Yep, exactly.... What these surveys DON'T collect is information on WHY individuals felt entitled to, or at least ok with walking out with company information or property.
You don't see 49% of American workers openly stealing property from their neighbors or other people they do business with, right? (If you did, you'd have practically every other person in line at the store getting arrested for shoplifting!)
In my current job position, I'm privy to quite a bit of company "proprietary information" and I have no interest in taking/keeping a bit of it. (Among other things, I wouldn't even really know what to do with it if I had it. I don't work for an I.T. related firm, though I'm in I.T. Their information and customer data is worthless to me, personally.) But I do remember working for a PC service place once before where I *did* hang onto a bunch of customer records. Why? Because after making every effort to work with the owner and his struggling business, he turned on me, falsely deciding I was "out to get him/sabotage his business", and quit sending me service calls with no warning or explanation. (To this day, I never really got a satisfactory answer to what was going on... I was able to put together some of the pieces, though. I *think* what happened is his receptionist/office assistant decided she needed references or leads for a new job, so she started going through his customer lists to find contact info for people she knew would say positive things about her. The owner came in that night and saw his stuff had been gone through, so he assumed it was me, planning on stealing all of his customers.)
At that point? I realized I still had the opportunity to hang onto a lot of his customer data because he had left it up on a web site calendar/scheduler application and not locked me out or deleted it yet - so I downloaded it and started soliciting the people directly. He threatened a lawsuit with a boilerplate letter from his attorney, but they didn't have a leg to stand on, because I never even signed a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement with them when I worked there! In the end, he decided to ditch his business and get a full-time job elsewhere, and many of his former customers were very pleased to know I was still around, because I was the one doing 90% of the service calls to them in the first place.
I disagree. The iPhone is HUGELY popular, so you've got a very large audience interested in a jailbreak for the latest versions of its operating system. It's certainly good/positive news when that ability is made available to users. Unfortunately, the METHOD used highlighted a security flaw that put all iPhone users at risk of Internet-based attacks.
As for "needing to jailbreak an iPhone to enable basic functionality"? That's a stretch, don't you think? Just how do you define "basic functionality" of a smartphone? I'd think it would mean such things as the ability to make and take both local and long distance calls on it, to use the included camera to take and save photographs, and for the music player to function properly, downloading, saving, and properly playing music files. All of this works just as advertised on one. You've got the ability to download many, many free applications or games, and purchase many many more. Again, no jailbreaking required.
The things people want to jailbreak the phone for are really NOT basic functionality at all. They include such things as running "Installous", an installer that aids in locating and installing pirated/cracked applications so you can cheat developers out of the money they're asking for their apps. Oh, and apps like "MyWi" which enable tethering without paying AT&T extra to do it legally. (I'm not passing judgment here on if that's "right" or "wrong". I'm just pointing out, these aren't really defined anywhere as basic features required to use the device....)
The media does a lot of praising of Apple because they get how their products appeal to the masses. Sometimes, technology "power users" dislike what Apple has done, because they feel too many things are "dumbed down" or choices made for them. But that's EXACTLY what makes their products stand out as superior to everyone else. Most people just want to take part in using a given technology, without having to become an expert on it just to make it useful for them. The iPod took the world by storm not because it offered the most features of any portable music player, but because it simplified everything down to the bare essentials. You could teach your grandma to get around a music playlist and adjust iPod settings with the big scroll wheel in the middle of it. By contrast, grandma was NOT interested in some player with 50 small buttons and multi-layered complex menus letting you adjust arcane details or even clicking through multi-band equalizer settings.
True, but you'd be surprised how unrealistic or clueless the POS vendors can be.
One of my best friends worked for one of them for a couple years, and he was shocked to find what a little niche market they'd carved out for themselves. Basically, of all the bars, restaurants, coffee-houses and nightclubs in town, they were all supported by 1 of 4 POS vendors (ignoring the random oddball shop that might have set up their own system with a USB cash drawer, a PC and software like Quickbooks).
Each of those 4 vendors had airtight hardware support agreements locked in for the product lines they offered. So basically, anyone buying one of their solutions had no hope of getting support (firmware updates, etc.) after the sale, if they didn't keep up their maintenance agreement with the original supplier. In the case of the vendor my friend worked for, they told customers flat-out that they had no interest in supporting their computer or network issues. They simply sold the POS systems with requirements certain network and electrical specifications were met in advance. A large number of those customers expressed at least some interest in setting up wi-fi, but his firm (stupidly, IMO) wouldn't address those needs for them.
At least one of the other POS suppliers used very costly systems, so add-ons like wi-fi integration with the receipt printing was prohibitively expensive if you weren't a big restaurant chain.
So when you say "Quit being a cheap bastard and do it right!", you might not realize the extent of the financial commitment some of these places have to make to do that. There's probably still a LOT of room for someone to start a competing business as a POS supplier using open-source like Linux, and offering flexible, reasonably-priced support packages. The biggest barrier to entry, really, is one of having BOTH a technical background AND a good background in restaurant accounting and economics. You'll never get far selling your solutions to these places if you can't understand their budgets, economics, profit-margins and business overall, from their perspective. These people know how to serve a good meal or run a pleasant bar or club. They're NOT usually remotely computer-savvy people.
Really? That was such a big issue for you, you refuse to consider one at all?
How often have you bought replacement batteries for the other notebooks you've owned?
I'm just curious, because I've owned a LOT of computers (both PC and Mac) over the years. With most laptops I've had, either the original battery outlasts something else on the machine that winds up making me scrap the thing, or else the battery wears out, but one of the "user replaceable" replacements is difficult to obtain and more expensive than it's worth. So I wind up using the laptop for the remainder of its life by just plugging it into the wall all the time.
And with the long run-time on the newer Mac laptops, a full charge should allow using it on battery longer than I used to get from previous PC/Windows laptops even if I brought a second, pre-charged, battery along to swap out.
I definitely see the trend growing here in St. Louis, MO -- including with students just getting ready to go away to college. They're not necessary well-off financially, but many of them work over the summer to save up for a new Mac to take with them. (That's exactly what our last babysitter was doing....)
