If you are talking to people in the developer community, you have a valid point. For the rest of the user base, however, all they can do is inform the community of bugs and problems, along with providing a list of desired features. In the business world we have many names for it: validation testing, requirements mapping, and quality management to name a few...
An astute assessment of the situation. I do believe there is hope for some non-corporate projects, but from what I have seen, the ones that will succeed are those that are supported by a deeply committed community. I forward the opinion that those most likely to succeed are those where that commonality of community existed before the onset of the project. There appear to be many similarities between the OSS community (at-large) and the world of non-profits in the corporate world. As a long-time volunteer for a national youth service organization, I know that successes on the local level usually grow out of a small group of concerned people who get together to do something about it. In places where other local arms of the organization try to emulate the success of the one, often by recruiting volunteers to fill specific pre-defined needs, they rarely have the same rate of success. Pulling together disperate personalities and egos for a common good takes careful leadership and good planning, not to mention conflict-resolution skills comparable to those of a good hostage negotiator. As soon as those volunteers become employees, however, the common motivation of the paycheck can get most people to set aside many personal issues for the sake of the assigned task. The risk there, however, is that the original goal, whether it be developing the best, most user-friendly Linux distro or having the fastest growing chapter of a non-profit, may move from being a visionary dream to being just a job.
I would not go so far as to limit liability for banks to when the actual thief is one of their employees. Banks should also be responsible if they are negligent in protecting their online banking systems, or any other information system used to facilitate a theft. I think you'll agree to that.
It really comes down to common sense. The party that erred is the one that should pay. If neither party erred, I would come down on the side of protecting the bank from unreasonable losses (which ultimately protects the rest of us as consumers). If someone steals your wallet while on the subway, your only hope of recovery (assuming lost cash) is to catch, prosecute, and convict the thief. In some cases, the victim may have insurance to cover part of the theft (my policy only covers up to $200 cash), but otherwise must cover the loss. In reality, it should not be any different for an online theft, but I believe most banks and credit providers currently provide additional protections so as to move more users toward electronic payments where the bank's costs are not as high.
Agreed. In fact, most online banking EULAs are very clear that the customer is responsible for safeguarding all logon information. Contractually, it is the customer's responsibility. There was a similar case a year or so ago about a Bank of America customer whose acccount logon/password information was stolen through a trojan or other exploit because the customer did not protect his machine. I have not head how this one shook out in court. While I am sympathetic to those who lost money (my account was robbed of $2400+ through check fraud some years ago), I also believe that users must take responsibility for safeguarding their own information.
As a part time tech prof, I believe this to be a worthwhile endeavor. My early reservation, however, is regarding the editorial framework. If each chapter has a different editor, it may be difficult to develop a common voice for the entire WikiText. Also, single editors (vs. an editorial review team with a chief editor) would limit the editorial perspective, increasing the liklihood that the materials would convey the editor's personal biases to a greater degree (it's inevitable for any work, but most in the academic world are not reviewed by a single set of eyes). This latter concern would be somewhat mitigated by the Wiki format, since regular revisions may be suggested, but that leads me to one final concern...
Unless the WikiTexts are printed for use, or updated on a limited schedule, there is the possibility that students may study different versions, making assessment (based on assigned reading) more difficult. [I would hope the content would not change to such a degree as to invalidate previous versions, but it is a possibility.]
I will watch expectantly (and hopefully contribute) as this develops...
I think the thieves and thugs were out there--we either did not care when we were younger, or they simply were able to get away with their actions more often because press covereage was not as rapid and broad-reaching.
Or, in some cases, it may have been that the frauds were on a more localized level. When they did occur, the shameful acts were not discussed as openly. The merger-mania of the '80s broadened the scope of many companies, so issues that were once easier to hide are now more difficult to conceal.
The only other reason is that changing the classification of the planet may lead some to believe that Disney must now rename or reclassify some of its characters. After all, both Goofy and Pluto cannot be dogs, can they?
All's fine until your friend's PC is compromised or stolen, and your backups are lost in the process. I'm all for offsite backup storage, but I would not trust my personal information and files to another user, network, or computer without a comprehensive contract that clarifies rights and responsibilities on both sides.
