The consumer does. Why should the consumer have to follow a list of "rules" instead of just buying a product that doesn't break easily? You won't stay in business for long if you design poor-quality products.
You don't need to move the console to play it, and if you are moving it, you are not playing it.
No, but it can be accidentally knocked over or moved. And yes, many people move them deliberately while the disc is spinning. Especially if a bunch of people are playing in a living room, and more space needs to be made.
How often do you hear about someone designing for a situation that is totally outside of normal operational parameters?
Quite often, but that's besides the point, because this situation is definitely within very normal use for a console. It's not an extreme thing.
You should be able to expect your users to read the warnings in the manual and follow them. That's why they are there.
That's a great selling point! Buy our product and you have to read a friggin manual. Consumers want products to work easily, and not follow a list of strange rules. Why is it the consumer's responsibility to do extra work, when the product could have been easily designed to avoid these rules and inconveniences?
Marc Cooper, is also a professional writer - a left wing reporter, LA Times columnist, writer for The New Republic, and Annenberg lecturer and fellow. His blog [marccooper.com] is hard left.
Maybe you should check your facts. In what we is he "hard left"? please explain.
Also, how can this be considered quality writing worth paying for? It's barely coherent. Even the "neocon" link doesn't look like real writing, but rather a bunch of comments.
Predictive punditry is about the lowest form of tech journalism. It's also one of the most amusing. I wonder if these pundits realize that a significant portion of their audience only reads their columns to laugh at the author and deride the predictions?
2005's list is a real low-light. The opening paragraph of the Wired article is like a kick to the groin. Dvorak was right! Neener neener neener. Nevermind that he got the timing wrong, and just about everything else he says never comes true. Is it really predicting when you just throw as many possibilities out there as possible, and ignore the 99% failure rate?
For your New Year's schadenfreude entertainment, be sure to catch Robert Cringely twist and turn his predictions ikn an effort to make himself look insightful in hindsight. Last time he claimed a 70% accuracy rate, or some bullshit figure.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
His New Year column isn't out yet, just some ramble about advertising killing print media. But he's always at his most hilarious when trying to justify his predictions.
It's pretty rich to complain about a drop in standards when you are too stupid to get a joke. Let's replace the submitted oxymoron with another:
Military Intelligence
Would you have reacted so bitterly if that was the joke that was used? Knowing slashdot, sadly, there probably someone out there who will come out and argue, in all seriousness, about the intelligence of the military, and how their uncle was a genius at Mil Intel.
The poverty level in the US would be solidly middle class in other places.
Which countries are you talking about? I don't think America's poor, freezing in the streets, living in trailers, etc. would be considered "solidly middle class" anywhere in the world.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't make an employee more valuable to an employer.
It also doesn't reduce the value of an employee to an employer.
Quite the opposite. Because if a low/no-skill worker isn't worth more to an employer than what he's paid, that low/no-skill worker will remain unemployed.
But that's not what we are talking about. Raising the minimum wage will NOT raise the price of an employee above what he is worth. It will just (very slightly) reduce profits. But profits will still be made. So only someone irrational would fire employees that do useful work if the minimum wage is raised.
If the minimum wage is raised, how can the employer sack the employee? They still need that job done - and nobody else can be paid any less.
The guys/girls/dude/chick that wrote konfabulator then had the idea taken by Apple, don't seem to get much credit. Am I missing something?
You seem to be, because I almost never see Dashboard mentioned without someone mentioning Konfabulator. I had never heard of Konfabulator until Dashboard came out. It's been wonderful publicity, and I think I have a vague memory that the Konfabulator people had increased downloads after Dashboard.
Why is Apple getting so much praise for Wigets and Konfabulator getting so over looked for coming up with the idea to begin with.
I don't see much praise for Dashboard widgets. Most people say they suck. And what I said about Konfab above.
Anyway, how do you "take" an idea? Ideas aren't property.
And was it really Konfabulator's original idea? Seems like a new variation on an old theme to me. There's not much that's particularly innovate, it's just a tweaked GUI for applets.
If I recall correctly, the original code of the machintosh OS came from BSD 3
No, the original MacOS (it wasn't called MacOS back then) was written in-house by Apple. But you seem to be referring to the BSD part of MacOS X. Why that has anything to do with dektop widgets is totally beyond me.
