If you're a startup guy working for a 20,000 employee company is not going to cut it. And to make things worse you won't have control over the product you created anymore.
I'm surprised it took him so long to quit.
You don't get it. When your start-up is acquired by big corp, it is usually their demand you stick for at least a year, instead of dumping your crap and taking a run with the money, which I'm sure he would have preferred. He did the year, finished his obligations, and leaves. Nothing to see, please move along.
Not only do we have a damn choice with lots of predictable friction considering the human nature of inability to change, even if you want to, you might lose out in the "arms" race. What if others can pay for the brain drugs where you can't? The effects of globalization and the collisions of different states and speeds of development and culture is just a small sample of things to come. Governments know this... all this crap of turning our democratic states into police states is more or less their way to prepare of things to come.
I made a basic economic example which does not cover the start of it, for the sake of brevity. It's a bit silly to take it literally instead of seeing the bigger scope of it. It doesn't work the way you think it does. There's cost of entrance, investment, increasingly bigger and fewer corps, etc. etc. Wintel lifecycles won over the wild innovation of the 80ties (Amiga and the others died). They had a grip on the market for over a decade despite your romantic views of capitalism. Again, this is just one example, you can apply it to most markets.
Your last point is even sillier considering your 2nd and last points. You don't have much of an argument, do you, except the predictable 1, which my argument refuted. But thanks for bringing it on as a counter-argument. That makes is circular, and more source of entertainment.
When I was a child I loved to dream about the year 2000 and about the predictions of flying cars. Since I learned why things didn't go as expected, I've been following the field of future predictions as a source of entertainment. You would think they would be more modest, considering the 100% empirical fail score, but nooo...
Anyway, the singularity will not happen anywhere soon, because they fail to take the following three points into consideration or appreciate their weight: 1) In the past technologies changed over lifetimes. When you lived the past century, you have seen many new technologies come. Closer to the Singularity, humans are not capable or willing to change so many times. Humans slow it down. 2) Economics. Products are tied to an economic life cycle of cost and win. If all human effort was concentrated, we could have a base on Venus. Or Flying Cars. Instead, we have Windows Vista and low power PC's. 3) Their own egos, fantasies and projections. Fiction at best.
A couple of years ago I was part of a project that saw what was going to happen and tried to take publishing to a new level. Although initially interested, O'Reilly snubbed it, among other potential investors. That's his perfectly valid right (this is not a complaint or about that project). He's also the self-proclaimed god of web 2.0. Also, there is a huge, growing demand for education and knowledge in Asia (but they won't buy books for $80).
Now this is my point: O'Reilly has had several years between the last crash and this to transform his business. A donkey could have projected the fate of technical dead-wood books. There are huge chances (playing field will change with new winners, Asia). I've seen play O'Reilly play with some online publishing concepts, but not anything remotely convincing, still playing the cards on the paper books.
O'Reilly shouldn't complain. He had his chance and blew it. His employees have a reason to complain. Many lost their jobs because of the lack of innovation and insight of their boss, who rather looked cool on web 2.0 gatherings, talking about the latest Crapmaster 3000 webapp.
That's hardly an argument at all, just like your, *cough*, insightful earlier comment. You just state something as fact, without argument. Then you criticize my remark. That's very particular. Now, you're suggesting a people manager does a worse job. What gives you exactly the idea a back stabber can do a better job? He already has the disadvantage of ill-motivated employees. This is the point where people with such strong opinion usually fail to produce something of weight, to retreat in silence. I wouldn't hire you either. The job market is flooded. Why hire an ass producing air when you can get a non-ass? Note that he didn't have better results.
His "backstabbing" was pretty insightful, IMO, and for Kelly, keeping him around was probably the right choice given the economic climate.
No it is not, and that is why this story feels so fictional. Managers are not cartoon characters. For one, it's common knowledge that when someone does that, it is to hide their lower ability. It is identical to the guy walking in and saying "I'm scared shitless to lose my job, because the other guy has the better papers." A cartoon manager would hail his ability to back stab. I would pick the people manager to stay. This is an important asset in tough times when you just had to fire 50%. Nothing touchy-feely about it, just business, motivation pays out.