On the topic of ancient PCs and Macs...how many old PCs do you see that are still in use? Most of them gather dust and then are dumped. I'm astonished every time I see ancient Macs--they are almost always in use. There are limitations to the FRU upgrade path, and some of the old PCs I have kept around are so noticably slow that they are not worth maintaining for nearly any task. Old Macs just seem to hang on...
[I'll consent that there may be other reasons (e.g., budget constraints in public schools) that lend to the extended life cycle of a Mac, but I believe such factors do not diminish the nature of Apple/Mac longevity.]
An excellent clarification. There are few topics that show the polarization of the crowd as well as this one.
I think the original poster's use of the term "experience vendor" is a good one, and it bears some serious consideration. It is the ultimate in branding. They have established, to a great degree, a set of expectations and assumptions around their product. That is the experience they pitch to potential customers.
We've all seen this in different sectors. When you hear the term "used car salesman," what comes to mind? I've run into may folks in used car sales who go out of their way to sell a "car-buying experience" so they can differentiate themselves in the market. These are the establishments (heck, even cropping up in new car sales) that offer "no-pressure" sales floors, no-haggle pricing, free oil changes for a year, premium coffee in the lobby, even a sales force that will drive the vehicles to your home so you can test drive them in your own neighborhood. It's the same transition mom-and-pop stores must make when giants like Wal-Mart move in. They must focus on "value-added" services to draw in customers, especially since they cannot compete on price alone.
Plus, I'm not sure how many businesses are interested in running Mac OS, since they seem to be be pushing towards a "less work, more play" kind of operating system.
Have you looked at Vista? The whole evoluation goes beyond XP Media Center. That's the OS that'll hit workplace PCs starting (MS hopes) in 2007. As I look at Vista's features against the work done in my office, I see very little that makes this a necessary change. The uber-graphics are cool, but I see no real business value for 98+% of typical office workers. Wireless networking support is improved, but that should be a given now on any platform. Everything seems to be moving toward the "ultimate media experience" with little regard for real business user requirements. In time, businesses will be running even more fantastic hardware and software, not because of a specific user need, but because such features will be part of the standard PC build.
The reason their OS is so good is that they limited the hardware platform they needed to support. While the rest of us were going through DLL-hell, Macs chugged on. So what if you can run OS/X on another box? Apple made a decision to increase stablity by limiting consumer choice. They demand a premium price (which, I admit, is at times too premium) in exchange for an OS/hardware combo that has a track record for stability, a simple user interface, and a deliberate focus on aesthetic appeal.
I look at the ads like I do any other--they exist to try to influence people toward a purchasing decision. In that, only the market will tell if they are successful. Whether or not more Macs sell, I still enjoyed the ads.
The problem is this: who decides what is applicable to what the company produces?
They may sell health care software, but if you create some software or process for your local little league association, your employer CAN claim that work under the agreement as written IF they can show that it is applicable to their products. Their products are not limited to the health care stuff they sell, but would also include any in-house software applications, tools, or processes.
Let's imagine this... Your little league application rocks. In the process of developing it, you created some code and other functions that pull together disparate data sources, so you can effectively use your tool to work with data from ANY little league team regardless of what system they presently use. Your employer hears about this and thinks it would be a great way to get data from all of their functional divisions together into a single querey tool...POOF! It's not your IP anymore.
I was forced to sign one of these agreements as a condition of continued employment, and I regret it now. I've simply stopped innovating until I find a gig somewhere else so I don't risk my IP assets, and then I won't start up again until at least 6 months after I leave my present job (the extend of the agreement I am under). Oh, the old mind is still grinding away, and the ideas are piling up, but at least my agreement refers specifically to patents, filed during the term of the contract (retroactive to date of hire and extending 6 months after seperation), not ideas.
I have a coworker who has had the guts not to sign. So far, no one has noticed his form isn't in yet. If push comes to shove, he says he may rather walk that sign such a blanket statement. He is a developer, whereas I'm in a support position and I just dabble. To me, the contract was a necessary evil in order to maintain a paycheck, but for him, it could be something that cripples his ability to stake out on his own some day.