If your product is successful, Apple will simply duplicate the functionality, include it in OSX, and act like they invented it.
That's absolutely not true. there are many successful products thaqt Apple isn't duplicating. And you have probably based your myth about Apple claiming to invent things, and stealing things from third parties - on a very unreliable source. Care to show some evidence?
That's the general ticket cost I've seen if the seatbelt isn't worn. A great many people DON'T use them, provided or not. And I doubt they care whether you think they're "stupid." (I can speak for one offhand who certainly doesn't).
What's up with Americans? Why are you (as a society) so against safety? None of this "revenue raising" would even be an issue if people followed the laws. You know, the the ones they are supposed to follow a test and be licensed on? Here, everybody has worn seatbelts for decades, whether there's a fine or not.
Why? Possibly education. We are taught about why seatbelts are good, so it's not like following a law, it's like protecting yourself.
Sounds to me like the only way Americans are going to start thinking about safety is if the government does start a massive fund-raising campaign to hit everybody in the wallet, until they stop this irresponsible behaviour.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but if a driver is careening through a windshield and hitting a pedestrian in front of the car, wouldn't that put the pedestrian in the same general space-time as whatever was large and solid enough to send the driver flying?
Not necessarily. the car could have been stopped by another object. Or you could fly into the driver of the other car in a head-on.
I'm not saying that it never happened, but come on. If we're gonna base laws on situations like that, then we might as well forbid people from walking outside during a thunderstorm for the same reason.
It happens all the time. you also didn't address the other passengers in the car, which isw a huige issue. A human head is like a bowling ball. People in the back-seat have this "bowling ball" ready to fly directly at the front passengers.
I didn't even mention that wearing a seatbelt helps you maintain control of the car around corners, by keeping you in your seat.
No, I've just had enough years on the road to know from experience what's "real" safety and what's bullshit feel-good ticket-padding.
Apparently not, because obviously you don't know the first thing about seatbelts, or realize how many lives they have saved. You also don't seem to know much about speeding and human limits. Your statement epitomizes what EVERY bad driver says. they all think they are safe drivers, so the rules don't apply to them. If you are thinking that, well I have to put you in the category of bad driver.
Seriously, how did you not know the stuff about seatbelts? Everybody thinks they are a great driver, put few people demonstrate it.
Another example - you talking about being "artificially limited" - if you were a safe driver, you would know that the whole idea of safety is to drive well below your limits, so you have a buffer in an emergency.
At a 45mph limit, we're only doing a favor to those on the lower end.
it's also doing a favor to pedestrians, cyclists and other potential victims.
Nothing. Pretending they're all about safety, though, is hypocritical at best.
I never said they were all about safety. But safety+fundraising is about 90% better than most laws, which are usually about pork, or oppression. Given the lack of benefits of spying, and the lack of revenue - a system that pays for itself based only on those who break the law, is a lot better than something that costs money and serves no safety purpose.
More hypocritical crap just used as an excuse to pad an extra $60-$80 onto their income. Unlike speeding, there's not even a "public safety" excuse for that one.
1. What are you talking about with the $60 to $80? The government doesn't get any revenue from seatbelt laws. I mean, who doesn't wear a seatbelt? These laws were mostly needed to get seatbelts installed by manufacturers. People use them if they are provided. Unless they are stupid.
2. Yes, there are public safety reasons. People in the front seat of cars get killed by unrestrained passengers flying forward and striking them. Pedestrians get killed by unrestrained people in the front seats flying through the windscreen and striking them.
You speak of "idiot drivers" and raising of standards, but you don't seem to realize some of the very basic issues of road safety. Maybe you would not have your license if standards were improved?
Still, if they're so incompetent behind the wheel, wouldn't a better solution be to raise the requirements for a license in the first place? An idiot at 60mph is still an idiot at 35mph.
The best driver in the world is still more dangerous at 60mph than 35mph.
Where is that limit set? Based on what mathmatical function, derived from what logic? Barring that, it's arbitrary.
Why does it have to be based on mathematics? It's based on the logic that the faster you go, the more damage you can cause, and the less control you have.
they are primarily based on human reaction times and driving proficiency, for the upper limit. Then they observe the road in question for the reduced limits, sometimes with a blanket lower limit for residential areas. Do you have an algorithm for the acceptable number of kids running out onto roads to be killed at a certain speed?