"Google Researchers Warn of Automated Social Info Sharing"
Ooh that sounds good. I guess it sounds better than "Ad broker leads attention away from automated harvesting of private information, by PR initiative." Or, a child molester who issues warnings about abusive parents.
I for one was outraged by the original costs. Look, accidents happen where people are at work, but almost $250 per unit for dropping parts alone... I'm glad they're more careful now.
The problem is, all three of those earlier keyboards listed are only sold in Asia.;)
It's not different from any mail order. If you order, you'll have one next week. Problem with the Japanese keyboards is the price. Problem with all mechanical switch keyboards is you cannot walk into a store and try some.
My understanding of the Ribbon was that their goal was to expose functionality that's always existed but was hidden too deep to ever be of use
Oh there are pros and cons. The disadvantage is all the sweet from Common User Access guidelines is lost.
But that is not what the ribbon is all about. The ribbon is just another product cycle. The problem with WIMP is that basically, just as 20 years ago, you click an icon to start an application (etc.), and nothing has changed except looks. So Apple comes and goes with the dock and MS now entertains us with the ribbon. But it's all the same thing. Its only true purpose is to sell "next gen" which incorporates the new shiny. Is it better? That remains to be seen. Usually not (see dock).
Personally I would never mind it as an option, but in reality it is now a mess and with each app you have to check whether it's ribbon or not, if menus are available or not, and how the ribbon, if there, is implemented. That's worse than any single method, such as the consistent CUA.
The difference is still there in that you have to think of the action or "perfectly logical" option on our own in the text version, while the graphical interface will give spoilers because it makes you choose between different options.
I implemented an LP-MUD like driver for use on web pages as seen here, and both typed commands and click commands can be used. Each web page becomes a "location". The typed commands are geared towards power users but at the same time is the engine for the graphical interface. Effectively, you can type "open door" or you can click on the door and select "open door" from the menu. By default, you get a chat line when you press TAB, and commands are preceded by a / ("/say hello", "/get key") although you can set the command mode as default, and you don't need the/.
Obviously the problem with this is explorability. With the graphical interface, you can just trial and error your way through the virtual place. This makes it much more shallow. You don't have to think about a solution, instead you worry about "finding" the solution in the graphical interface. On the other hand however, no one but 0.01% will be interested in typing their way through their game.
One of the disadvantages of adventure games, IMO, is that they don't handle bigger thoughts, strategy and solutions, but just micro problems such as which object to insert where or whether the red or blue key opens the door. In fact, when you think about it, it's mind numbingly boring. I'd have liked adventures with more sophisticated puzzles. Graphical interfaces just make it worse for the advanced player and more difficult for a creator. This is why the original adventure games never die in some of the hearts of those who played them. For all the enormous advancements in graphics, the underlying games never really got that much better and usually are less sophisticated and less detailed.
This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.
No, you're a worthless, hypocrite Apple fan boy, who protects his fav brand while not even considering the message. Sad and pathetic. Shame on you! Jesus...
I'm no expert on greenpeace and how political they are. But even if they are, then this "troll" brings out the worst in the slashdot (Apple fanboy?) audience. I don't want to be trolled by these guys, but neither do I want to ignore everything that is inconvenient to my lifestyle at the expense of future generations. We should be careful that we don't, as a reaction to guys like these and because it's the easy solution, act the same way that caused the financial crash, which our children must also pay for. We do have responsibility. However, looking at the brand love exposed in the comments, it seems many people still got their heads up their asses. Have we become this shallow here, that only the messenger is discussed, not the issue?
Science and facts now please. I don't want to hear no more about greenpeace, while avoiding the issue. It's lame. So this is the actual text from the greenpeace report:
Apple's score increases slightly to 4.3 points, but the company drops to 14th position. Apple scores well for putting products on the market whose key components are
free of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVC vinyl plastic. Appleâ(TM)s latest iPods - the iPod Touch, Nano and Classic - are now free of both PVC and BFRs and the
MacBooks, MacBook Pro and MacBook are almost free of these substances. While Apple has now positioned itself amongst the leaders in the electronics industry on
phasing out toxic substances, to score more points the complete phase-out of PVC and BFRs in its iPods should be consistent across all other future product ranges. Apple
also needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.