I'm just hoping one of my kids becomes a lawyer, so I can enlist him/her into reviewing some of these things in the future.
Then you've been just lucky. If you strike it, without innitialing the page (or, preferably, the line) and having the other party do the same, you cannot prove that the struck comments were not active in the first place (when the document was signed).
I don't know what jursidiction you are in, or how big your contracts were, but the struck line defense will likely not fly in any contract litigation in the U.S.
I just can't understand why this story of Pluto's reclassification is deemed "breaking news" on the major news websites. It's not as if it just changed orbit and was streaking straight for New Jersey...
There are hiccoughs in electronic balloting today, and it is clear that many do not see the value of moving away from a paper-based system. I belive, however, that paperless voting, as it is being tested today, is only the first step in a logical progression toward electronic voting that may be initiated by any citizen from any terminal in the world, with all of the appropriate authentication, authorization, and verification methods in place.
Envision this: Citizens go to a secure website and log on using a unique voter identification number (not SSN). The citizen reviews the ballot, makes his/her selection(s), and submits the vote. An encrypted confirmation message (a la Zix) is sent to the citizen, asking him/her to confirm the recent vote. Once confirmed, the vote is logged to a central repository, and the voter information is encrypted using the voter's private key.
The crux of this system would hinge on the ability to issue identification credentials on a national scale, to ensure that only the true individual can vote as the individual. This system could be strengthened with biometrics and some other two-factor authentication device (e.g., smart card. RFID chip).
Electronic balloting today is just the start of the journey...
I'm sorry you did not see my attempt at humor as such. If you view my other posts, you'll see I've already referenced the energy density of sugar as superior to that of corn.
I just know that a lot of deforestation is still going on in the Amazon basin, for a variety of crops. That's the sad thing, and it was the crux of my attempt at a joke (in response to the "farm all of America" line of thinking).
There is certainly a place for both formal and informal language usage. For personal communications, develop whatever slang, jargon, catchphrases, or shorthand you desire. For formal, academic, and business communications, keep it proper. One would hope most people could make that transition.
Unfortunately, I do believe we, as an American culture, are too content to allow too much departure from proper English in many areas. I'm no language purist or grammar expert by any means, but just listen to our television news anchors, or read numerous newspaper columns, and you will find grammatical errors that would not have received passing marks when I was in elementary school.
For better or worse, languages change over time (although the French think they can stop it!). The increasing informality of American English may just be part of that transition.
I'm hoping your comment was tongue-in-cheek. I cannot imagine any consumer wanting to handle coal (even if compressed nicely into little briquettes). It may be a decent energy source, but it is messy, and messy does not go with a power suit.
Besides, have you ever smelled some coals burn? Much of the coal mined in northern Illinois had so much sulfer in it that companies avoided using it when I was a child. Technology has improved much over the last 20 years, so that coal is used regularly, but whooooooo.... if you think car exhaust stinks now, I can only imagine...
Sugar beets are also a viable source for sugar-based ethanol. Almost any high-sugar plant is a potential source. The question becomes how energy-dense are they.
Ethanol should just be one option to help us move away from petroleum. As other technologies mature (e.g. more efficient solar, better battery technology), we should be able to move away from combustion engines for most applications (perhaps except as backup).
I'm honestly surprised that we (as a society in the U.S.) have not gotten over our nuclear-phobia; building more nuclear generators and reprocessing spent fuel rods that could be recycled for more reactor use would allow us to utilize electric power for more transit (and other) needs. Electricity prices would also drop in the process (more produced at less cost).
Actually, there is a desire in the ethanol industry to go 100% ethanol. E85 (85% ethanol) is already here for some mixed-fuel vehicles.
Even then, the 100% ethanol vehicles would only (likely) be 100% ethanol for comustion in a hybrid ethanol/electric vehicle (e.g., ethanol Prius hybrid).
