It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
Emperialism? I can't tell if you were just trying to be ironic when mentioning Bush, or you just committed a Bushism yourself.:)
Okay, you geeks all confuse me. First you say that by law no one should be using the SSN as a unique identifier except for the SSA itself. Then you ask why aren't people using this unique number to avoid mistakes!!!
I don't blame the SS because they were doing what they were told to do, cut off what someone defined as criminals. The problem was the definition, and how to link SS roles with all these outstanding warrants and whatnot. Are we sure the criminal records all have SSNs? Or could it be that we did a join on some other column and hoped for the best and thought 98% was good enough? I can see a programmer being forced to do the latter by a stupid law. How many John Smiths without proper social security numbers were in the dataset they had to work with?
This was a stupid law to begin with, and probably had some stupid premises to get the information linked up. Never allow a politician to act like a project manager, they'll never get it right.
First, engineers and scientists get jobs, and practice their craft. And do you think the scientists and engineers assembled the rockets with Erector sets in their own private labs? No, they had manufacturers build the parts and the craft. You have small manufacturers building the parts, and large ones assembling the pieces, with distributors in the middle moving the material and making sure it's all on time and available when needed.
And then those people go home and spend their money on stuff...
The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs. And if you think space taxis are nothing but an idea for the very rich to go into space, just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply. Hey, get people safely and cheaply into space? That means more satellites, more repairs, more tourism for the common man, more economic opportunities.
My bank here has a link to a number of companies many of which are companies that I have bills with. I can put in a "bill" to my bank and it will retrieve the bill and when I prompt the system to do so it will submit a payment electronically, free of charge. It might take a couple days, but it takes less than a check in the mail. If the company I send the payment to doesn't have a link to my bank, my system automatically simply cuts a paper check for me.
At least it has been for several decades. The current economy has just made that worse. People are worried that if you have a bad quarter your stock will go in the toilet and kill your company. However, the flip side is getting earnings as best as possible from quarter to quarter, without regard to the fact that if you invest a little more now, you might get a huge windfall 3 years from now.
Security for companies is the same as security for that poor family in the inner city. It would be nice to have a security system to protect them, but there is just no money to spend on it.
While I think "Alter Relationship" has a little too much vitrol for the iPhone and the situation, he's right. Apple is not doing anything illegal, because they don't have a monopoly in the phone market (not yet anyway). In an ideal world, however, different devices work with different pieces of software, and ideally you can mix and match software and hardware in order to gain the best functionality for you. The consumer benefits when they have a range of choices to make and plenty of flexibility.
No one said Apple had to support this configuration. Actually I think with a little thought, perhaps Apple could spin this to their advantage, by sighting Pre owner's desire, and ability to work with their software, which is quite possibly better than Palm's offerings. But then again this would probably cut into their hardware sales.
In the grand scheme of things, in a properly competitive market, I don't mind this so much because if Palm proves to be a better phone and becomes the iPhone killer, then Apple will eat crow and perhaps Pre syncing will become a supported feature. Right now things in the phone market are pretty competitive. While I think the parent is right, I also don't hold the same level of loathing because I like my iPhone solution and I have a bit of faith in competition. If Palm wants to make this a real battle, they shouldn't just be coming up with an iPhone killer, they should come up with an iTunes killer as well. That's what a properly company wants to be competitive.
but wasn't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular?
That's how Warcraft became popular. Starcraft had LAN options but it was more popular over battle.net than LAN.
Two possibilities: 1) They don't want to code LAN support, probably because it's extra coding time and they don't see the immediate benefit, and they see the extra benefits to them (not to users) of forcing people to battle.net. 2) The parent company of Blizzard is putting antipiracy pressure on them and this was a loophole in their plan.
LAN support makes the game last longer for hardcore gamers. That's the major benefit to consumers. However, 95% of the starcraft populace will play on battle.net. Even out of all you slashdot complainers who end up buying it, you'll play on Battle.net. A very small section of people will not buy it, and the cost of coding LAN support vs the lost sales will probably not matter much (and might even save them money).
It's definitely a consumer loss, but it's not a bad move for the sake of Blizzard's own bottom line.
But it also points to a problem in our society... the need for instant gratification rather than trying to put some effort into it.
First, I don't discount Nintendo or Elder scrolls for putting in options to make things easier for some people, like a difficulty slider. A difficulty slider allows people to have fun at their own pace and own skill level, as not everyone is the same. I do however, take slight exception to the idea that you give yourself a cheat to get past a hard part. Either you are too lazy to try getting past the hard part yourself, or the game wasn't designed well enough and this is just a "workaround" to that problem.