Apple scores poorly on most e-waste criteria, except for reporting a recycling rate in 2006 of 18% as a percentage of sales 7 years ago; however, it needs to provide details
on how this is calculated.
It does slightly better on energy criteria for disclosing the carbon footprint of every model of product â" although not exactly what is being evaluated in the criterion. Apple
scores top marks (doubled) for all desktops computers, portable PCs and displays complying with Energy Star 4.0 and their iPod and iPhone power adapters exceeding the
Energy Star standard, despite making this information difficult to access.
Not too bad. Apple isn't the worst in their graph too. Ars Technica and Slashdot are putting the spotlight on them, not greenpeace, and you have been trolled by your fav IT medium.
So now the slashdot way to proceed would be to get a complete list of the toxic substances and discuss their nature and true damage to the environment, and if it's worthwhile to demand that manufacturers do better. I'm not an expert on these substances, but unlike many here, I know that, and I'm open for any real scientific info and any outcome. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's not like companies like Apple are saints or something, they tend to chose the cheapest option in their own short-term monkey sphere, which does not include long-term environmental effects, unless that would be bad karma in the public's eyes. See? Maybe there's a role for greenpeace after all. They may be nuts, but in a Stallman kind of way - it's sometimes good to have counter forces against other strong forces, even if you don't agree with them.
The main reason seems to be corporate intranet sites...
Oh was it? You're just bringing it as you'd like it to be, while completely ignoring the other reasons. Blah.
You suggested MS were deliberately trying to keep people on IE 6. That's not the case.
They did. Among others by excluding Windows 2000 users from the update. Or by not making it a mandatory update. And they did it for exactly the strategy I mentioned.
I conclude you're indeed a MS employee trying to cloud reality. Because MS's fear for web apps and how they try to slow down the inevitable is well known. Of course, you evade that issue.
You suggested MS were deliberately going to restrict IE 8 to just Win7. That's not the case either.
I suggested two possible scenario's, mister black&white of the MS PR department. Hey, I think they're not going to exclude anyone, even Linux users. Of course, running IE Silverlight on Vista will be the vastly superior experience, and will be restricted to Vista because, among others, the latest version of DirectX is required.
Know what the most funny thing of all is? Most people, me included, really don't care anymore. MS has already become irrelevant in a way, and already lost. What the fuck do I care what IE8 will be like? A dying man can kick & scream, ain't gonna change the outcome. So I'll leave it at this, if you don't mind.
20% is still using IE6. It's not hard to find out why. Your next points can all be categorized under "talking the talk". As long as they won't do the walk, and crap like IE6/IE7 is still on the market, it's just shallow marketing. Considering your last point, same thing, and remember Vista? Overall not the strongest of arguments there, you're clearly defending a monochrome color instead of discussing all possible sides, Mr. Anonymous Coward. More of the same marketing really. So let me ask you this: are you a fanboy, a MS employee, or is it you, Steve, virtually throwing chairs?
Well, this was to be expected. After all, they have been hanging on to IE6 so long, as a sabotage strategy against the upcoming world of web apps (bad HTML, CSS and no stuff like canvas).
The past year they have been talking the talk, and now they will not be walking the walk.
What next? When IE8 will arrive, it will still not implement stuff like canvas or be on the same level with CSS compliance. It will probably not be an auto-update, and perhaps only available on the latest incarnation of Vista whatever it is called. In other words, IE7 will take over the role of IE6.
Another possibility is that they're planning something big, and all the signs point to it (Silverlight and all). They know they can't play the incapable IE6-IE7 strategy forever, but instead of catching up, they will try to change the game by offering an alternative platform, IE8 + Silverlight + OS ties + media ties, perhaps connected with cloud computing.
Well, whatever, I wish them luck (not!). Last big things they tried on the consumer front were Vista and Live. It will be interesting times for them. Enough said.
