I don't know that the cable providers are really trying to get "Network Specialists" to do the installs? I completely agree that times are changing, and today's installer is much more likely to be bringing the connection into a home for Internet service than for simply watching TV. But the median pay doesn't sound that out of line to me, for what I think they're really looking for -- which is someone capable of efficiently driving to customer locations and following some defined procedures to hook up the cable and attach the required equipment.
The real "Network Specialists" they'd pay a lot more for would be the guys working at the "back end" of the cable company, managing the large switches handling all the traffic going out to various neighborhoods and ensuring people aren't hacking a modem in some way to get more bandwidth than they paid for. Other back end workers would be responsible for such things as rolling out firmware upgrades to the cable modems or set-top boxes on their network, testing equipment that comes back in as defective or customer returns, and keeping on top of network outages.
Just because today's customer is more sophisticated and wants to attach 15 or 20 devices to their connection doesn't mean the INSTALLER is expected to assist with any of that. My personal experience with cable company troubleshooting of issues (such as intermittent connections) tells me that if anything, they'll ask you to disconnect the cable modem from everything else and troubleshoot with only one PC connected directly to it. They don't really understand, or WANT to understand all the other things you might be trying to do with it.
Truthfully, I think Apple might have made more money if they just sold annual subscriptions to download "all you want" from the App Store, for say, $99 or even $149. People would probably pay that happily, right along with the initial purchase, and even if they didn't renew after a year - I bet they'd get more that way than they made on them actually buying apps one at a time.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Many of these apps (whether they only cost $1 or not) demand a certain amount of interaction with the user. Perhaps you're trying to buy a program to act as a database of some sort, for some of your information? Or maybe you want, say, a program that makes your phone into a universal remote for some of your other devices? You're looking at sinking a lot of time into configuring said universal remote programs, or a lot of time inputting your data. If the program is defective after that, or simply doesn't deliver on what was promised -- the money you paid to download simply adds insult to injury. EG. Haha... you actually GAVE us a dollar to waste 4 hours screwing around with our broken app!
Another reason I don't like buying apps even at 99 cents when free alternatives exist isn't that I'm so bothered or pained to spend the small amount of money. It has to do with the DRM the paid apps are entangled in. If I get a free app, it's not truly attached to my Apple ID in a direct way. I can actually sync it onto someone else's iPhone or iPod or iPad and it'll work on there. As soon as I pay even a penny for the app though, it does a DRM check to ensure it won't install on a device that's not authorized with the ID that originally purchased it.
As another long-time Linux user, I can assure you Linux comes with PLENTY of strings attached. They may not be financial ones in the sense of requiring paid licenses to use the code, but users pay a considerable amount in time spent making it work the way they wish.
I'm not against the concept of freeware, mind you. In fact, I'd be among the first to agree that much of the software on the market is extremely overpriced. But regardless? To a point, there's usually an initial trade-off where you pay some money up-front for a commercial option, and in exchange, receive a piece of code that's had considerable effort made to ensure its user-friendliness.
Even in the Linux community, you see this by way of companies offering commercial versions of popular free applications (MySQL for example, or Apache). They aren't just saying the paid version costs because you're donating to the cause. They're advertising extras, such as a proprietary GUI control panel front-end or an implementation designed to plug in easily to another product.
Apple generally takes this to another level. You pay what I consider a fairly reasonable price for most of their software (the upgrade from OS X "Snow Leopard" to Lion only cost $29.99, and the upgrade before that from Leopard to Snow Leopard was similarly inexpensive... and people got a heck of a powerful music editing package for their $200 with a copy of Logic Express), and in return they give you what most people consider the easiest to use computers in the business.
I've been VERY interested in an Internet based set-top box solution for many years now. As someone who likes movies a lot, but DOESN'T watch almost any network TV (sitcoms, reality TV episodes, cop/crime dramas, etc.), I've never gotten my money's worth paying for monthly cable or satellite subscriptions. I do, however, already have a fast broadband connection that I use enough to justify its monthly expense. Therefore, one of these boxes and a cheap subscription to something like Netflix streaming would appear to be ideal.
Unfortunately, whether it's XBMC, Boxee, AppleTV, or you-name-it? ALL of the current solutions are incomplete, primarily because the broadcasters and movie industry still isn't ready to fully embrace the digital age. As much as we all like to slam the recording industry for their backwards ways, it's an odd fact that they're probably the first of the bunch to come to grips with reality and co-operate with the change to digital media distribution. (Heck, they even want to give the late Steve Jobs a Grammy for iTunes!) Right now, the book publishers, for example, are years behind the record labels -- still fighting to keep public libraries from lending out some of their material via e-readers, pricing periodicals downloaded digitally at too high a price, snubbing authors who opt to publish digitally with companies like Amazon, etc. etc.
The movie and broadcast industry are in a similar place... still desperately clinging onto a dying business model. The public wants/expects on-demand streaming of the video content they'd like to watch, when they want to view it. The industry wants/expects viewers to go out and purchase the content one show or movie at a time on physical plastic platters (DVDs), or alternately, to pay monthly for pre-selected content to constantly stream in over a cable or satellite link and artificial limitations be placed on the recording or copying of said content.
Until this changes, we keep seeing a cat and mouse game; networks trying to block the viewing of their available web content when using a GoogleTV, constant update patches required for Plex so it can continue to "scrape" popular web sites for info on downloaded movies or TV shows properly, artificial limitations placed on which devices can and can't view Hulu's content, etc.
In fact, I heard rumors that the AppleTV even had to deal with a Netflix vs. Hulu spat where Apple was forced to pick one, because they refused to BOTH be offered as options on the unit together.