This "play the level" for me feature is just stupid. Instead of a player trying to improve their skill, just let them hit the cheat and enjoy the game playing itself? Lame! It's indicative of trying to garner a greater audience to buy the game. They'll buy the game, play it a few times, use the cheats, then finish the game in a couple of hours and move on. Nintendo still got their $50 for selling the game. That's the insipid part... that a game maker would try to push and advertise a feature which will potentially make the game be less fun in the long run. It's hard to get interested in a game you feel is too hard and then cheat past every level and then try to work yourself up into playing again after you cheated all that time to beat it.
I approve of using a difficulty slider for most of the game, but I think being able to use the difficulty slider to get past a hard part denotes a problem, in my book.
Her lack of mental development could be directly related to her lack of physical development, in that her brain is not physically developing to be able to learn and process information like everyone else's does. I'm by no means a doctor but I thought I'd throw that out there as a reasonable hypothesis.
The article stated: "also the first geek President"
Sorry to split definitions but we have to agree on the definition of nerd and geek. I don't consider them quite the same. I consider TJ a nerd but not a geek.
Secondly to quote John Hodgeman directly:
"He could be the first nerd president of the modern era."
I don't consider Obama a geek, but he has many nerd qualities, so I would agree with this.
Don't be an idiot, the original post was absolutely 100% racist. Let's read it carefully:
"The Chinese and Europeans are the folks I move to the top of the interview list."
He clearly has stated that he shows preference to people of a specific ethnicity over others. That's textbook racism. It's not crosses burning on your lawn or racial slurs racism, but it is racism.
What the original poster has done has clearly described that they do not judge each Indian or American applicant on their own merits, and gives preference to Chinese and Europeans by "moving them to the top of the interview list." It may turn out that he hires more Europeans and Chinese over Americans and Indians, but their country of origin should have no bearing on his choice of qualified employees. Only their work experience and the answers they have to questions pertaining to the job should be relevant in an interview.
Besides, if he overlooks that one star programmer from India or the US just because of his prejudice, then he's doing a disservice both to the himself as well as the prospect.
We may be a litigious society that's lost a lot of it's motivation for working hard, but I'm an American myself and if you had treated me that way and you had interviewed me for a US position, I would show you just how hard working and litigious I personally could be. Thank goodness such treatment is against the law in the US.
When did IT customers learn "The Right Thing" to do?
My statement was the review of the IT rep, not of the customer, so I may not be understanding what you mean. If you mean that the customer also has to learn the right thing to do, then you are correct. Good customers do learn, eventually, some slower than others, because they want to succeed. Bad customers never learn, but all you can do as a rep is do the right thing yourself and cover yourself. It's IT's job to make users in house succeed, as is with software support.
I accept your basic premise. But the reality is that more often than not if you do what the end customer tells you to do, you're setting yourself up for failure. They are the end user of the IT services and not the IT service provider because (in general) they don't know **** about IT. You are the IT pro, and you should be the one making the recommendations and determinations on how to manage the services.
If I'm in software support, and a customer asks me to knit a sweater, I'm well in my rights to say no. Obviously that's an extreme example, but as we all know in IT, computers are highly flexible, and we have to establish specific lines as to what we can and can't do. If a customer comes to me and wants modifications to their software, I can't simply say no or they will go to another vendor, taking their contract fees with them. At the same time, if someone in IT wants an exception to an internal policy, if that department has the clout, they can negotiate the exception. Typically this exception will have strings, just like a contract with a customer. In the former case, the customer has the power of their dollar, where as in IT it's the political clout the department has. Same on both sides of the coin, just a different way of going about it. IT is a too way street, and you shouldn't assume your recommendations are always gospel, especially in a large company. Users have legitimate needs and you need to listen to them and try to see what you can do, rather than telling them no flat out. You are there to empower them to get the most out of their equipment, not be a BOFH.
There's a long-standing debate on which method will ultimately provide the end-user with the greatest good, and you the least headache: 1) You do what they say, try to meet their unrealistic demands and expectations on shoestring budgets, and constantly attempt to explain why things are not running in an ideal way. 2) You say: "This is the service you get. It's standardized, hardened, stable, and gives you what you need to perform your jobs. Call us when/if it breaks."
Dude, I'm in software support. There is no such debate, and you phrase the debate with only two options when there is a third option:
3) Create a strict but very useable standard that your company can work with, but keep an open, flexible mind, and have your IT reps ask themselves in every case "what can I do?" rather than state "what can't I do?"