You do have issues don't you? What is it? Mother got gang-banged because she needed a shot, and you're still looking for your father in prisons all over the country? You were beaten as a kid, and uncle John, when you looked for comfort, said it was ok to touch each other like that? You had an unfortunate physical accident, and the long stick couldn't be removed from your tight ass? So far I'm sticking with all of the above. Now fuck off.
Likewise, continuing your battle against Teh Evil that is the joke you did not get, makes you a complete and utter turd, especially since your handicap did not seem to stop you rating comedic talent, like a deaf person who has something up his ass and keeps rating orchestra. Some people...
Woohooo. Smart criminals must love digital evidence. What is a tool for investigators to catch stupid criminals, is also a tool for the smart ones to use the investigators to their advantage. So I kill my mother in law in one strike using my Model M. Then I take some pictures of the corpse using a Canon Powershot A510 which I'm not tied to (it's purely coincidence that my brother in law also owns one), post some pictures on smackmymil.com, and dispose of it. In fact, I own a Nikon D300 and have fanatically been taking pictures of my cat.
There is something inherently wrong with digital, producable evidence. In my example I was on the "right" side of the equation... could be worse.
Government control is a normalising force, designed to keep the system working and the interests of the people first and foremost on the agenda.
Well, that's a nice theory. However, you must have been living on Mars. In reality, it morphed into this decades ago: Government control is a force working to keep the Big Corp system working and the interests of the their sponsors - the filthy rich - first and foremost on the agenda.
I don't know about retail laws in the USA, but here in the Netherlands this horrible packaging is not seen as something to prevent theft or for presentation, but simply a trick that forces you to destroy the packaging. It cannot be opened without damaging the packaging. When the packaging is damaged, many people will not return a product when they are not happy with it, despite the fact it will not stand in court (yes, retailers may require undamaged packaging for returns, but no, not when one evilly designs it for this purpose).
Making a "new" package which does not sport this features won't solve this, because they acquire these packaging over normal ones exactly for this purpose. It evolved from normal packaging to provide this, it's not like that's the only thing there is and they don't have choice ("But now they have, with Amazon!"). If they do this with a limited number of products, all it is is a marketing ploy to generate sales incentives for that limited range, but there is no structural solution.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a startup guy working for a 20,000 employee company is not going to cut it. And to make things worse you won't have control over the product you created anymore.
I'm surprised it took him so long to quit.
You don't get it. When your start-up is acquired by big corp, it is usually their demand you stick for at least a year, instead of dumping your crap and taking a run with the money, which I'm sure he would have preferred. He did the year, finished his obligations, and leaves. Nothing to see, please move along.
Not only do we have a damn choice with lots of predictable friction considering the human nature of inability to change, even if you want to, you might lose out in the "arms" race. What if others can pay for the brain drugs where you can't? The effects of globalization and the collisions of different states and speeds of development and culture is just a small sample of things to come. Governments know this... all this crap of turning our democratic states into police states is more or less their way to prepare of things to come.
I made a basic economic example which does not cover the start of it, for the sake of brevity. It's a bit silly to take it literally instead of seeing the bigger scope of it. It doesn't work the way you think it does. There's cost of entrance, investment, increasingly bigger and fewer corps, etc. etc. Wintel lifecycles won over the wild innovation of the 80ties (Amiga and the others died). They had a grip on the market for over a decade despite your romantic views of capitalism. Again, this is just one example, you can apply it to most markets.
Your last point is even sillier considering your 2nd and last points. You don't have much of an argument, do you, except the predictable 1, which my argument refuted. But thanks for bringing it on as a counter-argument. That makes is circular, and more source of entertainment.
When I was a child I loved to dream about the year 2000 and about the predictions of flying cars. Since I learned why things didn't go as expected, I've been following the field of future predictions as a source of entertainment. You would think they would be more modest, considering the 100% empirical fail score, but nooo...
Anyway, the singularity will not happen anywhere soon, because they fail to take the following three points into consideration or appreciate their weight: 1) In the past technologies changed over lifetimes. When you lived the past century, you have seen many new technologies come. Closer to the Singularity, humans are not capable or willing to change so many times. Humans slow it down. 2) Economics. Products are tied to an economic life cycle of cost and win. If all human effort was concentrated, we could have a base on Venus. Or Flying Cars. Instead, we have Windows Vista and low power PC's. 3) Their own egos, fantasies and projections. Fiction at best.
