.
I recall reading stories of people who had homes filled from floor to ceiling with boxes, almost all still unopened, ordered from these TV networks. In fact, folks with this disorder probably account for a surprisingly large portion of these station's sales of goods - so it's little wonder the media hasn't done more to make people aware of it.
On the other hand, I've done my share of flea market sales, and I can assure you that the vast majority of these "bargain hunter" shoppers simply get a thrill out of finding a "deal" on items. It's almost a sport or hobby for them. Typically, they make decent money, or they're retired with plenty of income (investments, pensions, etc.), and the amount they spend on needless shopping doesn't put that much of a dent in their total income.
Just like some folks like to spend $50 or so at the bar on a weekend, or spend it on dinner and movie for entertainment value - these people like to blow a little cash on their flea market or online bargain hunts.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I can't personally say I really agree. Connectivity is a must for today's fast-paced business. But high-speed wireless connectivity at high prices? Count me out.
I already have to shell out close to $100 per month for my cellular service, but that gives me the *voice* communications I *need* to do business, plus the ability to get online at a slower speed to send/receive short messages, or look something up on the net.
For me, that's really good enough. DSL gives me plenty of bandwidth for around $30 per month when I'm at home. A similar arrangement does the trick at the office. Why spend another $80 per month for a high speed connection when I'm between those points and a customer site?
Your points all have some validity, but IMHO, OS/2 *primarily* failed because the owners of the OS (IBM) refused to take it very seriously.
It's pretty hard get people to trust in a software product that the publisher themself only half-heartedly supports!
Plenty of IBM machines were sold without an option of getting OS/2 pre-loaded on them, and by the time important additions were put in Warp (v4.0 "Merlin"), IBM practically stopped advertising it.
Practically everyone I knew who really tried OS/2 liked the GUI and the features in it. They also strongly *disliked* having to run Windows apps inside it. The goal always seemed to be "get everything in native 32-bit OS/2 code if possible". I don't think Microsoft changing the APIs really sunk OS/2 (though it certainly didn't help matters). The larger problem was always the feeling that IBM was about to pull the rug out from under the whole thing and render the OS obsolete. Driver support was "iffy", anyway, and nobody wanted to be stuck with an operating system that couldn't work with their new digital camera, scanner, copier/printer/fax, or what-have-you.