It's the half full/half empty scenario. If you see the glass as half full, you can effect positive change by observing the possibilities, rather than shutting down someone and always observing the negative. I'm not saying to not be a skeptic or a cynic, cuz I'm still very much one, but when someone asks me for help, I always think "What can I do to help?" If they ask me to do something outside of policy, I offer to do what I can do within policy, or negotiate the parameters, or drill deeper into why they need that to find they don't really need it, they need something else... etc. "No, you can't do that" sounds like "fuck you" to a user as well as a customer it's no different.
In the former case the customer has the comfort of knowing that you're open to their needs and desire to give them what they what, but you're incompetent (and they'll be open to hearing a bid from the next contractor willing to take the work for a lower cost). In the latter case you're inflexible and uncooperative but your system is solid and stable (and
Customers have to follow certain policies as well, especially in support.
If a customer calls me up and asks for support on their latest powerpoint presentation, I can flat out say no. I'm a support rep for a proprietary DB product that in no way integrates with Powerpoint, and we have no such people on staff in consulting to help with that because that's not our business. That's an absurd request by a customer
An even better example would be certain credit card or accounting policies. As support, I can point directly to laws that force you to process credit cards in a certain way, and can point to GAAP rules that require accounting be done a certain way, and there is no way I'm going to help someone force a one sided ledger entry into their general ledger.
However, rather than tell them they are a tool, I'll phrase things in a nice way. In the terms of the former, I might recommend an alternative source for help, and in the latter, I'd simply say my hands are tied by law or rules or something. A lot of times the user wants something different than what they ask for. You don't say what you can't do, but ask why the user needs it and try to ask what you can do, and a lot of times you'll find the user has a bug in the software or something they need fixed and you helped them anyway.
It seems like you are saying you can't hold customers to account like you can certain internal people. That's not true. Our company holds customers to account all the time, thanks to signed documents asking step by step, thru processes, if pieces worked and were tested their end (which cuts down on users blaming us for problems later), and when customers want more services or more time with someone or want to accelerate their go live against our recommendation, we charge them more. There are customers who sneak thru, but we hold them to account all the time with signed forms and fees, just like every other company does.
And I'll tell you, within my company, not enough people are held to account regardless of IT. There are typically a lot more procedures innternally with IT, and that's fine, but a good IT department doesn't say "you can't do that" then close the case, they think "within policy, what CAN I do for this user?" You'd be surprised how simple that is but what kind of dramatic change it can have on an IT department.
Companies aren't selling goods and services any more, they seem to sell permissions and licenses. What these companies should be selling is a connection and that's it. It should be completely separate from the hardware, and they should not be able to dictate what hardware is allowed on their service, or what you do with your hardware. They should not be allowed to regulate what is transmitted on said line.
And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.
We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition. And we need to create regulations for the market to stop this nickle and dime shit these companies are allowed to get away with, separating the service from the hardware in order to increase innovation and competition and give rights back to the consumer. These companies have too much power to dick over customers. Whatever happened to treating the customer like a valued customer in this country? Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?
Prior to my software company being bought out, my It department was focused on "customer service." This means that everyone in the company is treated like a customer. I personally work in our software support department and this made utter sense to me.
Under the new company, our new IT works for itself, and primarily is concerned with closing calls as quickly as possible, without regard for the quality of the information or assistance. They are concerned with reducing their own call load, but they don't try very hard, and they don't offer a lot of value over that. Any good customer service department is concerned with closing calls, but they want provide good quality service where each call is resolved as quickly as possible, but also as accurately as possible and leaving a good feeling with the customer. IT should be a resource utilitized to make the company more efficient and reduce costs, not a bunch of yahoos who fix broken PCs and then disappear back under their rock when they are finished.
In customer service, quantitative metrics are used to judge the department trends as a whole, and can be important, but even more important art qualitative measures, like surveys and feedback, example cases, and periodic reviews of every rep, team leader and supervisor. Did the rep do "The Right Thing" (tm) and how many times did they do that, and are they approaching doing the right thing 100% of the time? If a rep provided the user with the right answer, but all they did was email a timid accountant a 5 page document on setting up.NET properly just so the user can properly export his reports to an email to his boss, and then the rep closed the case and offered this less than technical person any real help, how service oriented is that, really?
Sometimes that means taking fewer cases per rep and leaving them open longer, if service improves dramatically.
The problem with that is that many people still equate computers and paper as separate mediums. The rules should not be separate for digital and paper, but any such rules should elaborate with well crafted language something to the effect of "this includes digital media."