I can understand Boxee's move, if they really feel they can make the Boxee box a better product by focusing strictly on it, vs. trying to support all sorts of other misc. PC hardware out there. But it's a risky move, IMO, from the standpoint that competitors like Plex seem to offer essentially all of the same functions and features, but are working deals so they come pre-installed on new TV sets out of the box, as well as $5 software downloads for GoogleTV bases products AND free downloads for Macs or PCs. What can Boxee do to differentiate themselves enough so people will still buy their proprietary set-top box?
I have to disagree. Even as someone who doesn't do a whole lot with my Apple iPad compared to time spent on a full-blown desktop computer, it's incorrect to say tablets aren't very useful for the general public!
The very reasons I find one less useful are the reasons I'm not really part of the "general public" demographic of users in the first place.
Most people I know (including my boss and his wife, who both bought iPads and absolutely LOVE them, despite having no prior interest in Apple or their products) simply wanted a device that makes checking email, playing "casual games" (crossword puzzles, Scrabble type games, etc.) and general web surfing easy, while providing long battery life and a small enough form-factor so it doesn't require some sort of carrying case or bag with handles just to lug it around from place to place.
Unlike a laptop or even netbook, it's also ideal for use when lying down in bed, making it a suitable e-reader. (Lots of people like to read books in bed.)
The reason the "other guys" aren't posting great sales figures likely has a lot to do with the market already being saturated with Apple iPads! They had the only option for one on the market for a good year or so before anything appeared resembling decent competition. And even now, the fact they're pretty much the original tablet success story means their App Store has a better selection of software in it than the others -- ensuring more momentum.
It's disingenuous to write them off as only selling well because "Apple is a religion to people". Just as many people I've met are die-hard Android/open source fans, yet tablets running their OS aren't making much of a dent in market-share.
having been the victim of a smash and grab myself (stole my GPS unit when I parked in a small public lot and went into a Qdoba Grill for about 5 minutes to pick up a meal to go), I'd say one of the best things you can do is make it appear there's absolutely nothing in your car or truck.
Most smash and grab thieves are looking through the windows of the vehicles they pass by for *anything* they think they might want to take and get a few dollars from. Spare coins sitting in an ashtray that's opened partially? Yep, enough reason to smash and grab! (They did it to my younger brother *3* times, stealing a total of about 79 cents, when he parked in his college's lot! If they even see a few pennies, they think maybe there's more than that in the tray they aren't seeing, and money's money.)
So as other people said, keep things in your trunk or even in the glove-box or center console, or under the seat if that's doable... anything to keep stuff from being on display through your windows. Very few of these people would bother smashing your window just to take a guess that maybe you have something good in your glovebox or under a seat. They'd rather walk on to the next car or truck where they can see something definite inside.)
The exception to that rule is when someone watched you put something of value away in your vehicle. Years ago, I worked for a company that just purchased a new, high-end laptop for one of their salesmen. The day after I configured it for him and issued it to him, he went someplace to take a client to dinner and put the laptop, in its carrying bag, in the trunk of his car. Someone saw it, and when he got back, he found they had taken a crowbar to his trunk and pried it open to steal the machine. That's a different type of thief though, really.
Of course, people keep saying "Don't ever LEAVE anything in your car! Take it with you!".... but I know this isn't always practical or realistic. Sometimes, you put an item at more risk taking it with you than leaving it in the vehicle -- or you really don't have a good place to put the thing if you take it with you. In the summer, I've had times I didn't even have any pockets in the clothes I happened to be wearing, so just taking my car keys with me was enough of a hassle. That's why I'd go with the idea of just ensuring the stuff is concealed outside of plain view, and try to do so in an inconspicuous manner, just in case someone IS watching you.
If, say, your only item(s) of value are locked in the trunk already, you might even want to just leave the windows rolled down or the car unlocked? I know a few people who do this regularly in high crime parts of town they live or work in, because all in all, replacing the broken window glass is more of a costly problem/risk than anything else. If the thief doesn't have your keys, they're not likely to steal the car itself unless they're enough of an expert that they were going to do it regardless of the doors being locked or windows being rolled up.
Last I heard, he got involved in Wall Street stock trading as his new career.... so *any* whining coming from THAT corner about stealing, I turn a deaf ear to.
(I knew a guy who did I.T. for one of the major firms providing real-time stock quote services to Wall Street traders and he said he met Simmons at one of their parties he got invited to. He still kept KISS figurines on his desk at the firm, but was dressed up in your typical business suit and dress slacks/shoes -- which looked kinda pathetic in and of itself.)
If anything, the iPhone is starting to get a reputation of being so easy to use, people's 2 and 3 year old kids are proficient with them. (I know first hand... my g/f's kid was getting around the iPhone, finding cartoons to watch on YouTube, at the age of 2. She couldn't read yet, but was able to figure it all out through trial and error, and recognizing the icons and buttons for various things.)
Android is often considered more difficult to work with, but not so much at a basic level. I don't think anyone's saying they can't get the thing to make a phone call or receive a text message. It has more issues when you want to get more sophisticated with it. (EG. Say your workplace, like mine, uses a web proxy on their wi-fi. Android doesn't support one without some 3rd. party hacks which generally require rooting before you can even use them -- so you have to know not to attempt to connect it to the corporate wi-fi, or else you lose data connectivity.)
I'm 40 myself, so my time spent around teens and 20-somethings is pretty limited. But just judging from babysitters we've hired in the past, or comments made by younger brothers and sisters of friends of mine (not to mention what I read online), anything Apple branded is still generally viewed as "cool" to own and use. If nothing else, just because the brand is considered "in" right now. (Lots of respect and "buzz" about the late Steve Jobs out there, plus perception that Apple is more Eco-friendly and socially conscious than most other businesses doesn't hurt, plus the general understanding they're more expensive "premium" type products.)