Why not run on fry fat? Well, for the large percentage of the American population that works in fast food/restaurants/kitches, the idea of smelling that burning grease while they are off the job, too, is just unbearable.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are talking to people in the developer community, you have a valid point. For the rest of the user base, however, all they can do is inform the community of bugs and problems, along with providing a list of desired features. In the business world we have many names for it: validation testing, requirements mapping, and quality management to name a few...
An astute assessment of the situation. I do believe there is hope for some non-corporate projects, but from what I have seen, the ones that will succeed are those that are supported by a deeply committed community. I forward the opinion that those most likely to succeed are those where that commonality of community existed before the onset of the project. There appear to be many similarities between the OSS community (at-large) and the world of non-profits in the corporate world. As a long-time volunteer for a national youth service organization, I know that successes on the local level usually grow out of a small group of concerned people who get together to do something about it. In places where other local arms of the organization try to emulate the success of the one, often by recruiting volunteers to fill specific pre-defined needs, they rarely have the same rate of success. Pulling together disperate personalities and egos for a common good takes careful leadership and good planning, not to mention conflict-resolution skills comparable to those of a good hostage negotiator. As soon as those volunteers become employees, however, the common motivation of the paycheck can get most people to set aside many personal issues for the sake of the assigned task. The risk there, however, is that the original goal, whether it be developing the best, most user-friendly Linux distro or having the fastest growing chapter of a non-profit, may move from being a visionary dream to being just a job.
I would not go so far as to limit liability for banks to when the actual thief is one of their employees. Banks should also be responsible if they are negligent in protecting their online banking systems, or any other information system used to facilitate a theft. I think you'll agree to that.
It really comes down to common sense. The party that erred is the one that should pay. If neither party erred, I would come down on the side of protecting the bank from unreasonable losses (which ultimately protects the rest of us as consumers). If someone steals your wallet while on the subway, your only hope of recovery (assuming lost cash) is to catch, prosecute, and convict the thief. In some cases, the victim may have insurance to cover part of the theft (my policy only covers up to $200 cash), but otherwise must cover the loss. In reality, it should not be any different for an online theft, but I believe most banks and credit providers currently provide additional protections so as to move more users toward electronic payments where the bank's costs are not as high.
Agreed. In fact, most online banking EULAs are very clear that the customer is responsible for safeguarding all logon information. Contractually, it is the customer's responsibility. There was a similar case a year or so ago about a Bank of America customer whose acccount logon/password information was stolen through a trojan or other exploit because the customer did not protect his machine. I have not head how this one shook out in court. While I am sympathetic to those who lost money (my account was robbed of $2400+ through check fraud some years ago), I also believe that users must take responsibility for safeguarding their own information.
As a part time tech prof, I believe this to be a worthwhile endeavor. My early reservation, however, is regarding the editorial framework. If each chapter has a different editor, it may be difficult to develop a common voice for the entire WikiText. Also, single editors (vs. an editorial review team with a chief editor) would limit the editorial perspective, increasing the liklihood that the materials would convey the editor's personal biases to a greater degree (it's inevitable for any work, but most in the academic world are not reviewed by a single set of eyes). This latter concern would be somewhat mitigated by the Wiki format, since regular revisions may be suggested, but that leads me to one final concern...
Unless the WikiTexts are printed for use, or updated on a limited schedule, there is the possibility that students may study different versions, making assessment (based on assigned reading) more difficult. [I would hope the content would not change to such a degree as to invalidate previous versions, but it is a possibility.]
I will watch expectantly (and hopefully contribute) as this develops...
I think the thieves and thugs were out there--we either did not care when we were younger, or they simply were able to get away with their actions more often because press covereage was not as rapid and broad-reaching.
Or, in some cases, it may have been that the frauds were on a more localized level. When they did occur, the shameful acts were not discussed as openly. The merger-mania of the '80s broadened the scope of many companies, so issues that were once easier to hide are now more difficult to conceal.
The only other reason is that changing the classification of the planet may lead some to believe that Disney must now rename or reclassify some of its characters. After all, both Goofy and Pluto cannot be dogs, can they?
All's fine until your friend's PC is compromised or stolen, and your backups are lost in the process. I'm all for offsite backup storage, but I would not trust my personal information and files to another user, network, or computer without a comprehensive contract that clarifies rights and responsibilities on both sides.