Also, Another post further up insists that all government information be available in free and open standards of formatting. This is one rule you can't express in terms of paper, because there is no equivalent problem in paper media. You want to make sure all digital documentation is readable in the next 50-100 years, so an open published standard, published in an open format, can be reconstructed by any one so inclined. There are going to be some exceptions like that you might want to include.
You don't think they won't try the EXACT same thing if and when they are able to put iPhones on their network? Your point is taken, but we are not living in a properly competitive market in the US when it comes to cell phones. Like many US corporations, they aren't competiting on service and lowest prices, but competing on how much can they squeeze out of their consumers without actually improving service. There are too many barriers to switching services and they all know it.
Verizon, T-mobile, and Sprint are all watching very closely and will probably have pricing structures similar to AT+T the moment someone can switch to their service. T-mobile and Sprint might think they have iPhone killers (The G1 and the Pre), but in truth they want the iPhone on their network as well. They make no money on the hardware, and just want to charge as many fees and the highest rates possible. When one of them does it, all of them follow suit and do the same thing.
Dr. Ben Hertz, a director of Occupational Therapy at MCG, explained that "participants showed significant improvements in rigidity, movement, fine motor skills and energy levels. Perhaps most impressively, most participants' depression levels decreased to zero." [MCG] Depression is a major impact factor in Parkinson's, with at least half of the patients reporting the mental illness.
No neurological studies have been done to solidify the reasons behind the improvement. However, Hertz believes that the combination of exercise and video games helps boost dopamine levels, a neurotransmitter that is severely deficient in Parkinson's disease. That is the motivation behind using the Wii over another video game system; Wii requires whole-body movement instead of the simple isolated finger movements on a traditional controller.
While we only have a correlation here and no direct link, I actually think the researchers may be onto something. The reason why this is more than old news is not the physical activity, but the emotional and mental components.
Playing sports for real requires lifting the appropriate equipment, and learning the skill. Wii Sports is simpler, and simply requires basic motions. The remote is also much lighter and easier to handle.
The time invested learning vs the return in enjoyment ramps up faster and if you are a depressed parkinson's patient, being able to easily do a little exercise with a simple little console can emotionally be a big deal. I do not have parkinson's, but I've tried learning tennis and it's a pain in the ass to me, but I enjoy a little wii tennis from time to time with my niece.
And finally, playing a computer game is still novel. Most patients are going to look at something like this and it will be enjoyable. It's not some uber FPS or strategy game where they have to learn 20 combos. They swing a remote and have a little fun with their friends.
The physical activity has always been important, but other consoles don't give you physical interaction, you mash buttons. If you are a parkinson's patient and you can feel like you are doing something, you are not only getting a physical component, but a much needed mental and emotional component.
The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.
If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii, and buy a few casual games, how does this cause the Wii's doom? In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it's such a success? Just because hardcore gamers don't like it doesn't mean that the Wii won't continue to expand in the future.
The Wii's success is because it's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers. That continues to be it's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it. The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release, but frankly, what's to say that Cooking Mama isn't an interesting, fun and challenging game for 8 year olds? For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night? "Sorry" is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players, but it is incredibly fun to play with the family. This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well, because it's catering to a new market, and there's as of yet no "doom" forecasted. Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind, and they like it that way just fine.
Search the whole device for something. There is a wedding coming up in the next couple of months. Only way to find it? Hunt for it manually.
That's coming. There will be a whole new search device page coming in OS 3.0. This was explained in the developer preview meeting they had back in march. You can download the video from Apple.com. Unfortunately that's the only thing on your list that was explained in any detail in this developer preview.
That's starting to slip as iPhone and iPod prices come down
Ummmmm excuse me? Which iPhone or iPod price drops are you talking about? Since the iPhone was out last year it's been $199 for 8 GB and $299 for 16 GB. I can go to the store right now and see the exact same price.
Apple's reaction so far has been to raise iTunes prices
iTunes prices did not increase. They adopted a variable price method so popular songs could be more expensive during their popular period while less downloaded songs could be cheaper.
If you'd like to be an apple hater, please go right ahead, but please do so with correct information rather than stuff you pull out of thin air. There's plenty of other things about Apple you can complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
Emperialism? I can't tell if you were just trying to be ironic when mentioning Bush, or you just committed a Bushism yourself. :)
Okay, you geeks all confuse me. First you say that by law no one should be using the SSN as a unique identifier except for the SSA itself. Then you ask why aren't people using this unique number to avoid mistakes!!!