A basic Macbook notebook just isn't all that expensive, in the grand scheme of things! I find it interesting so many PC/Windows users act like anything with the Apple logo on it is unattainably expensive. We're not talking about $3500-5000 Mac Pro workstations here. The local Micro Center store has been selling brand new Macbooks for $799 (after $200 in-store instant rebate) for the last 6 months or so now, and students get a free iPod right now if they buy one, too - with Apple's mail-in deal.
The computer and MP3 player combo at that price-point doesn't seem like a bad value at all! I'd rather have that than the typical bargain-priced Dell or Toshiba portable out there.
As with most things, it's probably true in SOME cases, but I'd wager that just as often, once someone gets started using a Mac (and invests in Mac specific software for it), they're likely to stick with it.
The student loans (and gifts from family/relatives when they start college) may help them buy that first new Mac, but hopefully, they'll be able to get themselves a job that pays them enough with their college degree so they can continue to buy Apple systems, if they so desire. (Considering a Macbook Pro 13" notebook is under $1200 or so, that shouldn't be such an impossible feat....)
I think like in any other situation, you simply have to weigh the pros and cons to see if it adds enough value or not. For example, in the real basic scenario of "Do we still use a real chalk board with erasers, or a newer technology to replace them?", there are various options of increasing cost. The schools my kid has been attending dumped the traditional chalkboards in favor of white boards with dry erase markers. Then, they request that each parent supply a package of the dry erase markers as part of the school supply list. I find it a bit irritating, really, because those dry-erase markers are fairly expensive (especially when they specify you only give them a certain name-brand of them, like "Expo"). On the plus side though? I'm pretty sure those white boards erase more cleanly than chalkboards did, and you don't have to mess around with someone going out and clapping the erasers or washing the chalkboard with a sponge and bucket of water all the time. I think they're probably a little easier to read too.
Schools with more of a budget often went to electronic board technologies that let them digitize everything drawn on them, for download to a computer. Exponentially more expensive, but potentially a good value, if used properly.
At the end of the day though, ALL of these technologies do the same basic thing. It's still back to the TEACHER having the ability to convey the information well while drawing information on whichever board is implemented. Whether he/she writes in chalk, dry erase market, or digital light pen --- the content is what a student is paying for.
Most importantly, the author talks about his need to feel like his life has meaning. I think almost all of us share that sentiment, at one point of our lives or another. I'd counter, though, that it's irrelevant to his piracy discussion. I mean, it sounds like he's trying to define his life having meaning by knowing his work on game development brought joy/entertainment to others. Great, but that should be kind of an "automatic" if you're writing games -- correct? If not, then you're probably not any good as a game developer and you need to get into a different line of work! The more relevant question along these lines is probably one of, "Have I done something with my life that is LASTING? Have I created anything that will outlive me?" This one may pose a problem for a software developer, once he/she realizes that all of his/her hard work on a program can be rendered worthless in a matter of only a few years. Computers evolve rapidly, and "popular" software titles only have a very limited window of time in the limelight. One good friend of mine went from a career doing software development to a new one in wood-working and building furniture. This is exactly why. He realized that when his daughter grows up, she just might use one or two well-constructed pieces of furniture he built for her, even after he passed away. Good furniture that's hundreds of years old is still in daily use, and highly-regarded by many people. Will any of his software be of any use to his kid after she grows up? Will anyone even have hardware that could still run his old code, 100 years in the future?
... but you posted a great response to my comment, and I wanted to follow up (in the hopes you do read it).
1. Libertarians who say that if govt. was small and unobtrusive, there would be no way for businesses to corrupt it are exaggerating or being a bit unrealistic. I think, however, it's fair to say that with a smaller govt. comes much less RISK of corruption taking hold. With a larger govt. that manages a vast array of things, there are exponentially more motivators for someone to "buy their way in" to the system and corrupt it. (Even at the most simplistic level, larger govt means more people employed in it. The more individuals you have working for them, the greater the chances you've got dishonest workers among them who can be easily bought.)
2. Most Libertarians I know tread pretty lightly when you start talking about such things as a "strong Judiciary" - but that's not because they think it has little value and needs to be rendered weak and ineffective. That's because they see our courts as often re-writing law, under the guise of "interpreting it" (their real job). When this happens, it usually involves bending and stretching wording to give government new powers that weren't really granted it under our Constitution or Bill of Rights.
3. It's important to realize that there are a lot of people with alternate political philosophies out there who often get lumped in under the umbrella of "Libertarianism", too. I've run into quite a few on Facebook, for example, who are really "Voluntarists", "Agorists", or out and out "Anarchists" -- yet many stand in support of Libertarian candidates and generally hang out with a libertarian-minded crowd. This probably dilutes things and confuses the issues too. (A Voluntarist, for example, basically maintains that ANY form of government is by nature a violent one, so the ultimate goal is to strive for a "stateless system".)
Honestly, I think the popularity of these products will increase with time. Right now, it's pretty frustrating, because like a full-blown computer, you have to be concerned with the version a phone is running, and whether or not upgrades are going to be available for it!
EG. Nextel finally has an Android phone out as of yesterday that supports "push to talk" on their IDEN network. This is great news for those of us with companies stuck on Nextel because so many people are using them as walkie-talkies. Previously, you couldn't get anything worth a darn as a "smartphone" that ran on their network. BUT, they only have Android 1.5 support in it and NO word of whether or not 2.1 will ever be offered for it! That's a real bummer, because so many apps in their marketplace require at least v2.1.
For all the complaints about the iPhone, at least if I buy a new one today, I know it runs everything available for one, and I don't have to worry that I'm stuck with the specific version of the OS that came with it. Since Apple was a computer company long before they decided to make a phone, they're FAR above average in grasping the concept that users expect firmware upgrades.
You said, "Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals."
I'd just like to correct that flawed statement. I know *no* libertarians who think that, at all. Nowhere do they say private businesses should be "stronger than governments". In fact, a fully functional Judicial system is critical to keeping a business economy working properly. The problems we see today are largely caused by government CORRUPTION, where a big business is able to buy influence in government. Government essentially "partners" with said business instead of performing its proper function as a "referee", who allows the "Free Market game" to continue, unimpeded, until/unless a player starts breaking one of the rules. Big business, as we now know it, is pretty much like a major league football game where the refs can be bought off easily by any team's manager who wants to work a deal with them. The ones with the most money can cheat their way to victory, game after game, with impunity. (And to extend this analogy, we've got a bunch of attendees of said games who know something's wrong and are angry - but don't always realize WHY it's happening. Therefore, some of them are screaming that the rules of the game need changing to fix the problem... instead of realizing the corrupt referees need to be ejected!)