If I can control my vehicle 100% at 50mph or 55mph, but the arbitrary limit is 40mph, then I'm being limited below my capacities.
So what? That is better than you driving at your limits. No-one should ever drive at their limits on a public road.
Furthermore, fuel efficiency is reduced when you go faster than a certain point. So, if you go too fast, you are not only increasing risk, but hurting other (and wasting money) by increasing pollution and fuel consumption. See below:
Eventually, that road load curve catches up with us. Once the speed gets up into the 40 mph range each 1 mph increase in speed represents a significant increase in power required. Eventually, the power required increases more than the efficiency of the engine improves. At this point the mileage starts dropping... You can see that the increase in power required to go from 50 to 51 mph is much greater than to go from 2 to 3 mph.
So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.
Speeding laws are largely a source of extra revenue (and don't get me started on those ridiculous seat belt laws)
Sure, speeding laws are a source of extra revenue. But what's wrong with that? Someone needs to pay for the damage caused by speeders. And if you don't speed, you don't have to pay them. If people obeyed the law, how could they raise revenue? On the other hand - how do we get speeders to stop without paying for police to stop them?
Not really. It's a usability thing - it presumes people are most interested in what is being said to them, and leaves the earlier content there as context if the recipient needs it.
No, it;s a bullshit thing caused by proprietary email clients, and people's unwillingness to edit their quotations.
Obviously real geeks are in a different position, having learnt the "proper" way long ago,
No, everbody learns to read English top-to-bottom, and this standard of quoting has been standard in the print media well before email. For some reason, email clients and many blogs want to reverse our fundamental top-to-bottom training, and also the conventions of dialogue in written conversation that have been around for hundreds of years.
What's not? Some bonehead decides that 45 mph is the max speed for a straight stretch of road 10 miles long through empty land between 2 highways.
No, the general idea is that the faster you go, the less control and reaction time you have. Since most people aren't responsible enough to control their speed safely, a limit has to be set somewhere.
Where'd that number come from?
It's not arbitrary, it's based on whether or not it's a residential area, the condition of the road, etc. At least it shouldn't be arbitrary.
Anyway, what's the big deal? How does it hurt you to be set an arbitrary limit? We set an arbitrary age for getting a driver's license. If you don't like the rules, don't drive. What is the benefit of eliminating speed limits supposed to be?
There are few things more arbitrarily illegal than "speeding" and ineffective as speed cameras.
What? What's "arbitrarily" illegal about apeeding? It is one of the most commonsense laws ever.
Secondly, they are extremely effective, if used widely. Speeding has almost been entirely eliminated since speed cameras were installed all over my city. If there's one thing you don't want to do here, it's speed. What are the ineffective cases you are speaking of?
Slashdot Mirror
The consumer does. Why should the consumer have to follow a list of "rules" instead of just buying a product that doesn't break easily? You won't stay in business for long if you design poor-quality products.
You don't need to move the console to play it, and if you are moving it, you are not playing it.
No, but it can be accidentally knocked over or moved. And yes, many people move them deliberately while the disc is spinning. Especially if a bunch of people are playing in a living room, and more space needs to be made.
How often do you hear about someone designing for a situation that is totally outside of normal operational parameters?
Quite often, but that's besides the point, because this situation is definitely within very normal use for a console. It's not an extreme thing.
You should be able to expect your users to read the warnings in the manual and follow them. That's why they are there.
That's a great selling point! Buy our product and you have to read a friggin manual. Consumers want products to work easily, and not follow a list of strange rules. Why is it the consumer's responsibility to do extra work, when the product could have been easily designed to avoid these rules and inconveniences?
You musn't have traveled very far, even within your own country, if you believe that.
Speed 2 is dangerous to watch even if one is stationary.
No, wait, look at all this expensive gear he's got. Just take it!
Hey, what does this funny headset do? Oh it's a video display ... hey, porn!
SCRRRRRREEEECH-WHACK
Did anybody get the number of that truck?
Maybe you should check your facts. In what we is he "hard left"? please explain.
Also, how can this be considered quality writing worth paying for? It's barely coherent. Even the "neocon" link doesn't look like real writing, but rather a bunch of comments.