I don't blame the SS because they were doing what they were told to do, cut off what someone defined as criminals. The problem was the definition, and how to link SS roles with all these outstanding warrants and whatnot. Are we sure the criminal records all have SSNs? Or could it be that we did a join on some other column and hoped for the best and thought 98% was good enough? I can see a programmer being forced to do the latter by a stupid law. How many John Smiths without proper social security numbers were in the dataset they had to work with?
This was a stupid law to begin with, and probably had some stupid premises to get the information linked up. Never allow a politician to act like a project manager, they'll never get it right.
First, engineers and scientists get jobs, and practice their craft. And do you think the scientists and engineers assembled the rockets with Erector sets in their own private labs? No, they had manufacturers build the parts and the craft. You have small manufacturers building the parts, and large ones assembling the pieces, with distributors in the middle moving the material and making sure it's all on time and available when needed.
And then those people go home and spend their money on stuff...
The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs. And if you think space taxis are nothing but an idea for the very rich to go into space, just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply. Hey, get people safely and cheaply into space? That means more satellites, more repairs, more tourism for the common man, more economic opportunities.
My bank here has a link to a number of companies many of which are companies that I have bills with. I can put in a "bill" to my bank and it will retrieve the bill and when I prompt the system to do so it will submit a payment electronically, free of charge. It might take a couple days, but it takes less than a check in the mail. If the company I send the payment to doesn't have a link to my bank, my system automatically simply cuts a paper check for me.
How does the UK system differ?
Well... if you don't count Civilization: colonization, Civilization: Call to Power, and Alpha Centauri, there are four Civilizations.
At least it has been for several decades. The current economy has just made that worse. People are worried that if you have a bad quarter your stock will go in the toilet and kill your company. However, the flip side is getting earnings as best as possible from quarter to quarter, without regard to the fact that if you invest a little more now, you might get a huge windfall 3 years from now.
Security for companies is the same as security for that poor family in the inner city. It would be nice to have a security system to protect them, but there is just no money to spend on it.
While I think "Alter Relationship" has a little too much vitrol for the iPhone and the situation, he's right. Apple is not doing anything illegal, because they don't have a monopoly in the phone market (not yet anyway). In an ideal world, however, different devices work with different pieces of software, and ideally you can mix and match software and hardware in order to gain the best functionality for you. The consumer benefits when they have a range of choices to make and plenty of flexibility.
No one said Apple had to support this configuration. Actually I think with a little thought, perhaps Apple could spin this to their advantage, by sighting Pre owner's desire, and ability to work with their software, which is quite possibly better than Palm's offerings. But then again this would probably cut into their hardware sales.
In the grand scheme of things, in a properly competitive market, I don't mind this so much because if Palm proves to be a better phone and becomes the iPhone killer, then Apple will eat crow and perhaps Pre syncing will become a supported feature. Right now things in the phone market are pretty competitive. While I think the parent is right, I also don't hold the same level of loathing because I like my iPhone solution and I have a bit of faith in competition. If Palm wants to make this a real battle, they shouldn't just be coming up with an iPhone killer, they should come up with an iTunes killer as well. That's what a properly company wants to be competitive.
And the very next billboard will be an advertisement asking the question "Constipated?"
I for one welcome our new Argentinian Ant overlords!
Obligatory fulfilled.
but wasn't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular?
That's how Warcraft became popular. Starcraft had LAN options but it was more popular over battle.net than LAN.
Two possibilities:
1) They don't want to code LAN support, probably because it's extra coding time and they don't see the immediate benefit, and they see the extra benefits to them (not to users) of forcing people to battle.net.
2) The parent company of Blizzard is putting antipiracy pressure on them and this was a loophole in their plan.
LAN support makes the game last longer for hardcore gamers. That's the major benefit to consumers. However, 95% of the starcraft populace will play on battle.net. Even out of all you slashdot complainers who end up buying it, you'll play on Battle.net. A very small section of people will not buy it, and the cost of coding LAN support vs the lost sales will probably not matter much (and might even save them money).
It's definitely a consumer loss, but it's not a bad move for the sake of Blizzard's own bottom line.
But it also points to a problem in our society... the need for instant gratification rather than trying to put some effort into it.
First, I don't discount Nintendo or Elder scrolls for putting in options to make things easier for some people, like a difficulty slider. A difficulty slider allows people to have fun at their own pace and own skill level, as not everyone is the same. I do however, take slight exception to the idea that you give yourself a cheat to get past a hard part. Either you are too lazy to try getting past the hard part yourself, or the game wasn't designed well enough and this is just a "workaround" to that problem.