No, don't use the "Zune" bit at all, it is tainted. Just do some minor cosmetic adjustments, call it Player 7, and re-release the same thing.
A couple of years ago I was part of a project that saw what was going to happen and tried to take publishing to a new level. Although initially interested, O'Reilly snubbed it, among other potential investors. That's his perfectly valid right (this is not a complaint or about that project). He's also the self-proclaimed god of web 2.0. Also, there is a huge, growing demand for education and knowledge in Asia (but they won't buy books for $80).
Now this is my point: O'Reilly has had several years between the last crash and this to transform his business. A donkey could have projected the fate of technical dead-wood books. There are huge chances (playing field will change with new winners, Asia). I've seen play O'Reilly play with some online publishing concepts, but not anything remotely convincing, still playing the cards on the paper books.
O'Reilly shouldn't complain. He had his chance and blew it. His employees have a reason to complain. Many lost their jobs because of the lack of innovation and insight of their boss, who rather looked cool on web 2.0 gatherings, talking about the latest Crapmaster 3000 webapp.
That's hardly an argument at all, just like your, *cough*, insightful earlier comment. You just state something as fact, without argument. Then you criticize my remark. That's very particular. Now, you're suggesting a people manager does a worse job. What gives you exactly the idea a back stabber can do a better job? He already has the disadvantage of ill-motivated employees. This is the point where people with such strong opinion usually fail to produce something of weight, to retreat in silence. I wouldn't hire you either. The job market is flooded. Why hire an ass producing air when you can get a non-ass? Note that he didn't have better results.
His "backstabbing" was pretty insightful, IMO, and for Kelly, keeping him around was probably the right choice given the economic climate.
No it is not, and that is why this story feels so fictional. Managers are not cartoon characters. For one, it's common knowledge that when someone does that, it is to hide their lower ability. It is identical to the guy walking in and saying "I'm scared shitless to lose my job, because the other guy has the better papers." A cartoon manager would hail his ability to back stab. I would pick the people manager to stay. This is an important asset in tough times when you just had to fire 50%. Nothing touchy-feely about it, just business, motivation pays out.
"Google Researchers Warn of Automated Social Info Sharing"
Ooh that sounds good. I guess it sounds better than "Ad broker leads attention away from automated harvesting of private information, by PR initiative." Or, a child molester who issues warnings about abusive parents.
I for one was outraged by the original costs. Look, accidents happen where people are at work, but almost $250 per unit for dropping parts alone... I'm glad they're more careful now.
The problem is, all three of those earlier keyboards listed are only sold in Asia. ;)
It's not different from any mail order. If you order, you'll have one next week. Problem with the Japanese keyboards is the price. Problem with all mechanical switch keyboards is you cannot walk into a store and try some.
My understanding of the Ribbon was that their goal was to expose functionality that's always existed but was hidden too deep to ever be of use
Oh there are pros and cons. The disadvantage is all the sweet from Common User Access guidelines is lost.
But that is not what the ribbon is all about. The ribbon is just another product cycle. The problem with WIMP is that basically, just as 20 years ago, you click an icon to start an application (etc.), and nothing has changed except looks. So Apple comes and goes with the dock and MS now entertains us with the ribbon. But it's all the same thing. Its only true purpose is to sell "next gen" which incorporates the new shiny. Is it better? That remains to be seen. Usually not (see dock).
Personally I would never mind it as an option, but in reality it is now a mess and with each app you have to check whether it's ribbon or not, if menus are available or not, and how the ribbon, if there, is implemented. That's worse than any single method, such as the consistent CUA.
The difference is still there in that you have to think of the action or "perfectly logical" option on our own in the text version, while the graphical interface will give spoilers because it makes you choose between different options.
