I've previously ranted on my dislike of the [product]-killer label, but considering my diminutive post count I'm certain no one has read those comments.
Labeling any new product as its primary rivals (and defacto market leader) as the killer of the original product by any party does no good to actually help the product succeed. Continued reference to the original product by the new product's producing company can reek of arrogance, whereas the reference by either that party or by any media coverage can imply that the new product does not have the foothold in the market necessary to become successful and still publicizes the name of the original product, keeping the original product in the spotlight.
For example, and I am not using this to ruffle feathers, simply as an example, the Zune was labeled as an iPod-killer by multiple parties. Were I an uninformed consumer looking for a new digital music player and happened to be reading a commentary on the "Zune" which referred to it as "Microsoft's iPod-Killer" two things would come to my mind. 1) What is an iPod, and 2) Why does an iPod need to be killed?
Labeling a product as the killer of another product can also be the byproduct of a lack of objectivity in a review, which can also be inferred by the reader as a lack of faith in the product. Are many users satisfied with their Zune purchase? Yes. However, as an uninformed reader, if I see a paragraph begin "Unfortunately, Microsoft's iPod-Killer doesn't---" then I may consider evaluating my future purchase when the Zune may have suited my needs perfectly.
And I realize that this is not at large the fault of the Slashdot submitter, and often these are quotes from the article, but I find it very disconcerning to see such remarks in what should b an unbiased critque of an application in a private beta stage being compared to a well-identified landmark on the internet.
I've actually just subscribed to your practice. I lost a domain back in May due to financial issues (my first and last name.com) and went to register it again about two months ago. I did the search but didn't purchase immediately, believing I had time. Two days later it was a generic link site.
This time, I searched for a new domain, found it available, and bought it outright. If I hadn't read this story, I probably would've delayed my purchase and lost on another domain name.
I have to agree with you on the most part, as most of the information I've seen from Time Warner and former Time Warner employees seems to indicated that AOL executives with too much influence have ruined a great many products Time Warner used to have. Hell, CNN went from industry standard to joke in the span of a month and has never really recovered.
When I have a friend who actually works for Verizon and claims that this happened, I tend to believe it. He's pretty ticked about it, because he didn't find out they disabled the copper until after the install.
I'm looking forward to Microsoft's next big thing: The Browser-based Browser. "You can now use Internet Explorer through any other browser, just make sure you have Internet Explorer installed!"
My comment wasn't to necessarily single out anyone as the "bad guy".
My company as a limit on e-mail stored on the Exchange server, between 50-200 Mb depending on your position within the company. Our solution to that is to use PST files if you need to exceed your given amount.
The fact is, if the company has data that can be compromised by introducing it through outside services, after the situation has been evaluated and it has bee decided that making changes to the network is not ideal, policy should be in place to discipline such actions.
never used it, never send the email address to ANYONE from there, but every day, there's spam in there.
I'd say, "Yeah there's a security hole in there..."
I've had my GMail account from back in the early days, use it as my primary e-mail address, use it to register on many sites, some of which I know are not entirely secure, and have never had a piece of spam.
People do use private accounts to store work information
And companies with information that is valuable to other companies should enforce regulations opposing this.
I've worked at one organization where this was implicitly expected, because the mail server at the time was so unreliable. But that scenario is certainly less than optimal.
It's less than optimal to fix the mail server?
In an ideal world, an organization would be able to draw a line in the sand and say that corporate data does not pass this point.
Really? My company does that. My training materials aren't allowed to leave the building.
The current reality is that there are Gen-Y workers who are sharing information with each other on multiple alternative communication channels--Gmail and Facebook included
If they share corporate information through Facebook, do you need that employee?
I love rumors. Rumors make me believe everything will be better and just the way I like it. Google -might- create a new second life, Microsoft is -poised- to buy stock in Facebook, there have been -talks- that Mac OS X won't run on 800 MHz machines.
Now facts... facts I have no time for. Facts are depressing, facts are cruel and heartless, and facts are used by people such as Jack Thompson. Or, rumor has it that he uses facts, so I suppose in truth he's rumored to have certainty -- which shakes me to the core.
Also, rumors tell companies like Google what to do next. "Hmm, what will we do tomorrow? Let's see what we're rumored to do? A new Second Life and a puppy-reselling website? We'll need some more Ajax scripters!"
Oh, rumors, is there anything you can't allude to?