This "play the level" for me feature is just stupid. Instead of a player trying to improve their skill, just let them hit the cheat and enjoy the game playing itself? Lame! It's indicative of trying to garner a greater audience to buy the game. They'll buy the game, play it a few times, use the cheats, then finish the game in a couple of hours and move on. Nintendo still got their $50 for selling the game. That's the insipid part... that a game maker would try to push and advertise a feature which will potentially make the game be less fun in the long run. It's hard to get interested in a game you feel is too hard and then cheat past every level and then try to work yourself up into playing again after you cheated all that time to beat it.
I approve of using a difficulty slider for most of the game, but I think being able to use the difficulty slider to get past a hard part denotes a problem, in my book.
Her lack of mental development could be directly related to her lack of physical development, in that her brain is not physically developing to be able to learn and process information like everyone else's does. I'm by no means a doctor but I thought I'd throw that out there as a reasonable hypothesis.
... and the article misquoted John Hodgeman.
The article stated:
"also the first geek President"
Sorry to split definitions but we have to agree on the definition of nerd and geek. I don't consider them quite the same. I consider TJ a nerd but not a geek.
Secondly to quote John Hodgeman directly:
"He could be the first nerd president of the modern era."
I don't consider Obama a geek, but he has many nerd qualities, so I would agree with this.
Don't be an idiot, the original post was absolutely 100% racist. Let's read it carefully:
"The Chinese and Europeans are the folks I move to the top of the interview list."
He clearly has stated that he shows preference to people of a specific ethnicity over others. That's textbook racism. It's not crosses burning on your lawn or racial slurs racism, but it is racism.
What the original poster has done has clearly described that they do not judge each Indian or American applicant on their own merits, and gives preference to Chinese and Europeans by "moving them to the top of the interview list." It may turn out that he hires more Europeans and Chinese over Americans and Indians, but their country of origin should have no bearing on his choice of qualified employees. Only their work experience and the answers they have to questions pertaining to the job should be relevant in an interview.
Besides, if he overlooks that one star programmer from India or the US just because of his prejudice, then he's doing a disservice both to the himself as well as the prospect.
We may be a litigious society that's lost a lot of it's motivation for working hard, but I'm an American myself and if you had treated me that way and you had interviewed me for a US position, I would show you just how hard working and litigious I personally could be. Thank goodness such treatment is against the law in the US.
When did IT customers learn "The Right Thing" to do?
My statement was the review of the IT rep, not of the customer, so I may not be understanding what you mean. If you mean that the customer also has to learn the right thing to do, then you are correct. Good customers do learn, eventually, some slower than others, because they want to succeed. Bad customers never learn, but all you can do as a rep is do the right thing yourself and cover yourself. It's IT's job to make users in house succeed, as is with software support.
I accept your basic premise. But the reality is that more often than not if you do what the end customer tells you to do, you're setting yourself up for failure. They are the end user of the IT services and not the IT service provider because (in general) they don't know **** about IT. You are the IT pro, and you should be the one making the recommendations and determinations on how to manage the services.
If I'm in software support, and a customer asks me to knit a sweater, I'm well in my rights to say no. Obviously that's an extreme example, but as we all know in IT, computers are highly flexible, and we have to establish specific lines as to what we can and can't do. If a customer comes to me and wants modifications to their software, I can't simply say no or they will go to another vendor, taking their contract fees with them. At the same time, if someone in IT wants an exception to an internal policy, if that department has the clout, they can negotiate the exception. Typically this exception will have strings, just like a contract with a customer. In the former case, the customer has the power of their dollar, where as in IT it's the political clout the department has. Same on both sides of the coin, just a different way of going about it. IT is a too way street, and you shouldn't assume your recommendations are always gospel, especially in a large company. Users have legitimate needs and you need to listen to them and try to see what you can do, rather than telling them no flat out. You are there to empower them to get the most out of their equipment, not be a BOFH.
There's a long-standing debate on which method will ultimately provide the end-user with the greatest good, and you the least headache:
1) You do what they say, try to meet their unrealistic demands and expectations on shoestring budgets, and constantly attempt to explain why things are not running in an ideal way.
2) You say: "This is the service you get. It's standardized, hardened, stable, and gives you what you need to perform your jobs. Call us when/if it breaks."
Dude, I'm in software support. There is no such debate, and you phrase the debate with only two options when there is a third option:
3) Create a strict but very useable standard that your company can work with, but keep an open, flexible mind, and have your IT reps ask themselves in every case "what can I do?" rather than state "what can't I do?"