I implemented an LP-MUD like driver for use on web pages as seen here, and both typed commands and click commands can be used. Each web page becomes a "location". The typed commands are geared towards power users but at the same time is the engine for the graphical interface. Effectively, you can type "open door" or you can click on the door and select "open door" from the menu. By default, you get a chat line when you press TAB, and commands are preceded by a / ("/say hello", "/get key") although you can set the command mode as default, and you don't need the /.
Obviously the problem with this is explorability. With the graphical interface, you can just trial and error your way through the virtual place. This makes it much more shallow. You don't have to think about a solution, instead you worry about "finding" the solution in the graphical interface. On the other hand however, no one but 0.01% will be interested in typing their way through their game.
One of the disadvantages of adventure games, IMO, is that they don't handle bigger thoughts, strategy and solutions, but just micro problems such as which object to insert where or whether the red or blue key opens the door. In fact, when you think about it, it's mind numbingly boring. I'd have liked adventures with more sophisticated puzzles. Graphical interfaces just make it worse for the advanced player and more difficult for a creator. This is why the original adventure games never die in some of the hearts of those who played them. For all the enormous advancements in graphics, the underlying games never really got that much better and usually are less sophisticated and less detailed.
This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.
No, you're a worthless, hypocrite Apple fan boy, who protects his fav brand while not even considering the message. Sad and pathetic. Shame on you! Jesus...
Science and facts now please. I don't want to hear no more about greenpeace, while avoiding the issue. It's lame. So this is the actual text from the greenpeace report:
Apple's score increases slightly to 4.3 points, but the company drops to 14th position. Apple scores well for putting products on the market whose key components are free of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVC vinyl plastic. Appleâ(TM)s latest iPods - the iPod Touch, Nano and Classic - are now free of both PVC and BFRs and the MacBooks, MacBook Pro and MacBook are almost free of these substances. While Apple has now positioned itself amongst the leaders in the electronics industry on phasing out toxic substances, to score more points the complete phase-out of PVC and BFRs in its iPods should be consistent across all other future product ranges. Apple also needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management. Apple scores poorly on most e-waste criteria, except for reporting a recycling rate in 2006 of 18% as a percentage of sales 7 years ago; however, it needs to provide details on how this is calculated. It does slightly better on energy criteria for disclosing the carbon footprint of every model of product â" although not exactly what is being evaluated in the criterion. Apple scores top marks (doubled) for all desktops computers, portable PCs and displays complying with Energy Star 4.0 and their iPod and iPhone power adapters exceeding the Energy Star standard, despite making this information difficult to access.
Not too bad. Apple isn't the worst in their graph too. Ars Technica and Slashdot are putting the spotlight on them, not greenpeace, and you have been trolled by your fav IT medium.
So now the slashdot way to proceed would be to get a complete list of the toxic substances and discuss their nature and true damage to the environment, and if it's worthwhile to demand that manufacturers do better. I'm not an expert on these substances, but unlike many here, I know that, and I'm open for any real scientific info and any outcome. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's not like companies like Apple are saints or something, they tend to chose the cheapest option in their own short-term monkey sphere, which does not include long-term environmental effects, unless that would be bad karma in the public's eyes. See? Maybe there's a role for greenpeace after all. They may be nuts, but in a Stallman kind of way - it's sometimes good to have counter forces against other strong forces, even if you don't agree with them.
The main reason seems to be corporate intranet sites...
Oh was it? You're just bringing it as you'd like it to be, while completely ignoring the other reasons. Blah.
You suggested MS were deliberately trying to keep people on IE 6. That's not the case.
They did. Among others by excluding Windows 2000 users from the update. Or by not making it a mandatory update. And they did it for exactly the strategy I mentioned.
I conclude you're indeed a MS employee trying to cloud reality. Because MS's fear for web apps and how they try to slow down the inevitable is well known. Of course, you evade that issue.
You suggested MS were deliberately going to restrict IE 8 to just Win7. That's not the case either.
I suggested two possible scenario's, mister black&white of the MS PR department. Hey, I think they're not going to exclude anyone, even Linux users. Of course, running IE Silverlight on Vista will be the vastly superior experience, and will be restricted to Vista because, among others, the latest version of DirectX is required.