On the topic of ancient PCs and Macs...how many old PCs do you see that are still in use? Most of them gather dust and then are dumped. I'm astonished every time I see ancient Macs--they are almost always in use. There are limitations to the FRU upgrade path, and some of the old PCs I have kept around are so noticably slow that they are not worth maintaining for nearly any task. Old Macs just seem to hang on...
[I'll consent that there may be other reasons (e.g., budget constraints in public schools) that lend to the extended life cycle of a Mac, but I believe such factors do not diminish the nature of Apple/Mac longevity.]
An excellent clarification. There are few topics that show the polarization of the crowd as well as this one.
I think the original poster's use of the term "experience vendor" is a good one, and it bears some serious consideration. It is the ultimate in branding. They have established, to a great degree, a set of expectations and assumptions around their product. That is the experience they pitch to potential customers.
We've all seen this in different sectors. When you hear the term "used car salesman," what comes to mind? I've run into may folks in used car sales who go out of their way to sell a "car-buying experience" so they can differentiate themselves in the market. These are the establishments (heck, even cropping up in new car sales) that offer "no-pressure" sales floors, no-haggle pricing, free oil changes for a year, premium coffee in the lobby, even a sales force that will drive the vehicles to your home so you can test drive them in your own neighborhood. It's the same transition mom-and-pop stores must make when giants like Wal-Mart move in. They must focus on "value-added" services to draw in customers, especially since they cannot compete on price alone.
The reason their OS is so good is that they limited the hardware platform they needed to support. While the rest of us were going through DLL-hell, Macs chugged on. So what if you can run OS/X on another box? Apple made a decision to increase stablity by limiting consumer choice. They demand a premium price (which, I admit, is at times too premium) in exchange for an OS/hardware combo that has a track record for stability, a simple user interface, and a deliberate focus on aesthetic appeal.
I look at the ads like I do any other--they exist to try to influence people toward a purchasing decision. In that, only the market will tell if they are successful. Whether or not more Macs sell, I still enjoyed the ads.
I would love to see MS make ads like this. What would they have to foil?
PC: Well, I have access to more software titles. Developers write new and interesting programs for me."
Mac: So?
PC: You don't even get the best games! Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah-nyah!
Mac: [Runs away, sobbing]
Sure, the PC guy is more memorable, but he is memorable for being an idiot...not quite the reputation most would want.
Also, I believe the difference in frame of the two actors was subtle.
Mac==slim/lean
Windows==bloatware
Hey, I work with M$ systems every day. Great work, Apple! Keep it up!
The problem is this: who decides what is applicable to what the company produces?
They may sell health care software, but if you create some software or process for your local little league association, your employer CAN claim that work under the agreement as written IF they can show that it is applicable to their products. Their products are not limited to the health care stuff they sell, but would also include any in-house software applications, tools, or processes.
Let's imagine this... Your little league application rocks. In the process of developing it, you created some code and other functions that pull together disparate data sources, so you can effectively use your tool to work with data from ANY little league team regardless of what system they presently use. Your employer hears about this and thinks it would be a great way to get data from all of their functional divisions together into a single querey tool...POOF! It's not your IP anymore.
I was forced to sign one of these agreements as a condition of continued employment, and I regret it now. I've simply stopped innovating until I find a gig somewhere else so I don't risk my IP assets, and then I won't start up again until at least 6 months after I leave my present job (the extend of the agreement I am under). Oh, the old mind is still grinding away, and the ideas are piling up, but at least my agreement refers specifically to patents, filed during the term of the contract (retroactive to date of hire and extending 6 months after seperation), not ideas.
I have a coworker who has had the guts not to sign. So far, no one has noticed his form isn't in yet. If push comes to shove, he says he may rather walk that sign such a blanket statement. He is a developer, whereas I'm in a support position and I just dabble. To me, the contract was a necessary evil in order to maintain a paycheck, but for him, it could be something that cripples his ability to stake out on his own some day.