It's the half full/half empty scenario. If you see the glass as half full, you can effect positive change by observing the possibilities, rather than shutting down someone and always observing the negative. I'm not saying to not be a skeptic or a cynic, cuz I'm still very much one, but when someone asks me for help, I always think "What can I do to help?" If they ask me to do something outside of policy, I offer to do what I can do within policy, or negotiate the parameters, or drill deeper into why they need that to find they don't really need it, they need something else... etc. "No, you can't do that" sounds like "fuck you" to a user as well as a customer it's no different.
In the former case the customer has the comfort of knowing that you're open to their needs and desire to give them what they what, but you're incompetent (and they'll be open to hearing a bid from the next contractor willing to take the work for a lower cost). In the latter case you're inflexible and uncooperative but your system is solid and stable (and
Customers have to follow certain policies as well, especially in support.
If a customer calls me up and asks for support on their latest powerpoint presentation, I can flat out say no. I'm a support rep for a proprietary DB product that in no way integrates with Powerpoint, and we have no such people on staff in consulting to help with that because that's not our business. That's an absurd request by a customer
An even better example would be certain credit card or accounting policies. As support, I can point directly to laws that force you to process credit cards in a certain way, and can point to GAAP rules that require accounting be done a certain way, and there is no way I'm going to help someone force a one sided ledger entry into their general ledger.
However, rather than tell them they are a tool, I'll phrase things in a nice way. In the terms of the former, I might recommend an alternative source for help, and in the latter, I'd simply say my hands are tied by law or rules or something. A lot of times the user wants something different than what they ask for. You don't say what you can't do, but ask why the user needs it and try to ask what you can do, and a lot of times you'll find the user has a bug in the software or something they need fixed and you helped them anyway.
It seems like you are saying you can't hold customers to account like you can certain internal people. That's not true. Our company holds customers to account all the time, thanks to signed documents asking step by step, thru processes, if pieces worked and were tested their end (which cuts down on users blaming us for problems later), and when customers want more services or more time with someone or want to accelerate their go live against our recommendation, we charge them more. There are customers who sneak thru, but we hold them to account all the time with signed forms and fees, just like every other company does.
And I'll tell you, within my company, not enough people are held to account regardless of IT. There are typically a lot more procedures innternally with IT, and that's fine, but a good IT department doesn't say "you can't do that" then close the case, they think "within policy, what CAN I do for this user?" You'd be surprised how simple that is but what kind of dramatic change it can have on an IT department.
Companies aren't selling goods and services any more, they seem to sell permissions and licenses. What these companies should be selling is a connection and that's it. It should be completely separate from the hardware, and they should not be able to dictate what hardware is allowed on their service, or what you do with your hardware. They should not be allowed to regulate what is transmitted on said line.
And there should be at least 40 of these companies, not four.
We need to block all these company mergers, and encourage more start ups to increase competition. And we need to create regulations for the market to stop this nickle and dime shit these companies are allowed to get away with, separating the service from the hardware in order to increase innovation and competition and give rights back to the consumer. These companies have too much power to dick over customers. Whatever happened to treating the customer like a valued customer in this country? Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?
Prior to my software company being bought out, my It department was focused on "customer service." This means that everyone in the company is treated like a customer. I personally work in our software support department and this made utter sense to me.
Under the new company, our new IT works for itself, and primarily is concerned with closing calls as quickly as possible, without regard for the quality of the information or assistance. They are concerned with reducing their own call load, but they don't try very hard, and they don't offer a lot of value over that. Any good customer service department is concerned with closing calls, but they want provide good quality service where each call is resolved as quickly as possible, but also as accurately as possible and leaving a good feeling with the customer. IT should be a resource utilitized to make the company more efficient and reduce costs, not a bunch of yahoos who fix broken PCs and then disappear back under their rock when they are finished.
In customer service, quantitative metrics are used to judge the department trends as a whole, and can be important, but even more important art qualitative measures, like surveys and feedback, example cases, and periodic reviews of every rep, team leader and supervisor. Did the rep do "The Right Thing" (tm) and how many times did they do that, and are they approaching doing the right thing 100% of the time? If a rep provided the user with the right answer, but all they did was email a timid accountant a 5 page document on setting up .NET properly just so the user can properly export his reports to an email to his boss, and then the rep closed the case and offered this less than technical person any real help, how service oriented is that, really?
Sometimes that means taking fewer cases per rep and leaving them open longer, if service improves dramatically.