The insidious thing about "net neutrality" is that the name itself sounds so good, like it's "just what we want/need" for the future of the Internet. But as some of the very founders of the Internet have said themselves (including TCP inventor Bob Kahn and David Farber), the supporters of net neutrality are REALLY saying that federal government DOES have the authority to control the Internet. You're asking them to lay down a bunch of new rules on how traffic should flow, instead of the traditional idea of leaving it open for debate, discussion and trial by software developers and researchers.
The way I see it, it's been FAR from a foregone conclusion that such things are the job of government to manage -- but with the "net neutrality" act comes admission that indeed, they are!
All of this aside though? There's also another "elephant in the room" that isn't really being pointed out here. If you DO pass net neutrality laws and force the big ISPs to give equal priority to the "little guy's traffic", fine. Do you really think they'll just put their hands in the air and say "You win! We didn't want to run our network this way, but since this law makes us do it -- we'll just give up this chance to make extra money making people pay extra for priority over our lines!" ?? No... I think you'll find that they'll just resort to other methods to generate the extra revenue, like implementing tougher usage caps. Net neutrality doesn't attempt to dictate the continuation of "flat rate unlimited usage" packages, after all.
Really, the net has always worked on a system where the content PROVIDERS pay the bulk of the cost of a net connection, while the users/consumers of the data pay far less. (Why do you think cable and DSL broadband services have such slow upload speed limits, compared to their download speeds? They're happy to sell you as much as a 50mbit speed connection, except for the fact that if you start trying to host servers from it, you discover you're capped at maybe 5mbits max. going back OUT. You'll get quoted a FAR more expensive rate for a circuit giving you that full 50mbits of UPLOAD speed.)
When you start passing legislation restricting ISPs from having such *options* as de-prioritizing certain forms of traffic, they're going to lose a potential tool/solution that justified them keeping rates low for the majority of the users.
Re:Why support companies that pull crap like this?
on
Droid X Gets Rooted
·
· Score: 1
Ppfft.... your cheap shot at Apple aside for a moment (Is every single brick and mortar bookseller a "fascist company" too if they carry books about Mussolini containing his speeches?)... The real problem here in the USA is with the standard business model for cellphone sales. Unlike most of the world, we have a system where we shop for a cellular provider based on which models of phones that provider offers/allows on their network.
Providers go to ever-greater lengths to ensure they've got an "exclusive deal" on a hot phone model, because often, it's the ONLY reason people will sign up for a 1-2 year contract for service with them.
Just recently, I signed up with the relatively small "Cricket wireless", because they let you pay a flat monthly rate for unlimited service (no counting minutes of usage or number of text messages sent/received!), and it's far cheaper than their competitors. On the downside, it's clear that one reason they're so inexpensive is due to their relative lack of ability to carry desirable phones! They've got a really poor selection of phones, practically all of which are 2 year old models already. Unlike most providers, the interesting thing with Cricket is, they're extremely willing to activate practically anything with an ESN number you want to give them. The independently operated Cricket reseller stores will often even re-flash phones for you for a fee, with hacked firmware, so you can put one on their network.
Unfortunately though, in a growing number of larger cities, Cricket has moved their CDMA network to "tri-band" mode instead of "dual-band", making a lot of popular phones out there unable to fully function on their network anymore. I bought a used Motorola Droid last week, not realizing this "gotcha", and proceeded to hack it for Cricket. They happily transferred my service to it for a $15 fee when I called in, but the phone would never actually activate after that. That's when I discovered the "tri-band" problem. If I wanted to drive about 50 miles outside of town, I suspect it would have suddenly activated in one of their dual-band CDMA areas -- but then I'd be stuck with it perpetually on "roam" when using it in town. (And with Cricket, you only get something like 60-120 minutes per month of roaming minutes with a given package - so that wouldn't get me very far!)
No denying that like many other medical conditions, people are out there who want to use it as an excuse for their illegal behaviors.
But the replies to my original comment make it pretty clear most of you guys haven't bothered to read up much on what Asperger's is and isn't.
Basically, it's a mild form of autism, at what you might call the "just south of normal" part of the spectrum. People with Asperger's have problems picking up on non-verbal and more subtle aspects of verbal communications. They tend to focus intensely on one or two subjects of interest, without realizing that the world around them views them as "odd" for "hyper-focusing" so narrowly on them.
(EG. I know a kid, diagnosed with Asperger's, who is fixated on the weather. If you turn on the Weather Channel on TV, he'll sit and watch it intently for an hour at a time, and spend the rest of the day talking to all the other kids he encounters about tornado warnings, storms expected in random cities of the U.S., the record low temps. some region had back in 1948, and whatever else he memorized. Of course, when they do what normal kids do to try to show they're not interested, he doesn't pick up on it. Eventually, he might get frustrated that "he doesn't have any friends" - but doesn't really grasp how that happened to him.)
So no, "thinking logically" is NOT Asperger's Syndrome and psychologists aren't trying to suggest that. But people with Asperger's tend to be highly intelligent people who DO think logically -- and when that's coupled with their other social issues, they wind up rejecting anything emotional or subjective as relevant to their decision-making efforts.
Yeah.... options are nice to have. Apple, obviously, took a lot of flack for their decision to go with glossy screens as the only option on some of their notebooks - so now, you can once again custom-order Macbook Pros with matte screens. (That means ordering and configuring it online though, vs. walking into an Apple store and buying what's on the shelf.)
Personally though, I own a Macbook Pro with the glossy screen and other than it showing fingerprints real easily, I don't have any big problems with it. I don't really understand all the people who want to use their notebooks outside in bright sunlight? Maybe it's unavoidable if you work outdoors in a field where you need a computer (geologist perhaps?). But for the vast majority, computing tasks are done indoors, in relative comfort. (I can't concentrate on writing coherent email replies or fixing broken HTML code, or trying to Google search for answers to some technical issue if I'm not even sitting in a comfortable chair first, in an environment free of distractions like bugs flying around!)