I'm just hoping one of my kids becomes a lawyer, so I can enlist him/her into reviewing some of these things in the future.
Then you've been just lucky. If you strike it, without innitialing the page (or, preferably, the line) and having the other party do the same, you cannot prove that the struck comments were not active in the first place (when the document was signed).
I don't know what jursidiction you are in, or how big your contracts were, but the struck line defense will likely not fly in any contract litigation in the U.S.
I just can't understand why this story of Pluto's reclassification is deemed "breaking news" on the major news websites. It's not as if it just changed orbit and was streaking straight for New Jersey...
Now that would be breaking news!
There are hiccoughs in electronic balloting today, and it is clear that many do not see the value of moving away from a paper-based system. I belive, however, that paperless voting, as it is being tested today, is only the first step in a logical progression toward electronic voting that may be initiated by any citizen from any terminal in the world, with all of the appropriate authentication, authorization, and verification methods in place.
Envision this: Citizens go to a secure website and log on using a unique voter identification number (not SSN). The citizen reviews the ballot, makes his/her selection(s), and submits the vote. An encrypted confirmation message (a la Zix) is sent to the citizen, asking him/her to confirm the recent vote. Once confirmed, the vote is logged to a central repository, and the voter information is encrypted using the voter's private key.
The crux of this system would hinge on the ability to issue identification credentials on a national scale, to ensure that only the true individual can vote as the individual. This system could be strengthened with biometrics and some other two-factor authentication device (e.g., smart card. RFID chip).
Electronic balloting today is just the start of the journey...
I'm sorry you did not see my attempt at humor as such. If you view my other posts, you'll see I've already referenced the energy density of sugar as superior to that of corn.
I just know that a lot of deforestation is still going on in the Amazon basin, for a variety of crops. That's the sad thing, and it was the crux of my attempt at a joke (in response to the "farm all of America" line of thinking).
AJR
There is certainly a place for both formal and informal language usage. For personal communications, develop whatever slang, jargon, catchphrases, or shorthand you desire. For formal, academic, and business communications, keep it proper. One would hope most people could make that transition.
Unfortunately, I do believe we, as an American culture, are too content to allow too much departure from proper English in many areas. I'm no language purist or grammar expert by any means, but just listen to our television news anchors, or read numerous newspaper columns, and you will find grammatical errors that would not have received passing marks when I was in elementary school.
For better or worse, languages change over time (although the French think they can stop it!). The increasing informality of American English may just be part of that transition.
I'm hoping your comment was tongue-in-cheek. I cannot imagine any consumer wanting to handle coal (even if compressed nicely into little briquettes). It may be a decent energy source, but it is messy, and messy does not go with a power suit.
Besides, have you ever smelled some coals burn? Much of the coal mined in northern Illinois had so much sulfer in it that companies avoided using it when I was a child. Technology has improved much over the last 20 years, so that coal is used regularly, but whooooooo.... if you think car exhaust stinks now, I can only imagine...
Sugar beets are also a viable source for sugar-based ethanol. Almost any high-sugar plant is a potential source. The question becomes how energy-dense are they.
Ethanol should just be one option to help us move away from petroleum. As other technologies mature (e.g. more efficient solar, better battery technology), we should be able to move away from combustion engines for most applications (perhaps except as backup).
I'm honestly surprised that we (as a society in the U.S.) have not gotten over our nuclear-phobia; building more nuclear generators and reprocessing spent fuel rods that could be recycled for more reactor use would allow us to utilize electric power for more transit (and other) needs. Electricity prices would also drop in the process (more produced at less cost).
Sure, just bulldoze the rest of the Amazon basin and raise corn...
:(
Actually, there is a desire in the ethanol industry to go 100% ethanol. E85 (85% ethanol) is already here for some mixed-fuel vehicles.
Even then, the 100% ethanol vehicles would only (likely) be 100% ethanol for comustion in a hybrid ethanol/electric vehicle (e.g., ethanol Prius hybrid).
Why not run on fry fat? Well, for the large percentage of the American population that works in fast food/restaurants/kitches, the idea of smelling that burning grease while they are off the job, too, is just unbearable.