2005's list is a real low-light. The opening paragraph of the Wired article is like a kick to the groin. Dvorak was right! Neener neener neener. Nevermind that he got the timing wrong, and just about everything else he says never comes true. Is it really predicting when you just throw as many possibilities out there as possible, and ignore the 99% failure rate?
For your New Year's schadenfreude entertainment, be sure to catch Robert Cringely twist and turn his predictions ikn an effort to make himself look insightful in hindsight. Last time he claimed a 70% accuracy rate, or some bullshit figure.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
His New Year column isn't out yet, just some ramble about advertising killing print media. But he's always at his most hilarious when trying to justify his predictions.
Military Intelligence
Would you have reacted so bitterly if that was the joke that was used? Knowing slashdot, sadly, there probably someone out there who will come out and argue, in all seriousness, about the intelligence of the military, and how their uncle was a genius at Mil Intel.
Which countries are you talking about? I don't think America's poor, freezing in the streets, living in trailers, etc. would be considered "solidly middle class" anywhere in the world.
It also doesn't reduce the value of an employee to an employer.
Quite the opposite. Because if a low/no-skill worker isn't worth more to an employer than what he's paid, that low/no-skill worker will remain unemployed.
But that's not what we are talking about. Raising the minimum wage will NOT raise the price of an employee above what he is worth. It will just (very slightly) reduce profits. But profits will still be made. So only someone irrational would fire employees that do useful work if the minimum wage is raised.
If the minimum wage is raised, how can the employer sack the employee? They still need that job done - and nobody else can be paid any less.
Think about it, and then tell me who is ignorant.
K-Names make me want to K-rush my K-cranium in a trash K-ompactor.
You seem to be, because I almost never see Dashboard mentioned without someone mentioning Konfabulator. I had never heard of Konfabulator until Dashboard came out. It's been wonderful publicity, and I think I have a vague memory that the Konfabulator people had increased downloads after Dashboard.
Why is Apple getting so much praise for Wigets and Konfabulator getting so over looked for coming up with the idea to begin with.
I don't see much praise for Dashboard widgets. Most people say they suck. And what I said about Konfab above.
Anyway, how do you "take" an idea? Ideas aren't property.
And was it really Konfabulator's original idea? Seems like a new variation on an old theme to me. There's not much that's particularly innovate, it's just a tweaked GUI for applets.
No, the original MacOS (it wasn't called MacOS back then) was written in-house by Apple. But you seem to be referring to the BSD part of MacOS X. Why that has anything to do with dektop widgets is totally beyond me.
That's absolutely not true. there are many successful products thaqt Apple isn't duplicating. And you have probably based your myth about Apple claiming to invent things, and stealing things from third parties - on a very unreliable source. Care to show some evidence?
What's up with Americans? Why are you (as a society) so against safety? None of this "revenue raising" would even be an issue if people followed the laws. You know, the the ones they are supposed to follow a test and be licensed on? Here, everybody has worn seatbelts for decades, whether there's a fine or not.
Why? Possibly education. We are taught about why seatbelts are good, so it's not like following a law, it's like protecting yourself.
Sounds to me like the only way Americans are going to start thinking about safety is if the government does start a massive fund-raising campaign to hit everybody in the wallet, until they stop this irresponsible behaviour.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but if a driver is careening through a windshield and hitting a pedestrian in front of the car, wouldn't that put the pedestrian in the same general space-time as whatever was large and solid enough to send the driver flying?
Not necessarily. the car could have been stopped by another object. Or you could fly into the driver of the other car in a head-on.
I'm not saying that it never happened, but come on. If we're gonna base laws on situations like that, then we might as well forbid people from walking outside during a thunderstorm for the same reason.
It happens all the time. you also didn't address the other passengers in the car, which isw a huige issue. A human head is like a bowling ball. People in the back-seat have this "bowling ball" ready to fly directly at the front passengers.
I didn't even mention that wearing a seatbelt helps you maintain control of the car around corners, by keeping you in your seat.
No, I've just had enough years on the road to know from experience what's "real" safety and what's bullshit feel-good ticket-padding.
Apparently not, because obviously you don't know the first thing about seatbelts, or realize how many lives they have saved. You also don't seem to know much about speeding and human limits. Your statement epitomizes what EVERY bad driver says. they all think they are safe drivers, so the rules don't apply to them. If you are thinking that, well I have to put you in the category of bad driver.