When you're indoors, you have the advantage of being able to control your surroundings. You can't reposition the sun to your liking or turn off the rain, but you CAN move a lamp, or move a table so it isn't directly across from an open window. You can shut blinds or close curtains, and you can set the temperature to whatever you like. If one room isn't working out for you, your dwelling offers multiple rooms you could use. I don't see why it's seen as "unacceptable" to point this out when someone's whining about some glare on their PORTABLE computer's screen while indoors! I simply set up my laptop on a desk in a room where there is no window behind me and the only light source is a ceiling fixture. Voila.... glossy screen is easy to view.
Yes, except I *do* think it still holds true that "things happen for a reason". The problem is, people often can't comprehend (or don't REALLY want to know) the reasons behind the actions some people choose to take.
I'd have to agree with this.... If you've ever had much experience with people with Asperger's syndrome, they're likely to be in the crowd who could do this type of work without negative side-effects. They tend to have more of an emotional detachment to such things, as part of their condition. (That's also why psychologists have long suspected that many of the most successful CEO types have Asperger's to some degree. They're capable of looking at the company's situation in a purely logical manner, and doing mass layoffs without hesitation, if they determine that's the most economically beneficial course of action -- without hesitating because of personal guilt about it.)
True... but IMHO, Toyota has done a lot to damage their own reputation anyway. I mean, in the mid 1990's, their brand was noted for building some of the highest-regarded Japanese sports cars (The Supra, specifically, and for cheaper "sporty car" alternatives, the Celica and MR2). After they canned ALL of those, what replaced them? Absolutely nothing! They decided the "New Toyota" was all about building bland, generi-cars and eco-friendly Priuses. The most "exciting" vehicle they've built in recent memory? Probably that "CJ", which by most accounts isn't all that great either. (I think it has a pretty cool "rugged look" - but in the end, a real Jeep is more practical for most would-be CJ buyers.)
To be fair, OS X hasn't really fully transitioned people to 64-bits. Yes, the OS supports it, but the 64-bit kernel isn't even enabled by default. You have to hold down the 6 and the 4 keys while booting to tell it to boot into a 64-bit kernel.
Apple most likely did this because of concerns of drivers not being compatible, and wanting to minimize the number of crashes for people upgrading OS X.
I dunno.... I do understand it from the users' perspective. Sometimes, a printer or a scanner is clearly not a piece of shit, worthy of just throwing away, simply because nobody could be bothered to code updated drivers for it. EG. We have a couple of HP DesignJet plotters where I work that use the 42" roll paper. They probably cost well over $12,000 each when they were new, and even today, I see them selling for over $1,000 on eBay. HP never wrote drivers for them for any OS newer than Windows XP (although I understand a 3rd. party now sells a driver for Vista for them, for $150 or so a copy).
The idea that you'd just throw one of these away as part of a Windows 7 upgrade is ludicrous though. Most rational people would say "Screw that! I'm better off keeping a Windows XP box around just to run it on!" You have to figure, most places using these things also have an investment in ink cartridges and supplies to consider, and they're big and bulky. Shipping alone for a new replacement is not going to be cheap.
How many users will ever actually CARE that their OS is 64-bits vs. 32-bits? It doesn't matter for 95% of what people do every day with their PC, but forcing them to get rid of a well-liked piece of hardware they DO use regularly is going to bother them.
IMHO, nothing you said deserves a "flamebait" rating in any way, shape or form! It's nothing but thoughtful commentary....
I will say, though, that for all the negativity towards "income inequality", I happen to believe that unless it reaches extremes (such as is seen in dictatorships where the masses are all dirt poor while the political leaders and their connections live a posh lifestyle), it's generally a reflection on the natural state of things. Some people, by nature, will always be lazy or unmotivated to achieve financial success. Indeed, some will revel in their lack of finances -- perhaps for religious reasons, or simply from a belief that their situation makes them more "down to earth, normal" people than everyone else. Meanwhile, there's going to be a small minority of "super motivated" people who focus solely on maximizing their income. Since they have this financial "fixation" to such a great degree, it only follows that they'd wind up with much more income than most.
I've never been convinced that it's a "better way of managing things" to try to artificially even out these income disparities. And unfortunately, I see today's United States of America following that path, instead of holding on to our more traditional reluctance to "rob from the rich and give to the poor". (If you subscribe to that belief system, it seems like plenty of other nations operate that way already.)
You're saying the "Samsung SSD doesn't degrade because it's initial performance is already so terrible"?!
That makes no sense at all. Think about it. Even if the drive was slow enough. out of the box, that a read operation took 10 seconds to complete, that should result in it being more like 20 or 30 seconds when the drive is all fragmented up.
Unless a drive had 0 performance (never returned a result when you did a read or write), it should be possible to measure it degrading in performance from a clean setup and a fragmented one....
Yeah... but honestly, part of the problem lies with the quality of workers the contractors hire, and that varies WILDLY.
I know a few people who worked as on-site service techs for Dell in the past, and the smarter/better ones usually were careful to avoid certain large contracting firms, and go with others instead, based simply on their pay-rates. Banctec, for example, was typically labeled "one of Dell's contractors to avoid" because they paid a lot worse than others.
The on-site workers were often made to look foolish too, simply because Dell's phone support people didn't order the correct repair parts for them. They'd arrive on site to replace a bad motherboard, only to find they were given one that didn't even fit the machine.... or worse yet, repeatedly sent out to replace a supposed bad video card, despite the on-site tech saying "Sorry... this was NOT a video card issue." and telling Dell what part WAS in fact needed instead.
Things like swapping out bad hard drives with slower or smaller replacements can and did/does happen.... but to be fair, sometimes that's also just an honest mix-up/mistake, because a given machine usually came with a certain configuration, but it changed over time. Dell was notorious for initially configuring with one drive size/speed, and then eventually bumping it up to something a little better as prices came down or availability of the original part became tighter. Then, when you call for a repair 2 or 3 years later? They just pull up a list of what Dell says those systems had in them, and it shows the initial config -- so that's what they replace it with, even if you bought yours later and it had a better drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, exactly .... What these surveys DON'T collect is information on WHY individuals felt entitled to, or at least ok with walking out with company information or property.