Know what the most funny thing of all is? Most people, me included, really don't care anymore. MS has already become irrelevant in a way, and already lost. What the fuck do I care what IE8 will be like? A dying man can kick & scream, ain't gonna change the outcome. So I'll leave it at this, if you don't mind.
20% is still using IE6. It's not hard to find out why. Your next points can all be categorized under "talking the talk". As long as they won't do the walk, and crap like IE6/IE7 is still on the market, it's just shallow marketing. Considering your last point, same thing, and remember Vista? Overall not the strongest of arguments there, you're clearly defending a monochrome color instead of discussing all possible sides, Mr. Anonymous Coward. More of the same marketing really. So let me ask you this: are you a fanboy, a MS employee, or is it you, Steve, virtually throwing chairs?
Well, this was to be expected. After all, they have been hanging on to IE6 so long, as a sabotage strategy against the upcoming world of web apps (bad HTML, CSS and no stuff like canvas).
The past year they have been talking the talk, and now they will not be walking the walk.
What next? When IE8 will arrive, it will still not implement stuff like canvas or be on the same level with CSS compliance. It will probably not be an auto-update, and perhaps only available on the latest incarnation of Vista whatever it is called. In other words, IE7 will take over the role of IE6.
Another possibility is that they're planning something big, and all the signs point to it (Silverlight and all). They know they can't play the incapable IE6-IE7 strategy forever, but instead of catching up, they will try to change the game by offering an alternative platform, IE8 + Silverlight + OS ties + media ties, perhaps connected with cloud computing.
Well, whatever, I wish them luck (not!). Last big things they tried on the consumer front were Vista and Live. It will be interesting times for them. Enough said.
You do have issues don't you? What is it? Mother got gang-banged because she needed a shot, and you're still looking for your father in prisons all over the country? You were beaten as a kid, and uncle John, when you looked for comfort, said it was ok to touch each other like that? You had an unfortunate physical accident, and the long stick couldn't be removed from your tight ass? So far I'm sticking with all of the above. Now fuck off.
Likewise, continuing your battle against Teh Evil that is the joke you did not get, makes you a complete and utter turd, especially since your handicap did not seem to stop you rating comedic talent, like a deaf person who has something up his ass and keeps rating orchestra. Some people...
Likewise, whining about a joke you took at face value because of a lack of sense of humor is a really stupid thing to do.
If they bitch and moan about "clueless managers" etc etc then they're probably in the latter group.
I understand you prefer older programmers who don't complain about management after a long career. In other words, deluded people.
Woohooo. Smart criminals must love digital evidence. What is a tool for investigators to catch stupid criminals, is also a tool for the smart ones to use the investigators to their advantage. So I kill my mother in law in one strike using my Model M. Then I take some pictures of the corpse using a Canon Powershot A510 which I'm not tied to (it's purely coincidence that my brother in law also owns one), post some pictures on smackmymil.com, and dispose of it. In fact, I own a Nikon D300 and have fanatically been taking pictures of my cat.
There is something inherently wrong with digital, producable evidence. In my example I was on the "right" side of the equation... could be worse.
Government control is a normalising force, designed to keep the system working and the interests of the people first and foremost on the agenda.
Well, that's a nice theory. However, you must have been living on Mars. In reality, it morphed into this decades ago: Government control is a force working to keep the Big Corp system working and the interests of the their sponsors - the filthy rich - first and foremost on the agenda.
I don't know about retail laws in the USA, but here in the Netherlands this horrible packaging is not seen as something to prevent theft or for presentation, but simply a trick that forces you to destroy the packaging. It cannot be opened without damaging the packaging. When the packaging is damaged, many people will not return a product when they are not happy with it, despite the fact it will not stand in court (yes, retailers may require undamaged packaging for returns, but no, not when one evilly designs it for this purpose).
Making a "new" package which does not sport this features won't solve this, because they acquire these packaging over normal ones exactly for this purpose. It evolved from normal packaging to provide this, it's not like that's the only thing there is and they don't have choice ("But now they have, with Amazon!"). If they do this with a limited number of products, all it is is a marketing ploy to generate sales incentives for that limited range, but there is no structural solution.