(not a dig at/., just feeling a little jokey today)
Thompson: As you can see, this so-called "game" features underlying propoganda... Judge:...where? Thompson:...Veiled commands of violence against others... Judge: What? Thompson:...and subliminal messages designed to turn our children into soulless killing machines. Judge: I'm sorry, I don't see it. The court finds in favor of the defendent. Viva Pinata may remain on shelves.
If I recall correctly, wasn't there an "agreement" made between the makers of GTA and Thompson, the primary factor being that Thompson agreed to no longer speak out against the games or try to block their sales directly or indirectly?
Or, is Thompson on the payroll now and just bringing more publicity to the title? Hmmm?
Sadly this seems to be the deal in journalism at the moment. Everything is sacrificed in order to be first to publish or, if not first then, not too far behind
I agree. At the newspaper I work for, we once had to reprint over 600 copies of our A-Section. Why? One of our reporters took a rumour about a missing girl as fact. Despite that most of us had dismissed it (as the story was being covered nationally), he chose to go with the story. When he was chewed out by the Publisher, he was venting at someone in our department, declaring "I'm not going to fact-check something like that!".
Everyone wants the big story, whether it's true or not.
If you can apply that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal to download music") then conversely you should be able to apply that ignorance of a program's abilities are indicative that you should not be using it until you are exactly certain as to what it can and can't do.
Yes, I realize it's a stretch.
When I first saw this, I thought: "Great! Creationism is declining so rapidly that we need a museum to teach about this primitive superstition." No such luck.
To make matters worse, the building wasn't even constructed. It just popped up overnight and 'was'.
I don't see why the government doesnt go after companies using spam as a selling technique. They still have to recieve money somehow and that can be traced. If the G would shut a few down and lock a few people up for a deacade then there would be a lot less spamming going on.
Because once we authorize the government (or let them authorize themselves) to keep eyes on botnets, there is a possibility that the government may begin to overextend itself onto the Internet in an unfavorable manor.
Actually, it's not that I'm not surprised... it's that I just don't really care about it anymore.
See, I like to bash Microsoft as much as the next guy, but I've always tried to be reasonable about, pointing out and recognizing faults in my OS of choice while doing so.
It used to be fun to poke fun at Vista, the delays, the features getting cut left and right, ribbons, all of that. Not only has it become tedius, but in my opinion it's just become a bit depressing to think how mediocre a product this might actually be.
The jumps from Windows 31. to 95/98 were incredible. And while I switched platforms not long after XP came out, I was able to recognize significant improvements from 98 (and even more significant than ME).
I don't really see anything more than aesthetics that will really warrant the time and effort put into the new system. Microsoft, while shady in business practices (or so some may think) did have some great products. I simply believe that Vista won't live up to the hype and fall rather short of expectations.
So, I'm not so much surprised as I am disappointed.
Can anyone actually think of a reason this is good news?
Because hopefully any positions that were deemed "redundant" after the merger would be made available again, which gives some additional people work. Maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
I've previously ranted on my dislike of the [product]-killer label, but considering my diminutive post count I'm certain no one has read those comments.
Labeling any new product as its primary rivals (and defacto market leader) as the killer of the original product by any party does no good to actually help the product succeed. Continued reference to the original product by the new product's producing company can reek of arrogance, whereas the reference by either that party or by any media coverage can imply that the new product does not have the foothold in the market necessary to become successful and still publicizes the name of the original product, keeping the original product in the spotlight.
For example, and I am not using this to ruffle feathers, simply as an example, the Zune was labeled as an iPod-killer by multiple parties. Were I an uninformed consumer looking for a new digital music player and happened to be reading a commentary on the "Zune" which referred to it as "Microsoft's iPod-Killer" two things would come to my mind. 1) What is an iPod, and 2) Why does an iPod need to be killed?
Labeling a product as the killer of another product can also be the byproduct of a lack of objectivity in a review, which can also be inferred by the reader as a lack of faith in the product. Are many users satisfied with their Zune purchase? Yes. However, as an uninformed reader, if I see a paragraph begin "Unfortunately, Microsoft's iPod-Killer doesn't---" then I may consider evaluating my future purchase when the Zune may have suited my needs perfectly.
And I realize that this is not at large the fault of the Slashdot submitter, and often these are quotes from the article, but I find it very disconcerning to see such remarks in what should b an unbiased critque of an application in a private beta stage being compared to a well-identified landmark on the internet.
I've actually just subscribed to your practice. I lost a domain back in May due to financial issues (my first and last name.com) and went to register it again about two months ago. I did the search but didn't purchase immediately, believing I had time. Two days later it was a generic link site.