You don't see 49% of American workers openly stealing property from their neighbors or other people they do business with, right? (If you did, you'd have practically every other person in line at the store getting arrested for shoplifting!)
In my current job position, I'm privy to quite a bit of company "proprietary information" and I have no interest in taking/keeping a bit of it. (Among other things, I wouldn't even really know what to do with it if I had it. I don't work for an I.T. related firm, though I'm in I.T. Their information and customer data is worthless to me, personally.) But I do remember working for a PC service place once before where I *did* hang onto a bunch of customer records. Why? Because after making every effort to work with the owner and his struggling business, he turned on me, falsely deciding I was "out to get him/sabotage his business", and quit sending me service calls with no warning or explanation. (To this day, I never really got a satisfactory answer to what was going on ... I was able to put together some of the pieces, though. I *think* what happened is his receptionist/office assistant decided she needed references or leads for a new job, so she started going through his customer lists to find contact info for people she knew would say positive things about her. The owner came in that night and saw his stuff had been gone through, so he assumed it was me, planning on stealing all of his customers.)
At that point? I realized I still had the opportunity to hang onto a lot of his customer data because he had left it up on a web site calendar/scheduler application and not locked me out or deleted it yet - so I downloaded it and started soliciting the people directly. He threatened a lawsuit with a boilerplate letter from his attorney, but they didn't have a leg to stand on, because I never even signed a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement with them when I worked there! In the end, he decided to ditch his business and get a full-time job elsewhere, and many of his former customers were very pleased to know I was still around, because I was the one doing 90% of the service calls to them in the first place.
Actually, people tell VISA that all the time. It's called filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy....
I disagree. The iPhone is HUGELY popular, so you've got a very large audience interested in a jailbreak for the latest versions of its operating system. It's certainly good/positive news when that ability is made available to users. Unfortunately, the METHOD used highlighted a security flaw that put all iPhone users at risk of Internet-based attacks.
As for "needing to jailbreak an iPhone to enable basic functionality"? That's a stretch, don't you think? Just how do you define "basic functionality" of a smartphone? I'd think it would mean such things as the ability to make and take both local and long distance calls on it, to use the included camera to take and save photographs, and for the music player to function properly, downloading, saving, and properly playing music files. All of this works just as advertised on one. You've got the ability to download many, many free applications or games, and purchase many many more. Again, no jailbreaking required.
The things people want to jailbreak the phone for are really NOT basic functionality at all. They include such things as running "Installous", an installer that aids in locating and installing pirated/cracked applications so you can cheat developers out of the money they're asking for their apps. Oh, and apps like "MyWi" which enable tethering without paying AT&T extra to do it legally. (I'm not passing judgment here on if that's "right" or "wrong". I'm just pointing out, these aren't really defined anywhere as basic features required to use the device....)
The media does a lot of praising of Apple because they get how their products appeal to the masses. Sometimes, technology "power users" dislike what Apple has done, because they feel too many things are "dumbed down" or choices made for them. But that's EXACTLY what makes their products stand out as superior to everyone else. Most people just want to take part in using a given technology, without having to become an expert on it just to make it useful for them. The iPod took the world by storm not because it offered the most features of any portable music player, but because it simplified everything down to the bare essentials. You could teach your grandma to get around a music playlist and adjust iPod settings with the big scroll wheel in the middle of it. By contrast, grandma was NOT interested in some player with 50 small buttons and multi-layered complex menus letting you adjust arcane details or even clicking through multi-band equalizer settings.
True, but you'd be surprised how unrealistic or clueless the POS vendors can be.
One of my best friends worked for one of them for a couple years, and he was shocked to find what a little niche market they'd carved out for themselves. Basically, of all the bars, restaurants, coffee-houses and nightclubs in town, they were all supported by 1 of 4 POS vendors (ignoring the random oddball shop that might have set up their own system with a USB cash drawer, a PC and software like Quickbooks).
Each of those 4 vendors had airtight hardware support agreements locked in for the product lines they offered. So basically, anyone buying one of their solutions had no hope of getting support (firmware updates, etc.) after the sale, if they didn't keep up their maintenance agreement with the original supplier. In the case of the vendor my friend worked for, they told customers flat-out that they had no interest in supporting their computer or network issues. They simply sold the POS systems with requirements certain network and electrical specifications were met in advance. A large number of those customers expressed at least some interest in setting up wi-fi, but his firm (stupidly, IMO) wouldn't address those needs for them.
At least one of the other POS suppliers used very costly systems, so add-ons like wi-fi integration with the receipt printing was prohibitively expensive if you weren't a big restaurant chain.
So when you say "Quit being a cheap bastard and do it right!", you might not realize the extent of the financial commitment some of these places have to make to do that. There's probably still a LOT of room for someone to start a competing business as a POS supplier using open-source like Linux, and offering flexible, reasonably-priced support packages. The biggest barrier to entry, really, is one of having BOTH a technical background AND a good background in restaurant accounting and economics. You'll never get far selling your solutions to these places if you can't understand their budgets, economics, profit-margins and business overall, from their perspective. These people know how to serve a good meal or run a pleasant bar or club. They're NOT usually remotely computer-savvy people.
Really? That was such a big issue for you, you refuse to consider one at all?
How often have you bought replacement batteries for the other notebooks you've owned?
I'm just curious, because I've owned a LOT of computers (both PC and Mac) over the years. With most laptops I've had, either the original battery outlasts something else on the machine that winds up making me scrap the thing, or else the battery wears out, but one of the "user replaceable" replacements is difficult to obtain and more expensive than it's worth. So I wind up using the laptop for the remainder of its life by just plugging it into the wall all the time.
And with the long run-time on the newer Mac laptops, a full charge should allow using it on battery longer than I used to get from previous PC/Windows laptops even if I brought a second, pre-charged, battery along to swap out.
I definitely see the trend growing here in St. Louis, MO -- including with students just getting ready to go away to college. They're not necessary well-off financially, but many of them work over the summer to save up for a new Mac to take with them. (That's exactly what our last babysitter was doing....)