They only rate the fluff, not the context. That and of course, boobies get a higher rating than shooting someone with a gun... WTF?
I dunno about you, but I always rate boobies higher than shooting someone with a gun... *rimshot*
The problem with that is that many people still equate computers and paper as separate mediums. The rules should not be separate for digital and paper, but any such rules should elaborate with well crafted language something to the effect of "this includes digital media."
Also, Another post further up insists that all government information be available in free and open standards of formatting. This is one rule you can't express in terms of paper, because there is no equivalent problem in paper media. You want to make sure all digital documentation is readable in the next 50-100 years, so an open published standard, published in an open format, can be reconstructed by any one so inclined. There are going to be some exceptions like that you might want to include.
You don't think they won't try the EXACT same thing if and when they are able to put iPhones on their network? Your point is taken, but we are not living in a properly competitive market in the US when it comes to cell phones. Like many US corporations, they aren't competiting on service and lowest prices, but competing on how much can they squeeze out of their consumers without actually improving service. There are too many barriers to switching services and they all know it.
Verizon, T-mobile, and Sprint are all watching very closely and will probably have pricing structures similar to AT+T the moment someone can switch to their service. T-mobile and Sprint might think they have iPhone killers (The G1 and the Pre), but in truth they want the iPhone on their network as well. They make no money on the hardware, and just want to charge as many fees and the highest rates possible. When one of them does it, all of them follow suit and do the same thing.
Dr. Ben Hertz, a director of Occupational Therapy at MCG, explained that "participants showed significant improvements in rigidity, movement, fine motor skills and energy levels. Perhaps most impressively, most participants' depression levels decreased to zero." [MCG] Depression is a major impact factor in Parkinson's, with at least half of the patients reporting the mental illness.
No neurological studies have been done to solidify the reasons behind the improvement. However, Hertz believes that the combination of exercise and video games helps boost dopamine levels, a neurotransmitter that is severely deficient in Parkinson's disease. That is the motivation behind using the Wii over another video game system; Wii requires whole-body movement instead of the simple isolated finger movements on a traditional controller.
While we only have a correlation here and no direct link, I actually think the researchers may be onto something. The reason why this is more than old news is not the physical activity, but the emotional and mental components.
Playing sports for real requires lifting the appropriate equipment, and learning the skill. Wii Sports is simpler, and simply requires basic motions. The remote is also much lighter and easier to handle.
The time invested learning vs the return in enjoyment ramps up faster and if you are a depressed parkinson's patient, being able to easily do a little exercise with a simple little console can emotionally be a big deal. I do not have parkinson's, but I've tried learning tennis and it's a pain in the ass to me, but I enjoy a little wii tennis from time to time with my niece.
And finally, playing a computer game is still novel. Most patients are going to look at something like this and it will be enjoyable. It's not some uber FPS or strategy game where they have to learn 20 combos. They swing a remote and have a little fun with their friends.
The physical activity has always been important, but other consoles don't give you physical interaction, you mash buttons. If you are a parkinson's patient and you can feel like you are doing something, you are not only getting a physical component, but a much needed mental and emotional component.
The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.
If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii, and buy a few casual games, how does this cause the Wii's doom? In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it's such a success? Just because hardcore gamers don't like it doesn't mean that the Wii won't continue to expand in the future.
The Wii's success is because it's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers. That continues to be it's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it. The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release, but frankly, what's to say that Cooking Mama isn't an interesting, fun and challenging game for 8 year olds? For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night? "Sorry" is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players, but it is incredibly fun to play with the family. This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well, because it's catering to a new market, and there's as of yet no "doom" forecasted. Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind, and they like it that way just fine.
Search the whole device for something. There is a wedding coming up in the next couple of months. Only way to find it? Hunt for it manually.
That's coming. There will be a whole new search device page coming in OS 3.0. This was explained in the developer preview meeting they had back in march. You can download the video from Apple.com. Unfortunately that's the only thing on your list that was explained in any detail in this developer preview.
That's starting to slip as iPhone and iPod prices come down
Ummmmm excuse me? Which iPhone or iPod price drops are you talking about? Since the iPhone was out last year it's been $199 for 8 GB and $299 for 16 GB. I can go to the store right now and see the exact same price.
Apple's reaction so far has been to raise iTunes prices
iTunes prices did not increase. They adopted a variable price method so popular songs could be more expensive during their popular period while less downloaded songs could be cheaper.
If you'd like to be an apple hater, please go right ahead, but please do so with correct information rather than stuff you pull out of thin air. There's plenty of other things about Apple you can complain about.