This time, I searched for a new domain, found it available, and bought it outright. If I hadn't read this story, I probably would've delayed my purchase and lost on another domain name.
It's not in a state, I believe the land was "liberated" from another state. Think of it as an autonomous government playground.
Hmm, it's amazing what they'll make a state these days.
I have to agree with you on the most part, as most of the information I've seen from Time Warner and former Time Warner employees seems to indicated that AOL executives with too much influence have ruined a great many products Time Warner used to have. Hell, CNN went from industry standard to joke in the span of a month and has never really recovered.
Boss to Employees: "Goodbye".
There, now it's out of the way.
When I have a friend who actually works for Verizon and claims that this happened, I tend to believe it. He's pretty ticked about it, because he didn't find out they disabled the copper until after the install.
I'm looking forward to Microsoft's next big thing: The Browser-based Browser. "You can now use Internet Explorer through any other browser, just make sure you have Internet Explorer installed!"
My comment wasn't to necessarily single out anyone as the "bad guy".
My company as a limit on e-mail stored on the Exchange server, between 50-200 Mb depending on your position within the company. Our solution to that is to use PST files if you need to exceed your given amount.
The fact is, if the company has data that can be compromised by introducing it through outside services, after the situation has been evaluated and it has bee decided that making changes to the network is not ideal, policy should be in place to discipline such actions.
Just a counter-point.
I love rumors. Rumors make me believe everything will be better and just the way I like it. Google -might- create a new second life, Microsoft is -poised- to buy stock in Facebook, there have been -talks- that Mac OS X won't run on 800 MHz machines.
/., just feeling a little jokey today)
Now facts... facts I have no time for. Facts are depressing, facts are cruel and heartless, and facts are used by people such as Jack Thompson. Or, rumor has it that he uses facts, so I suppose in truth he's rumored to have certainty -- which shakes me to the core.
Also, rumors tell companies like Google what to do next. "Hmm, what will we do tomorrow? Let's see what we're rumored to do? A new Second Life and a puppy-reselling website? We'll need some more Ajax scripters!"
Oh, rumors, is there anything you can't allude to?
(not a dig at
Thompson: As you can see, this so-called "game" features underlying propoganda... ...where? ...Veiled commands of violence against others... ...and subliminal messages designed to turn our children into soulless killing machines.
Judge:
Thompson:
Judge: What?
Thompson:
Judge: I'm sorry, I don't see it. The court finds in favor of the defendent. Viva Pinata may remain on shelves.
If I recall correctly, wasn't there an "agreement" made between the makers of GTA and Thompson, the primary factor being that Thompson agreed to no longer speak out against the games or try to block their sales directly or indirectly?
Or, is Thompson on the payroll now and just bringing more publicity to the title? Hmmm?
Everyone wants the big story, whether it's true or not.
If you can apply that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal to download music") then conversely you should be able to apply that ignorance of a program's abilities are indicative that you should not be using it until you are exactly certain as to what it can and can't do. Yes, I realize it's a stretch.
They break because everyone and their cousin decides to dissect them in order to find out whether or not they can run Linux.
SCO's response: "Of course they're denying it! Denying it means they have something to hide!"
Actually, it's not that I'm not surprised... it's that I just don't really care about it anymore.
See, I like to bash Microsoft as much as the next guy, but I've always tried to be reasonable about, pointing out and recognizing faults in my OS of choice while doing so.
It used to be fun to poke fun at Vista, the delays, the features getting cut left and right, ribbons, all of that. Not only has it become tedius, but in my opinion it's just become a bit depressing to think how mediocre a product this might actually be.
The jumps from Windows 31. to 95/98 were incredible. And while I switched platforms not long after XP came out, I was able to recognize significant improvements from 98 (and even more significant than ME).
I don't really see anything more than aesthetics that will really warrant the time and effort put into the new system. Microsoft, while shady in business practices (or so some may think) did have some great products. I simply believe that Vista won't live up to the hype and fall rather short of expectations.
So, I'm not so much surprised as I am disappointed.
It's because it's a neat, short, common word for a TLD. Those are hard to come by.
And at this rate, I think in 2076 people will be bidding on wouldyoulikeasandwich.org.
Creepy Windows XP Halloweeen Mask
You misspelled "Crappy".
Can anyone actually think of a reason this is good news?
Because hopefully any positions that were deemed "redundant" after the merger would be made available again, which gives some additional people work. Maybe.