Nokia, on the other hand? Wow.... only positive things I hear about them are people remembering the "good old days" when they owned a candy-bar type Nokia just like Fox Mulder used to carry on the X-Files episodes or whatnot. I don't think Nokia has earned ANY real respect, at least in the USA, ever since smartphones became popular.
So this group of 5 people gets to decide what's "safe" for ALL drivers in America when it comes to using their phones?
One would hope their "recommendation" doesn't wind up holding any real legal weight, but given our congressmen and senators who LOVE to police every activity imaginable (even demanding Apple remove various programs from their App Store, like the "make your own fake drivers' license on the iPhone screen" one) -- I don't think this will end too well.
First off, WHY must they constantly lump texting and hands-free use of a cellphone together? It's blatantly obvious to me that texting is NOT a safe activity while operating a motor vehicle. Solutions are out that allow reading and dictating replies to SMS messages verbally, and I think that's workable. But no, you probably can NOT sit there and read a little phone screen AND key in sentences using a virtual keyboard or chicklet-sized slide-out one on the phone AND drive at the same time safely.
I've never had any issues answering an incoming call on my cell by tapping a big button that appears on my car stereo's display though, and talking while driving. Actually, I think live conversations with a passenger are likely to be more distracting or dangerous, since it's human nature that we expect some sort of occasional eye contact while communicating. Watch how often a driver will turn his/her head to briefly look at the passenger when he/she speaks..... For that matter, what about kids in the back seat? Nobody's seriously ready to recommend parents not take their kids anywhere in motor vehicles, right? Yet with the crying and screaming fits they're known to throw randomly, as well as possibly even throwing toys or other objects while in the car -- clearly they're more dangerous than a hands-free phone call!
I don't agree that minimum wage pay makes any sense for performing jury duty. (Many people called in were earning FAR more than that, doing whatever it is they were called away from doing.) I do think it should include a few "perks", though. Free meals would hardly be too much to ask. Heck, vendors regularly offer me free meals if I'm willing to attend some kind of sales presentation for a few hours. And plenty of people take them up on those offers, too. (A good, free meal isn't a bad trade for getting out of work for a little while, right?)
So yeah, I do think jury duty should include free meals, certainly free parking, and probably other "bonuses" to thank people for performing their civic duty in what's generally considered an undesirable situation. Maybe give people a $100 gas card at the end of the trial, for example? Covers their expenses to get to and from the court plus some extra to compensate them for their time.
I think you'd be surprised how many people would see the experience a lot more positively -- and you wouldn't even have to pay them some specific "wage".
Frankly, I don't see any problem with the scenario you described?
A court case involving a jury *should* be about what they believe took place (or didn't take place), based upon all of the evidence and arguments brought before them. If the engineer types are fixated on scientific evidence showing a person incinerated his wife's body so want to find him guilty, but nobody else on that jury is sold on it for whatever other reasons -- then perhaps the guy should go free?
It's the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury that the evidence supports his claims. Not everyone has a technical background, and not everyone who does is very good at thinking "outside the box" either, in cases where maybe there's an alternate explanation for the events to the one they're so certain took place by focusing strictly on the technical details?
Scientists and engineers are wrong sometimes, after all. We have bridges that collapsed shortly after being built, presumably by engineers who were confident they constructed it in a sound manner.....
Exactly! The first thing that came to mind when I read this is; What does your typical COBOL program actually do? What does your typical Java program do?
Is anyone even working with graphics and/or sound via COBOL? An awful lot of potential bugs crop up that have nothing to do with the core logic in an application (the math calculations it does, the text string it searches for in a file, etc.). It seems to me like COBOL gets to take a pass on ANY of these bugs, since it's going to be running in basically a text mode via a terminal screen?
like happened where I live, the Air National Guard set up shop there, sharing the runways with the commercial aircraft. So all of a sudden, you get a loud whoosh of F-15 fighter jets doing aerial maneuvers overhead on Sundays, rattling all of your windows to the point where some of them crack.
I agree with your first statement; freedom, truth and liberty don't mean there are no secrets. But the issue here seems to be a belief that sites like wikileaks are somehow "wrong" for making public the secrets they've come across.
I'd counter that if we're so hung up on the idea of it being "wrong" to intercept a nation's military secrets, it should be immoral and unjust to EVER employ a spy to steal secrets from another nation.
In reality, it's all one big political game. Every nation tries to make secret plans that the others, in turn, try to steal. Sometimes the spies even turn on their own employers and work for the other guy. Sometimes they even get caught and become national heroes anyway, like that woman in the U.S.S.R. (who even has action figures being made of her over there, these days).
The difference with a site like wikileaks is two-fold though: 1. They're not actively spying or stealing ANYTHING. They're simply publishing things that other people drop at their doorstep. 2. They're releasing it to EVERYONE, not just a direct enemy who will still keep it a secret, except now hopes to use it against the country it was taken from.
Yep, there sure are.... just like Dell sells far more computers than Apple does, and Chevy sells far more vehicles than Rolls Royce.
If this threatens you, though, I'd suggest that's because you're still trying to compete with the businesses trying to provide quantity of products or services to the mainstream customer. Maybe the answer, if you're good enough to do it, is to change teams and focus on the upscale customer who wants to pay a premium for something better?
Wish I could mod your post up higher (but hey, it's +5 Insightful as I speak, so what can a guy do, right?).
I, too, work for a small manufacturing business where the owners are not from "business school backgrounds". They simply understand our industry and have hands-on experience with it, and do their best to run a successful company.
I've seen plenty of other places run by the folks with "professional degrees" too, and typically, they get way too fixated on spreadsheets and reports, vs. having a firm grip on the realities unfolding right in front of them every day.