A basic Macbook notebook just isn't all that expensive, in the grand scheme of things! I find it interesting so many PC/Windows users act like anything with the Apple logo on it is unattainably expensive. We're not talking about $3500-5000 Mac Pro workstations here. The local Micro Center store has been selling brand new Macbooks for $799 (after $200 in-store instant rebate) for the last 6 months or so now, and students get a free iPod right now if they buy one, too - with Apple's mail-in deal.
The computer and MP3 player combo at that price-point doesn't seem like a bad value at all! I'd rather have that than the typical bargain-priced Dell or Toshiba portable out there.
As with most things, it's probably true in SOME cases, but I'd wager that just as often, once someone gets started using a Mac (and invests in Mac specific software for it), they're likely to stick with it.
The student loans (and gifts from family/relatives when they start college) may help them buy that first new Mac, but hopefully, they'll be able to get themselves a job that pays them enough with their college degree so they can continue to buy Apple systems, if they so desire. (Considering a Macbook Pro 13" notebook is under $1200 or so, that shouldn't be such an impossible feat....)
I think like in any other situation, you simply have to weigh the pros and cons to see if it adds enough value or not. For example, in the real basic scenario of "Do we still use a real chalk board with erasers, or a newer technology to replace them?", there are various options of increasing cost. The schools my kid has been attending dumped the traditional chalkboards in favor of white boards with dry erase markers. Then, they request that each parent supply a package of the dry erase markers as part of the school supply list. I find it a bit irritating, really, because those dry-erase markers are fairly expensive (especially when they specify you only give them a certain name-brand of them, like "Expo"). On the plus side though? I'm pretty sure those white boards erase more cleanly than chalkboards did, and you don't have to mess around with someone going out and clapping the erasers or washing the chalkboard with a sponge and bucket of water all the time. I think they're probably a little easier to read too.
Schools with more of a budget often went to electronic board technologies that let them digitize everything drawn on them, for download to a computer. Exponentially more expensive, but potentially a good value, if used properly.
At the end of the day though, ALL of these technologies do the same basic thing. It's still back to the TEACHER having the ability to convey the information well while drawing information on whichever board is implemented. Whether he/she writes in chalk, dry erase market, or digital light pen --- the content is what a student is paying for.
Most importantly, the author talks about his need to feel like his life has meaning. I think almost all of us share that sentiment, at one point of our lives or another. I'd counter, though, that it's irrelevant to his piracy discussion. I mean, it sounds like he's trying to define his life having meaning by knowing his work on game development brought joy/entertainment to others. Great, but that should be kind of an "automatic" if you're writing games -- correct? If not, then you're probably not any good as a game developer and you need to get into a different line of work! The more relevant question along these lines is probably one of, "Have I done something with my life that is LASTING? Have I created anything that will outlive me?" This one may pose a problem for a software developer, once he/she realizes that all of his/her hard work on a program can be rendered worthless in a matter of only a few years. Computers evolve rapidly, and "popular" software titles only have a very limited window of time in the limelight. One good friend of mine went from a career doing software development to a new one in wood-working and building furniture. This is exactly why. He realized that when his daughter grows up, she just might use one or two well-constructed pieces of furniture he built for her, even after he passed away. Good furniture that's hundreds of years old is still in daily use, and highly-regarded by many people. Will any of his software be of any use to his kid after she grows up? Will anyone even have hardware that could still run his old code, 100 years in the future?
... but you posted a great response to my comment, and I wanted to follow up (in the hopes you do read it).
1. Libertarians who say that if govt. was small and unobtrusive, there would be no way for businesses to corrupt it are exaggerating or being a bit unrealistic. I think, however, it's fair to say that with a smaller govt. comes much less RISK of corruption taking hold. With a larger govt. that manages a vast array of things, there are exponentially more motivators for someone to "buy their way in" to the system and corrupt it. (Even at the most simplistic level, larger govt means more people employed in it. The more individuals you have working for them, the greater the chances you've got dishonest workers among them who can be easily bought.)
2. Most Libertarians I know tread pretty lightly when you start talking about such things as a "strong Judiciary" - but that's not because they think it has little value and needs to be rendered weak and ineffective. That's because they see our courts as often re-writing law, under the guise of "interpreting it" (their real job). When this happens, it usually involves bending and stretching wording to give government new powers that weren't really granted it under our Constitution or Bill of Rights.
3. It's important to realize that there are a lot of people with alternate political philosophies out there who often get lumped in under the umbrella of "Libertarianism", too. I've run into quite a few on Facebook, for example, who are really "Voluntarists", "Agorists", or out and out "Anarchists" -- yet many stand in support of Libertarian candidates and generally hang out with a libertarian-minded crowd. This probably dilutes things and confuses the issues too. (A Voluntarist, for example, basically maintains that ANY form of government is by nature a violent one, so the ultimate goal is to strive for a "stateless system".)
Honestly, I think the popularity of these products will increase with time. Right now, it's pretty frustrating, because like a full-blown computer, you have to be concerned with the version a phone is running, and whether or not upgrades are going to be available for it!
EG. Nextel finally has an Android phone out as of yesterday that supports "push to talk" on their IDEN network. This is great news for those of us with companies stuck on Nextel because so many people are using them as walkie-talkies. Previously, you couldn't get anything worth a darn as a "smartphone" that ran on their network. BUT, they only have Android 1.5 support in it and NO word of whether or not 2.1 will ever be offered for it! That's a real bummer, because so many apps in their marketplace require at least v2.1.
For all the complaints about the iPhone, at least if I buy a new one today, I know it runs everything available for one, and I don't have to worry that I'm stuck with the specific version of the OS that came with it. Since Apple was a computer company long before they decided to make a phone, they're FAR above average in grasping the concept that users expect firmware upgrades.
You said, "Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals."
I'd just like to correct that flawed statement. I know *no* libertarians who think that, at all. Nowhere do they say private businesses should be "stronger than governments". In fact, a fully functional Judicial system is critical to keeping a business economy working properly. The problems we see today are largely caused by government CORRUPTION, where a big business is able to buy influence in government. Government essentially "partners" with said business instead of performing its proper function as a "referee", who allows the "Free Market game" to continue, unimpeded, until/unless a player starts breaking one of the rules. Big business, as we now know it, is pretty much like a major league football game where the refs can be bought off easily by any team's manager who wants to work a deal with them. The ones with the most money can cheat their way to victory, game after game, with impunity. (And to extend this analogy, we've got a bunch of attendees of said games who know something's wrong and are angry - but don't always realize WHY it's happening. Therefore, some of them are screaming that the rules of the game need changing to fix the problem ... instead of realizing the corrupt referees need to be ejected!)