Seriously, how did you not know the stuff about seatbelts? Everybody thinks they are a great driver, put few people demonstrate it.
Another example - you talking about being "artificially limited" - if you were a safe driver, you would know that the whole idea of safety is to drive well below your limits, so you have a buffer in an emergency.
it's also doing a favor to pedestrians, cyclists and other potential victims.
Nothing. Pretending they're all about safety, though, is hypocritical at best.
I never said they were all about safety. But safety+fundraising is about 90% better than most laws, which are usually about pork, or oppression. Given the lack of benefits of spying, and the lack of revenue - a system that pays for itself based only on those who break the law, is a lot better than something that costs money and serves no safety purpose.
More hypocritical crap just used as an excuse to pad an extra $60-$80 onto their income. Unlike speeding, there's not even a "public safety" excuse for that one.
1. What are you talking about with the $60 to $80? The government doesn't get any revenue from seatbelt laws. I mean, who doesn't wear a seatbelt? These laws were mostly needed to get seatbelts installed by manufacturers. People use them if they are provided. Unless they are stupid.
2. Yes, there are public safety reasons. People in the front seat of cars get killed by unrestrained passengers flying forward and striking them. Pedestrians get killed by unrestrained people in the front seats flying through the windscreen and striking them.
You speak of "idiot drivers" and raising of standards, but you don't seem to realize some of the very basic issues of road safety. Maybe you would not have your license if standards were improved?
That's funny, because even Australians know that spades and shovels are two different tools. A spade has a flat blade. A shovel is more like a scoop.
I'm going to a remote island. Wanna come along and experience the gigantism? It's not out of the question, you know.
Sorry to reply twice, but do you break the speed limits in real life, or are you just talking hypothetically?
The best driver in the world is still more dangerous at 60mph than 35mph.
Why does it have to be based on mathematics? It's based on the logic that the faster you go, the more damage you can cause, and the less control you have.
they are primarily based on human reaction times and driving proficiency, for the upper limit. Then they observe the road in question for the reduced limits, sometimes with a blanket lower limit for residential areas. Do you have an algorithm for the acceptable number of kids running out onto roads to be killed at a certain speed?
If I can control my vehicle 100% at 50mph or 55mph, but the arbitrary limit is 40mph, then I'm being limited below my capacities.
So what? That is better than you driving at your limits. No-one should ever drive at their limits on a public road.
Furthermore, fuel efficiency is reduced when you go faster than a certain point. So, if you go too fast, you are not only increasing risk, but hurting other (and wasting money) by increasing pollution and fuel consumption. See below:
Speeding laws are largely a source of extra revenue (and don't get me started on those ridiculous seat belt laws)
Sure, speeding laws are a source of extra revenue. But what's wrong with that? Someone needs to pay for the damage caused by speeders. And if you don't speed, you don't have to pay them. If people obeyed the law, how could they raise revenue? On the other hand - how do we get speeders to stop without paying for police to stop them?
P.S: What's so ridiculous about seatbelt laws?
No, it;s a bullshit thing caused by proprietary email clients, and people's unwillingness to edit their quotations.
Obviously real geeks are in a different position, having learnt the "proper" way long ago,
No, everbody learns to read English top-to-bottom, and this standard of quoting has been standard in the print media well before email. For some reason, email clients and many blogs want to reverse our fundamental top-to-bottom training, and also the conventions of dialogue in written conversation that have been around for hundreds of years.
I guess we should also exclude Timmy from the rules, but that time-traveling wheelchair looks pretty dangerous.
No, the general idea is that the faster you go, the less control and reaction time you have. Since most people aren't responsible enough to control their speed safely, a limit has to be set somewhere.
Where'd that number come from?
It's not arbitrary, it's based on whether or not it's a residential area, the condition of the road, etc. At least it shouldn't be arbitrary.
Anyway, what's the big deal? How does it hurt you to be set an arbitrary limit? We set an arbitrary age for getting a driver's license. If you don't like the rules, don't drive. What is the benefit of eliminating speed limits supposed to be?
What? What's "arbitrarily" illegal about apeeding? It is one of the most commonsense laws ever.
Secondly, they are extremely effective, if used widely. Speeding has almost been entirely eliminated since speed cameras were installed all over my city. If there's one thing you don't want to do here, it's speed. What are the ineffective cases you are speaking of?