You *do* want a few basic, easy to interpret and use reports being generated, so you can nip problems in the bud. (Say you've got guys out in the shop who start slacking off, pretending they're really busy when they're not? They might be pretty effective at making the people observing them believe they really are working as hard as they can. It's not that hard to pace yourself so you take 15 seconds to put a box on a belt, or make sure you cut a piece with the saw *slowly* to waste a little time without anyone noticing. But a good daily or weekly report on man-hours spent and output completed would "red flag" this behavior pretty quickly.)
But keeping one's head buried in the numerical data seems to be the downfall of many an MBA out there. You simply can't base all your decisions on what produces the best numbers for you in certain columns.... You've got to actually care about what your business does (yes, even if in the short-term, that occasionally means taking a loss to please somebody).
Take our business, for example. In the recession, we really took a beating and we had to do 2 rounds of painful layoffs. Still, we did what was needed to trim things back to an effective skeleton crew of employees who could keep the place functional... and we held our prices as low as possible, and provided the same level of customer service we always did (even when we had to pay to correct problems for customers that weren't really our fault, sometimes). We outlasted one of our biggest competitors, who has been a thorn in our side for decades. (He responded to the downturn by running a barrage of expensive advertising and giving away special promotions and perks.) Now, we suddenly have almost all of his business, which is giving us a big boost moving forward.
The problem is, the service may be cheap for what's involved to perform it, but people don't find enough value in the service to pay more without complaint!
Most of the 1st. class letters I've mailed in the last year or two were for things like receiving a $2 - $5 "mail-in rebate" on something I bought, or forms the government itself required I mail back to them. If I'm already losing 50 cents of that $2 I was trying to get back by filling out a bunch of other pain in the ass paperwork to send in, yep -- I'm not going to be real happy about it.
This is interesting, because your experience with FedEx Ground sounds completely different than mine! I'm starting to think this stuff varies a lot by region, and there's no way to make a blanket statement about any of these carriers.
I know here (St. Louis, Missouri area), FedEx has their sorting facility open until at least 8PM for people to drop by and pick up packages from missed deliveries. I've done that many times, if I see while at work via email or the web site that my delivery was attempted. I just run by there on the way home and get my box. UPS refuses to let me do such a thing, at least on the first delivery attempt. I'm *forced* to wait a second day for them to attempt the delivery again and pick up a signed tag I leave out for them on my door, stating I'd like to pick it up in person.
Also, I don't think I've ever had an issue with FedEx Ground skipping my delivery, just because a signature was required. I've *often* had issues like that with UPS though, including times they ring my doorbell and I hurry to the door, only to open it and see the guy sprinting back into his truck and a note already stuck to my door saying I wasn't home to sign for the package. Other times, I've had UPS simply leave my box in random, strange places, with no delivery notice on my door whatsoever. Once, I waited days for a box I was expecting, only to discover the driver had gone around to the back of my house and placed it inside my BBQ grill. Why in the world would I check my grill for a package delivery if there was no note telling me to look there??
I have to agree, although I've long since switched to FedEx for most of my package shipping needs.
UPS uses union labor and FedEx doesn't (at least, last I checked -- because I realize there have been some fights to unionize there in the last few years).
I'm not necessarily a believer in the idea that union labor is always worse in some way, but I think that tends to be the case when you're talking about relatively unskilled labor. Basically, you've got a scenario where the people doing basic, manual labor (loading and unloading of boxes at sorting facilities, etc.) are protected against punishment for wrongdoing in the workplace by layers of bureaucracy. (EG. Shop foreman can't just fire some guy on the spot if he witnesses him flying into a rage and stomping his boot through a customer's "FRAGILE: HANDLE WITH CARE!" box on the shop floor. He has to go through some union-mandated disciplinary procedure that probably means, at the very least, the employee just receives some kind of verbal warning for the first offense.)
Plus, I'm not impressed with UPS based on personal stories told to me by former UPS employees themselves. For example, one of my buddies used to work at a UPS facility where he said boxes were regularly stacked up into 6 foot high walls, regardless of any warnings printed on them. When a truck would come in, someone would yell "Tear 'em down!" and they'd knock over the walls, letting boxes fall all over the concrete floor, for people to sort through and load up.
FedEx isn't perfect.... I once had them absolutely destroy a music synthesizer I was shipping to Canada, and then fight me for weeks about paying the insurance claim on it. But overall, I think they have a better track record of getting boxes to destinations on time and in one piece. Additionally, they have a better arrangement for receivers of packages if they're not available to sign for the delivery. Unlike UPS, it's easy to go to a FedEx facility in person, in the evening, and sign for and pick up your delivery.
I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?
From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.
Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an unsavory individual like hm to risk such an undertaking in the first place? The law of the land should work objectively, not subjectively based on peoples' opinions of the individuals being charged with crimes.
I'm sure you're smart enough to know this and you're just trying to make a snarky comment.....
But wealth spreads to the "chosen" people actually working for the business in some capacity, first and foremost. Stock allows people (with enough money to be able to afford it) to RISK some of their money by purchasing a company's stock and HOPING some of its wealth will spread to them.
The buying of stock isn't even a level playing field, for that matter. For example, one of my co-workers, back in the 90's, was VERY intent on buying as much stock as possible in RedHat when they first announced an IPO. He was a BIG believer in Linux and the fact that they'd be very successful going commercial with their distro.
Guess how much stock he managed to buy on opening day? 0 shares! Why? Because he discovered he was just another peon in the marketplace. Only "preferred" traders who did large volumes of annual business with a broker got "first dibs" on hot IPOs like that. There was no way a trader was going to sell HIM some primo stock like that on the first day of trading, when he had all his millionaire clients clamoring for some of it A.S.A.P.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that the cable providers are really trying to get "Network Specialists" to do the installs? I completely agree that times are changing, and today's installer is much more likely to be bringing the connection into a home for Internet service than for simply watching TV. But the median pay doesn't sound that out of line to me, for what I think they're really looking for -- which is someone capable of efficiently driving to customer locations and following some defined procedures to hook up the cable and attach the required equipment.