The insidious thing about "net neutrality" is that the name itself sounds so good, like it's "just what we want/need" for the future of the Internet. But as some of the very founders of the Internet have said themselves (including TCP inventor Bob Kahn and David Farber), the supporters of net neutrality are REALLY saying that federal government DOES have the authority to control the Internet. You're asking them to lay down a bunch of new rules on how traffic should flow, instead of the traditional idea of leaving it open for debate, discussion and trial by software developers and researchers.
The way I see it, it's been FAR from a foregone conclusion that such things are the job of government to manage -- but with the "net neutrality" act comes admission that indeed, they are!
All of this aside though? There's also another "elephant in the room" that isn't really being pointed out here. If you DO pass net neutrality laws and force the big ISPs to give equal priority to the "little guy's traffic", fine. Do you really think they'll just put their hands in the air and say "You win! We didn't want to run our network this way, but since this law makes us do it -- we'll just give up this chance to make extra money making people pay extra for priority over our lines!" ?? No... I think you'll find that they'll just resort to other methods to generate the extra revenue, like implementing tougher usage caps. Net neutrality doesn't attempt to dictate the continuation of "flat rate unlimited usage" packages, after all.
Really, the net has always worked on a system where the content PROVIDERS pay the bulk of the cost of a net connection, while the users/consumers of the data pay far less. (Why do you think cable and DSL broadband services have such slow upload speed limits, compared to their download speeds? They're happy to sell you as much as a 50mbit speed connection, except for the fact that if you start trying to host servers from it, you discover you're capped at maybe 5mbits max. going back OUT. You'll get quoted a FAR more expensive rate for a circuit giving you that full 50mbits of UPLOAD speed.)
When you start passing legislation restricting ISPs from having such *options* as de-prioritizing certain forms of traffic, they're going to lose a potential tool/solution that justified them keeping rates low for the majority of the users.
Ppfft.... your cheap shot at Apple aside for a moment (Is every single brick and mortar bookseller a "fascist company" too if they carry books about Mussolini containing his speeches?) ... The real problem here in the USA is with the standard business model for cellphone sales. Unlike most of the world, we have a system where we shop for a cellular provider based on which models of phones that provider offers/allows on their network.
Providers go to ever-greater lengths to ensure they've got an "exclusive deal" on a hot phone model, because often, it's the ONLY reason people will sign up for a 1-2 year contract for service with them.
Just recently, I signed up with the relatively small "Cricket wireless", because they let you pay a flat monthly rate for unlimited service (no counting minutes of usage or number of text messages sent/received!), and it's far cheaper than their competitors. On the downside, it's clear that one reason they're so inexpensive is due to their relative lack of ability to carry desirable phones! They've got a really poor selection of phones, practically all of which are 2 year old models already. Unlike most providers, the interesting thing with Cricket is, they're extremely willing to activate practically anything with an ESN number you want to give them. The independently operated Cricket reseller stores will often even re-flash phones for you for a fee, with hacked firmware, so you can put one on their network.
Unfortunately though, in a growing number of larger cities, Cricket has moved their CDMA network to "tri-band" mode instead of "dual-band", making a lot of popular phones out there unable to fully function on their network anymore. I bought a used Motorola Droid last week, not realizing this "gotcha", and proceeded to hack it for Cricket. They happily transferred my service to it for a $15 fee when I called in, but the phone would never actually activate after that. That's when I discovered the "tri-band" problem. If I wanted to drive about 50 miles outside of town, I suspect it would have suddenly activated in one of their dual-band CDMA areas -- but then I'd be stuck with it perpetually on "roam" when using it in town. (And with Cricket, you only get something like 60-120 minutes per month of roaming minutes with a given package - so that wouldn't get me very far!)
Actually, in some ways, it's even worse than what you've described:
http://theintelhub.com/2010/07/03/first-amendment-suspended-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-as-spill-cover-up-goes-orwellian/
Basically, the U.S. government is taking BP's side with regards to censoring the ability of people to view and report on the situation out there!
No denying that like many other medical conditions, people are out there who want to use it as an excuse for their illegal behaviors.
But the replies to my original comment make it pretty clear most of you guys haven't bothered to read up much on what Asperger's is and isn't.
Basically, it's a mild form of autism, at what you might call the "just south of normal" part of the spectrum. People with Asperger's have problems picking up on non-verbal and more subtle aspects of verbal communications. They tend to focus intensely on one or two subjects of interest, without realizing that the world around them views them as "odd" for "hyper-focusing" so narrowly on them.
(EG. I know a kid, diagnosed with Asperger's, who is fixated on the weather. If you turn on the Weather Channel on TV, he'll sit and watch it intently for an hour at a time, and spend the rest of the day talking to all the other kids he encounters about tornado warnings, storms expected in random cities of the U.S., the record low temps. some region had back in 1948, and whatever else he memorized. Of course, when they do what normal kids do to try to show they're not interested, he doesn't pick up on it. Eventually, he might get frustrated that "he doesn't have any friends" - but doesn't really grasp how that happened to him.)
So no, "thinking logically" is NOT Asperger's Syndrome and psychologists aren't trying to suggest that. But people with Asperger's tend to be highly intelligent people who DO think logically -- and when that's coupled with their other social issues, they wind up rejecting anything emotional or subjective as relevant to their decision-making efforts.
Yeah.... options are nice to have. Apple, obviously, took a lot of flack for their decision to go with glossy screens as the only option on some of their notebooks - so now, you can once again custom-order Macbook Pros with matte screens. (That means ordering and configuring it online though, vs. walking into an Apple store and buying what's on the shelf.)
Personally though, I own a Macbook Pro with the glossy screen and other than it showing fingerprints real easily, I don't have any big problems with it. I don't really understand all the people who want to use their notebooks outside in bright sunlight? Maybe it's unavoidable if you work outdoors in a field where you need a computer (geologist perhaps?). But for the vast majority, computing tasks are done indoors, in relative comfort. (I can't concentrate on writing coherent email replies or fixing broken HTML code, or trying to Google search for answers to some technical issue if I'm not even sitting in a comfortable chair first, in an environment free of distractions like bugs flying around!)