The real "Network Specialists" they'd pay a lot more for would be the guys working at the "back end" of the cable company, managing the large switches handling all the traffic going out to various neighborhoods and ensuring people aren't hacking a modem in some way to get more bandwidth than they paid for. Other back end workers would be responsible for such things as rolling out firmware upgrades to the cable modems or set-top boxes on their network, testing equipment that comes back in as defective or customer returns, and keeping on top of network outages.
Just because today's customer is more sophisticated and wants to attach 15 or 20 devices to their connection doesn't mean the INSTALLER is expected to assist with any of that. My personal experience with cable company troubleshooting of issues (such as intermittent connections) tells me that if anything, they'll ask you to disconnect the cable modem from everything else and troubleshoot with only one PC connected directly to it. They don't really understand, or WANT to understand all the other things you might be trying to do with it.
Truthfully, I think Apple might have made more money if they just sold annual subscriptions to download "all you want" from the App Store, for say, $99 or even $149. People would probably pay that happily, right along with the initial purchase, and even if they didn't renew after a year - I bet they'd get more that way than they made on them actually buying apps one at a time.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Many of these apps (whether they only cost $1 or not) demand a certain amount of interaction with the user. Perhaps you're trying to buy a program to act as a database of some sort, for some of your information? Or maybe you want, say, a program that makes your phone into a universal remote for some of your other devices? You're looking at sinking a lot of time into configuring said universal remote programs, or a lot of time inputting your data. If the program is defective after that, or simply doesn't deliver on what was promised -- the money you paid to download simply adds insult to injury. EG. Haha... you actually GAVE us a dollar to waste 4 hours screwing around with our broken app!
Another reason I don't like buying apps even at 99 cents when free alternatives exist isn't that I'm so bothered or pained to spend the small amount of money. It has to do with the DRM the paid apps are entangled in. If I get a free app, it's not truly attached to my Apple ID in a direct way. I can actually sync it onto someone else's iPhone or iPod or iPad and it'll work on there. As soon as I pay even a penny for the app though, it does a DRM check to ensure it won't install on a device that's not authorized with the ID that originally purchased it.
As another long-time Linux user, I can assure you Linux comes with PLENTY of strings attached. They may not be financial ones in the sense of requiring paid licenses to use the code, but users pay a considerable amount in time spent making it work the way they wish.
I'm not against the concept of freeware, mind you. In fact, I'd be among the first to agree that much of the software on the market is extremely overpriced. But regardless? To a point, there's usually an initial trade-off where you pay some money up-front for a commercial option, and in exchange, receive a piece of code that's had considerable effort made to ensure its user-friendliness.
Even in the Linux community, you see this by way of companies offering commercial versions of popular free applications (MySQL for example, or Apache). They aren't just saying the paid version costs because you're donating to the cause. They're advertising extras, such as a proprietary GUI control panel front-end or an implementation designed to plug in easily to another product.
Apple generally takes this to another level. You pay what I consider a fairly reasonable price for most of their software (the upgrade from OS X "Snow Leopard" to Lion only cost $29.99, and the upgrade before that from Leopard to Snow Leopard was similarly inexpensive ... and people got a heck of a powerful music editing package for their $200 with a copy of Logic Express), and in return they give you what most people consider the easiest to use computers in the business.
I've been VERY interested in an Internet based set-top box solution for many years now. As someone who likes movies a lot, but DOESN'T watch almost any network TV (sitcoms, reality TV episodes, cop/crime dramas, etc.), I've never gotten my money's worth paying for monthly cable or satellite subscriptions. I do, however, already have a fast broadband connection that I use enough to justify its monthly expense. Therefore, one of these boxes and a cheap subscription to something like Netflix streaming would appear to be ideal.
Unfortunately, whether it's XBMC, Boxee, AppleTV, or you-name-it? ALL of the current solutions are incomplete, primarily because the broadcasters and movie industry still isn't ready to fully embrace the digital age. As much as we all like to slam the recording industry for their backwards ways, it's an odd fact that they're probably the first of the bunch to come to grips with reality and co-operate with the change to digital media distribution. (Heck, they even want to give the late Steve Jobs a Grammy for iTunes!) Right now, the book publishers, for example, are years behind the record labels -- still fighting to keep public libraries from lending out some of their material via e-readers, pricing periodicals downloaded digitally at too high a price, snubbing authors who opt to publish digitally with companies like Amazon, etc. etc.
The movie and broadcast industry are in a similar place ... still desperately clinging onto a dying business model. The public wants/expects on-demand streaming of the video content they'd like to watch, when they want to view it. The industry wants/expects viewers to go out and purchase the content one show or movie at a time on physical plastic platters (DVDs), or alternately, to pay monthly for pre-selected content to constantly stream in over a cable or satellite link and artificial limitations be placed on the recording or copying of said content.
Until this changes, we keep seeing a cat and mouse game; networks trying to block the viewing of their available web content when using a GoogleTV, constant update patches required for Plex so it can continue to "scrape" popular web sites for info on downloaded movies or TV shows properly, artificial limitations placed on which devices can and can't view Hulu's content, etc.
In fact, I heard rumors that the AppleTV even had to deal with a Netflix vs. Hulu spat where Apple was forced to pick one, because they refused to BOTH be offered as options on the unit together.
I can understand Boxee's move, if they really feel they can make the Boxee box a better product by focusing strictly on it, vs. trying to support all sorts of other misc. PC hardware out there. But it's a risky move, IMO, from the standpoint that competitors like Plex seem to offer essentially all of the same functions and features, but are working deals so they come pre-installed on new TV sets out of the box, as well as $5 software downloads for GoogleTV bases products AND free downloads for Macs or PCs. What can Boxee do to differentiate themselves enough so people will still buy their proprietary set-top box?