When you're indoors, you have the advantage of being able to control your surroundings. You can't reposition the sun to your liking or turn off the rain, but you CAN move a lamp, or move a table so it isn't directly across from an open window. You can shut blinds or close curtains, and you can set the temperature to whatever you like. If one room isn't working out for you, your dwelling offers multiple rooms you could use. I don't see why it's seen as "unacceptable" to point this out when someone's whining about some glare on their PORTABLE computer's screen while indoors! I simply set up my laptop on a desk in a room where there is no window behind me and the only light source is a ceiling fixture. Voila.... glossy screen is easy to view.
Yes, except I *do* think it still holds true that "things happen for a reason". The problem is, people often can't comprehend (or don't REALLY want to know) the reasons behind the actions some people choose to take.
I'd have to agree with this.... If you've ever had much experience with people with Asperger's syndrome, they're likely to be in the crowd who could do this type of work without negative side-effects. They tend to have more of an emotional detachment to such things, as part of their condition. (That's also why psychologists have long suspected that many of the most successful CEO types have Asperger's to some degree. They're capable of looking at the company's situation in a purely logical manner, and doing mass layoffs without hesitation, if they determine that's the most economically beneficial course of action -- without hesitating because of personal guilt about it.)
True ... but IMHO, Toyota has done a lot to damage their own reputation anyway. I mean, in the mid 1990's, their brand was noted for building some of the highest-regarded Japanese sports cars (The Supra, specifically, and for cheaper "sporty car" alternatives, the Celica and MR2). After they canned ALL of those, what replaced them? Absolutely nothing! They decided the "New Toyota" was all about building bland, generi-cars and eco-friendly Priuses. The most "exciting" vehicle they've built in recent memory? Probably that "CJ", which by most accounts isn't all that great either. (I think it has a pretty cool "rugged look" - but in the end, a real Jeep is more practical for most would-be CJ buyers.)
To be fair, OS X hasn't really fully transitioned people to 64-bits. Yes, the OS supports it, but the 64-bit kernel isn't even enabled by default. You have to hold down the 6 and the 4 keys while booting to tell it to boot into a 64-bit kernel.
Apple most likely did this because of concerns of drivers not being compatible, and wanting to minimize the number of crashes for people upgrading OS X.
I dunno.... I do understand it from the users' perspective. Sometimes, a printer or a scanner is clearly not a piece of shit, worthy of just throwing away, simply because nobody could be bothered to code updated drivers for it. EG. We have a couple of HP DesignJet plotters where I work that use the 42" roll paper. They probably cost well over $12,000 each when they were new, and even today, I see them selling for over $1,000 on eBay. HP never wrote drivers for them for any OS newer than Windows XP (although I understand a 3rd. party now sells a driver for Vista for them, for $150 or so a copy).
The idea that you'd just throw one of these away as part of a Windows 7 upgrade is ludicrous though. Most rational people would say "Screw that! I'm better off keeping a Windows XP box around just to run it on!" You have to figure, most places using these things also have an investment in ink cartridges and supplies to consider, and they're big and bulky. Shipping alone for a new replacement is not going to be cheap.
How many users will ever actually CARE that their OS is 64-bits vs. 32-bits? It doesn't matter for 95% of what people do every day with their PC, but forcing them to get rid of a well-liked piece of hardware they DO use regularly is going to bother them.
IMHO, nothing you said deserves a "flamebait" rating in any way, shape or form! It's nothing but thoughtful commentary....
I will say, though, that for all the negativity towards "income inequality", I happen to believe that unless it reaches extremes (such as is seen in dictatorships where the masses are all dirt poor while the political leaders and their connections live a posh lifestyle), it's generally a reflection on the natural state of things. Some people, by nature, will always be lazy or unmotivated to achieve financial success. Indeed, some will revel in their lack of finances -- perhaps for religious reasons, or simply from a belief that their situation makes them more "down to earth, normal" people than everyone else. Meanwhile, there's going to be a small minority of "super motivated" people who focus solely on maximizing their income. Since they have this financial "fixation" to such a great degree, it only follows that they'd wind up with much more income than most.
I've never been convinced that it's a "better way of managing things" to try to artificially even out these income disparities. And unfortunately, I see today's United States of America following that path, instead of holding on to our more traditional reluctance to "rob from the rich and give to the poor". (If you subscribe to that belief system, it seems like plenty of other nations operate that way already.)
You're saying the "Samsung SSD doesn't degrade because it's initial performance is already so terrible"?!
That makes no sense at all. Think about it. Even if the drive was slow enough. out of the box, that a read operation took 10 seconds to complete, that should result in it being more like 20 or 30 seconds when the drive is all fragmented up.
Unless a drive had 0 performance (never returned a result when you did a read or write), it should be possible to measure it degrading in performance from a clean setup and a fragmented one....
Yeah... but honestly, part of the problem lies with the quality of workers the contractors hire, and that varies WILDLY.
I know a few people who worked as on-site service techs for Dell in the past, and the smarter/better ones usually were careful to avoid certain large contracting firms, and go with others instead, based simply on their pay-rates. Banctec, for example, was typically labeled "one of Dell's contractors to avoid" because they paid a lot worse than others.
The on-site workers were often made to look foolish too, simply because Dell's phone support people didn't order the correct repair parts for them. They'd arrive on site to replace a bad motherboard, only to find they were given one that didn't even fit the machine .... or worse yet, repeatedly sent out to replace a supposed bad video card, despite the on-site tech saying "Sorry... this was NOT a video card issue." and telling Dell what part WAS in fact needed instead.
Things like swapping out bad hard drives with slower or smaller replacements can and did/does happen .... but to be fair, sometimes that's also just an honest mix-up/mistake, because a given machine usually came with a certain configuration, but it changed over time. Dell was notorious for initially configuring with one drive size/speed, and then eventually bumping it up to something a little better as prices came down or availability of the original part became tighter. Then, when you call for a repair 2 or 3 years later? They just pull up a list of what Dell says those systems had in them, and it shows the initial config -- so that's what they replace it with, even if you bought yours later and it had a better drive.