Relevant, exciting and well said, sir....
Now, can someone DELETE this spam please?
I have to disagree. Even as someone who doesn't do a whole lot with my Apple iPad compared to time spent on a full-blown desktop computer, it's incorrect to say tablets aren't very useful for the general public!
The very reasons I find one less useful are the reasons I'm not really part of the "general public" demographic of users in the first place.
Most people I know (including my boss and his wife, who both bought iPads and absolutely LOVE them, despite having no prior interest in Apple or their products) simply wanted a device that makes checking email, playing "casual games" (crossword puzzles, Scrabble type games, etc.) and general web surfing easy, while providing long battery life and a small enough form-factor so it doesn't require some sort of carrying case or bag with handles just to lug it around from place to place.
Unlike a laptop or even netbook, it's also ideal for use when lying down in bed, making it a suitable e-reader. (Lots of people like to read books in bed.)
The reason the "other guys" aren't posting great sales figures likely has a lot to do with the market already being saturated with Apple iPads! They had the only option for one on the market for a good year or so before anything appeared resembling decent competition. And even now, the fact they're pretty much the original tablet success story means their App Store has a better selection of software in it than the others -- ensuring more momentum.
It's disingenuous to write them off as only selling well because "Apple is a religion to people". Just as many people I've met are die-hard Android/open source fans, yet tablets running their OS aren't making much of a dent in market-share.
having been the victim of a smash and grab myself (stole my GPS unit when I parked in a small public lot and went into a Qdoba Grill for about 5 minutes to pick up a meal to go), I'd say one of the best things you can do is make it appear there's absolutely nothing in your car or truck.
Most smash and grab thieves are looking through the windows of the vehicles they pass by for *anything* they think they might want to take and get a few dollars from. Spare coins sitting in an ashtray that's opened partially? Yep, enough reason to smash and grab! (They did it to my younger brother *3* times, stealing a total of about 79 cents, when he parked in his college's lot! If they even see a few pennies, they think maybe there's more than that in the tray they aren't seeing, and money's money.)
So as other people said, keep things in your trunk or even in the glove-box or center console, or under the seat if that's doable ... anything to keep stuff from being on display through your windows. Very few of these people would bother smashing your window just to take a guess that maybe you have something good in your glovebox or under a seat. They'd rather walk on to the next car or truck where they can see something definite inside.)
The exception to that rule is when someone watched you put something of value away in your vehicle. Years ago, I worked for a company that just purchased a new, high-end laptop for one of their salesmen. The day after I configured it for him and issued it to him, he went someplace to take a client to dinner and put the laptop, in its carrying bag, in the trunk of his car. Someone saw it, and when he got back, he found they had taken a crowbar to his trunk and pried it open to steal the machine. That's a different type of thief though, really.
Of course, people keep saying "Don't ever LEAVE anything in your car! Take it with you!" .... but I know this isn't always practical or realistic. Sometimes, you put an item at more risk taking it with you than leaving it in the vehicle -- or you really don't have a good place to put the thing if you take it with you. In the summer, I've had times I didn't even have any pockets in the clothes I happened to be wearing, so just taking my car keys with me was enough of a hassle. That's why I'd go with the idea of just ensuring the stuff is concealed outside of plain view, and try to do so in an inconspicuous manner, just in case someone IS watching you.
If, say, your only item(s) of value are locked in the trunk already, you might even want to just leave the windows rolled down or the car unlocked? I know a few people who do this regularly in high crime parts of town they live or work in, because all in all, replacing the broken window glass is more of a costly problem/risk than anything else. If the thief doesn't have your keys, they're not likely to steal the car itself unless they're enough of an expert that they were going to do it regardless of the doors being locked or windows being rolled up.
Gene Simmons can suck it ....
Last I heard, he got involved in Wall Street stock trading as his new career .... so *any* whining coming from THAT corner about stealing, I turn a deaf ear to.
(I knew a guy who did I.T. for one of the major firms providing real-time stock quote services to Wall Street traders and he said he met Simmons at one of their parties he got invited to. He still kept KISS figurines on his desk at the firm, but was dressed up in your typical business suit and dress slacks/shoes -- which looked kinda pathetic in and of itself.)
If anything, the iPhone is starting to get a reputation of being so easy to use, people's 2 and 3 year old kids are proficient with them. (I know first hand... my g/f's kid was getting around the iPhone, finding cartoons to watch on YouTube, at the age of 2. She couldn't read yet, but was able to figure it all out through trial and error, and recognizing the icons and buttons for various things.)
Android is often considered more difficult to work with, but not so much at a basic level. I don't think anyone's saying they can't get the thing to make a phone call or receive a text message. It has more issues when you want to get more sophisticated with it. (EG. Say your workplace, like mine, uses a web proxy on their wi-fi. Android doesn't support one without some 3rd. party hacks which generally require rooting before you can even use them -- so you have to know not to attempt to connect it to the corporate wi-fi, or else you lose data connectivity.)
I'm 40 myself, so my time spent around teens and 20-somethings is pretty limited. But just judging from babysitters we've hired in the past, or comments made by younger brothers and sisters of friends of mine (not to mention what I read online), anything Apple branded is still generally viewed as "cool" to own and use. If nothing else, just because the brand is considered "in" right now. (Lots of respect and "buzz" about the late Steve Jobs out there, plus perception that Apple is more Eco-friendly and socially conscious than most other businesses doesn't hurt, plus the general understanding they're more expensive "premium" type products.)
Nokia, on the other hand? Wow.... only positive things I hear about them are people remembering the "good old days" when they owned a candy-bar type Nokia just like Fox Mulder used to carry on the X-Files episodes or whatnot. I don't think Nokia has earned ANY real respect, at least in the USA, ever since smartphones became popular.
So this group of 5 people gets to decide what's "safe" for ALL drivers in America when it comes to using their phones?
One would hope their "recommendation" doesn't wind up holding any real legal weight, but given our congressmen and senators who LOVE to police every activity imaginable (even demanding Apple remove various programs from their App Store, like the "make your own fake drivers' license on the iPhone screen" one) -- I don't think this will end too well.
First off, WHY must they constantly lump texting and hands-free use of a cellphone together? It's blatantly obvious to me that texting is NOT a safe activity while operating a motor vehicle. Solutions are out that allow reading and dictating replies to SMS messages verbally, and I think that's workable. But no, you probably can NOT sit there and read a little phone screen AND key in sentences using a virtual keyboard or chicklet-sized slide-out one on the phone AND drive at the same time safely.
I've never had any issues answering an incoming call on my cell by tapping a big button that appears on my car stereo's display though, and talking while driving. Actually, I think live conversations with a passenger are likely to be more distracting or dangerous, since it's human nature that we expect some sort of occasional eye contact while communicating. Watch how often a driver will turn his/her head to briefly look at the passenger when he/she speaks..... For that matter, what about kids in the back seat? Nobody's seriously ready to recommend parents not take their kids anywhere in motor vehicles, right? Yet with the crying and screaming fits they're known to throw randomly, as well as possibly even throwing toys or other objects while in the car -- clearly they're more dangerous than a hands-free phone call!
As a former politician recently said, the truth with politics is that *everything* revolves around money generated by drugs, war and energy.
I don't agree that minimum wage pay makes any sense for performing jury duty. (Many people called in were earning FAR more than that, doing whatever it is they were called away from doing.) I do think it should include a few "perks", though. Free meals would hardly be too much to ask. Heck, vendors regularly offer me free meals if I'm willing to attend some kind of sales presentation for a few hours. And plenty of people take them up on those offers, too. (A good, free meal isn't a bad trade for getting out of work for a little while, right?)
So yeah, I do think jury duty should include free meals, certainly free parking, and probably other "bonuses" to thank people for performing their civic duty in what's generally considered an undesirable situation. Maybe give people a $100 gas card at the end of the trial, for example? Covers their expenses to get to and from the court plus some extra to compensate them for their time.
I think you'd be surprised how many people would see the experience a lot more positively -- and you wouldn't even have to pay them some specific "wage".
Frankly, I don't see any problem with the scenario you described?
A court case involving a jury *should* be about what they believe took place (or didn't take place), based upon all of the evidence and arguments brought before them. If the engineer types are fixated on scientific evidence showing a person incinerated his wife's body so want to find him guilty, but nobody else on that jury is sold on it for whatever other reasons -- then perhaps the guy should go free?
It's the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury that the evidence supports his claims. Not everyone has a technical background, and not everyone who does is very good at thinking "outside the box" either, in cases where maybe there's an alternate explanation for the events to the one they're so certain took place by focusing strictly on the technical details?
Scientists and engineers are wrong sometimes, after all. We have bridges that collapsed shortly after being built, presumably by engineers who were confident they constructed it in a sound manner.....
Exactly! The first thing that came to mind when I read this is; What does your typical COBOL program actually do? What does your typical Java program do?
Is anyone even working with graphics and/or sound via COBOL? An awful lot of potential bugs crop up that have nothing to do with the core logic in an application (the math calculations it does, the text string it searches for in a file, etc.). It seems to me like COBOL gets to take a pass on ANY of these bugs, since it's going to be running in basically a text mode via a terminal screen?
like happened where I live, the Air National Guard set up shop there, sharing the runways with the commercial aircraft. So all of a sudden, you get a loud whoosh of F-15 fighter jets doing aerial maneuvers overhead on Sundays, rattling all of your windows to the point where some of them crack.
Yeah.... and the longer I do systems administration on Microsoft Windows based networks, the more of my hair turns gray. No beard though....
I agree with your first statement; freedom, truth and liberty don't mean there are no secrets. But the issue here seems to be a belief that sites like wikileaks are somehow "wrong" for making public the secrets they've come across.
I'd counter that if we're so hung up on the idea of it being "wrong" to intercept a nation's military secrets, it should be immoral and unjust to EVER employ a spy to steal secrets from another nation.
In reality, it's all one big political game. Every nation tries to make secret plans that the others, in turn, try to steal. Sometimes the spies even turn on their own employers and work for the other guy. Sometimes they even get caught and become national heroes anyway, like that woman in the U.S.S.R. (who even has action figures being made of her over there, these days).
The difference with a site like wikileaks is two-fold though:
1. They're not actively spying or stealing ANYTHING. They're simply publishing things that other people drop at their doorstep.
2. They're releasing it to EVERYONE, not just a direct enemy who will still keep it a secret, except now hopes to use it against the country it was taken from.
Yep, there sure are .... just like Dell sells far more computers than Apple does, and Chevy sells far more vehicles than Rolls Royce.
If this threatens you, though, I'd suggest that's because you're still trying to compete with the businesses trying to provide quantity of products or services to the mainstream customer. Maybe the answer, if you're good enough to do it, is to change teams and focus on the upscale customer who wants to pay a premium for something better?
Wish I could mod your post up higher (but hey, it's +5 Insightful as I speak, so what can a guy do, right?).
I, too, work for a small manufacturing business where the owners are not from "business school backgrounds". They simply understand our industry and have hands-on experience with it, and do their best to run a successful company.
I've seen plenty of other places run by the folks with "professional degrees" too, and typically, they get way too fixated on spreadsheets and reports, vs. having a firm grip on the realities unfolding right in front of them every day.
You *do* want a few basic, easy to interpret and use reports being generated, so you can nip problems in the bud. (Say you've got guys out in the shop who start slacking off, pretending they're really busy when they're not? They might be pretty effective at making the people observing them believe they really are working as hard as they can. It's not that hard to pace yourself so you take 15 seconds to put a box on a belt, or make sure you cut a piece with the saw *slowly* to waste a little time without anyone noticing. But a good daily or weekly report on man-hours spent and output completed would "red flag" this behavior pretty quickly.)
But keeping one's head buried in the numerical data seems to be the downfall of many an MBA out there. You simply can't base all your decisions on what produces the best numbers for you in certain columns.... You've got to actually care about what your business does (yes, even if in the short-term, that occasionally means taking a loss to please somebody).
Take our business, for example. In the recession, we really took a beating and we had to do 2 rounds of painful layoffs. Still, we did what was needed to trim things back to an effective skeleton crew of employees who could keep the place functional ... and we held our prices as low as possible, and provided the same level of customer service we always did (even when we had to pay to correct problems for customers that weren't really our fault, sometimes). We outlasted one of our biggest competitors, who has been a thorn in our side for decades. (He responded to the downturn by running a barrage of expensive advertising and giving away special promotions and perks.) Now, we suddenly have almost all of his business, which is giving us a big boost moving forward.
The problem is, the service may be cheap for what's involved to perform it, but people don't find enough value in the service to pay more without complaint!
Most of the 1st. class letters I've mailed in the last year or two were for things like receiving a $2 - $5 "mail-in rebate" on something I bought, or forms the government itself required I mail back to them. If I'm already losing 50 cents of that $2 I was trying to get back by filling out a bunch of other pain in the ass paperwork to send in, yep -- I'm not going to be real happy about it.
This is interesting, because your experience with FedEx Ground sounds completely different than mine! I'm starting to think this stuff varies a lot by region, and there's no way to make a blanket statement about any of these carriers.
I know here (St. Louis, Missouri area), FedEx has their sorting facility open until at least 8PM for people to drop by and pick up packages from missed deliveries. I've done that many times, if I see while at work via email or the web site that my delivery was attempted. I just run by there on the way home and get my box. UPS refuses to let me do such a thing, at least on the first delivery attempt. I'm *forced* to wait a second day for them to attempt the delivery again and pick up a signed tag I leave out for them on my door, stating I'd like to pick it up in person.
Also, I don't think I've ever had an issue with FedEx Ground skipping my delivery, just because a signature was required. I've *often* had issues like that with UPS though, including times they ring my doorbell and I hurry to the door, only to open it and see the guy sprinting back into his truck and a note already stuck to my door saying I wasn't home to sign for the package. Other times, I've had UPS simply leave my box in random, strange places, with no delivery notice on my door whatsoever. Once, I waited days for a box I was expecting, only to discover the driver had gone around to the back of my house and placed it inside my BBQ grill. Why in the world would I check my grill for a package delivery if there was no note telling me to look there??
I have to agree, although I've long since switched to FedEx for most of my package shipping needs.
UPS uses union labor and FedEx doesn't (at least, last I checked -- because I realize there have been some fights to unionize there in the last few years).
I'm not necessarily a believer in the idea that union labor is always worse in some way, but I think that tends to be the case when you're talking about relatively unskilled labor. Basically, you've got a scenario where the people doing basic, manual labor (loading and unloading of boxes at sorting facilities, etc.) are protected against punishment for wrongdoing in the workplace by layers of bureaucracy. (EG. Shop foreman can't just fire some guy on the spot if he witnesses him flying into a rage and stomping his boot through a customer's "FRAGILE: HANDLE WITH CARE!" box on the shop floor. He has to go through some union-mandated disciplinary procedure that probably means, at the very least, the employee just receives some kind of verbal warning for the first offense.)
Plus, I'm not impressed with UPS based on personal stories told to me by former UPS employees themselves. For example, one of my buddies used to work at a UPS facility where he said boxes were regularly stacked up into 6 foot high walls, regardless of any warnings printed on them. When a truck would come in, someone would yell "Tear 'em down!" and they'd knock over the walls, letting boxes fall all over the concrete floor, for people to sort through and load up.
FedEx isn't perfect.... I once had them absolutely destroy a music synthesizer I was shipping to Canada, and then fight me for weeks about paying the insurance claim on it. But overall, I think they have a better track record of getting boxes to destinations on time and in one piece. Additionally, they have a better arrangement for receivers of packages if they're not available to sign for the delivery. Unlike UPS, it's easy to go to a FedEx facility in person, in the evening, and sign for and pick up your delivery.
I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?
From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.
Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an unsavory individual like hm to risk such an undertaking in the first place? The law of the land should work objectively, not subjectively based on peoples' opinions of the individuals being charged with crimes.
I'm sure you're smart enough to know this and you're just trying to make a snarky comment.....
But wealth spreads to the "chosen" people actually working for the business in some capacity, first and foremost. Stock allows people (with enough money to be able to afford it) to RISK some of their money by purchasing a company's stock and HOPING some of its wealth will spread to them.
The buying of stock isn't even a level playing field, for that matter. For example, one of my co-workers, back in the 90's, was VERY intent on buying as much stock as possible in RedHat when they first announced an IPO. He was a BIG believer in Linux and the fact that they'd be very successful going commercial with their distro.
Guess how much stock he managed to buy on opening day? 0 shares! Why? Because he discovered he was just another peon in the marketplace. Only "preferred" traders who did large volumes of annual business with a broker got "first dibs" on hot IPOs like that. There was no way a trader was going to sell HIM some primo stock like that on the first day of trading, when he had all his millionaire clients clamoring for some of it A.S.A.P.