J
R
Rob R. Ainscough
I'm sure Bill does have grand plans of where software will go and his
commitment to make computers work for the end user ... BUT the reality is:
1. He is someone we love to blame even though he has little or no power any
more
2. His vision of reality lives a separated life
3. His vision of a better end user experience gets destroyed by "the
machine" known as Microsoft
4. Microsoft like all large organizations through out history have become
too large for their own good
I think what Microsoft need to do is diversify - if nothing more than to
gain an education of the real world.
What I would like to see from Bill and Microsoft, is someone that
understands what we need by recognizing their flaws and stop blaming end
users & developers. Do not elevate a vision that just happens to
incorporate a highly profitable business model that provides "just enough"
of what we need at a premium cost. Make money by making your products more
simple, not more complex so you can charge a "subscribed" premium.
1 in 5 people have computers and actually use the Internet - if Bill needs
to do something, he needs to realize something went wrong along the way and
ask the question why do only 1 in 5 people have computers 28 years after
they were introduced to the masses? If he wants to grade how well he's
done, this is a failed score IMHO.
commitment to make computers work for the end user ... BUT the reality is:
1. He is someone we love to blame even though he has little or no power any
more
2. His vision of reality lives a separated life
3. His vision of a better end user experience gets destroyed by "the
machine" known as Microsoft
4. Microsoft like all large organizations through out history have become
too large for their own good
I think what Microsoft need to do is diversify - if nothing more than to
gain an education of the real world.
What I would like to see from Bill and Microsoft, is someone that
understands what we need by recognizing their flaws and stop blaming end
users & developers. Do not elevate a vision that just happens to
incorporate a highly profitable business model that provides "just enough"
of what we need at a premium cost. Make money by making your products more
simple, not more complex so you can charge a "subscribed" premium.
1 in 5 people have computers and actually use the Internet - if Bill needs
to do something, he needs to realize something went wrong along the way and
ask the question why do only 1 in 5 people have computers 28 years after
they were introduced to the masses? If he wants to grade how well he's
done, this is a failed score IMHO.
K
Kevin Spencer
I'm assuming you're a developer, someone who employs logic on a daily basis.
If so, I am puzzled by the following statements, which you assert as
"reality" -
Who is "we?" Thinking people don't "love to blame" anyone for whatever it is
(not mentioned) that you say "we love to blame" him for. There is no place
for "blame" in logic, nor is there any place for loving to do so. There is
certainly the element of diagnosis and identification of the source(s) of
*specific problems*.
What is this "power" you speak of? And what makes you think he has more or
less of it?
I cannot even parse this sentence. A vision does not "live a life." You
might mean that Bill Gates "lives a separate life," but you don't identify
from what it is separate, nor why it is separate. And your reference to "His
vision of reality" therefore is ambiguous at best. In fact, I would
postulate that every human being on the planet might be said to have a
"separate vision of reality." Only the young, the ignorant, and those who
are lazy in their thinking imagine that their "vision of reality" is exactly
the same as someone else's. My guess is that you are young. Young people
have a desire to "belong" to a group of some kind, with which they can
identify. This is part of the social nature of our species.
The older and wiser one becomes, the less important this sort of distinction
becomes, and as one matures, one realizes that the arbitrary divisions we
place upon people and our perception of them are just that - arbitrary. In
fact, people are like snowflakes - no 2 are exactly alike. So, the only
logical division is to divide us into 2 groups: Human beings, and
individuals. Therefore, this abbreviated utterance is meaningless, except to
yourself.
Taken together, I see these 2 statements as alluding to some idea that is
more or less true. All large organizations experience the danger of becoming
beaurocratic in nature, due simply to the nature of human beings to do that
which is expedient to the individual instead of that which is best for all.
Microsoft has been struggling with this problem, and lately there has been
some evidence that they are not entirely succeeding.
However, the statement that "His vision of a better end user experience gets
destroyed" is not accurate. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that
Bill Gates' ideas are on a conceptual scale, and often are tainted or in
danger of being tainted in the process of being filtered down to the
specific application development level, due to the size and encroaching
beaurocracy that endangers Microsoft's ability to maintain its innovative
and agile nature.
Here we go again with the "real world" stuff. Who among us has "an education
of the real world?" The statement is so broad and non-specific as to be
meaningless. It implies something, but you never explain what it is supposed
to imply. As to a need to diversify, that too is ambiguous, and not
explained. In what way would you recommend diversification? There are all
sorts (or perhaps "diverse" sorts would be more appropriate a term) of
"diversification."
Now, this is one of the statements that makes me believe that you are either
not a developer, or are very young. The word "simple," when applied to
software, is ambiguous at best. There are several different types of
simplicity that one may use when describing software as simple. One is
"simple to use." The problem with this is that to truly make software
"simple to use," one must restrict its functionality. A "simple to use"
calculator, for example, cannot do scientific calculations. Depending upon
how simple you wanted it to be, you might restrict it to addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division. But how would you handle rational
numbers? Where does one draw the line at what is "simple to use" and what is
not?
In "the real world" people want their software to do every possible thing
they can imagine with it. This is because they are ignorant of the
consequences of this extended functionality. First, it means that the
software must have a user interface that accomdates all of these features.
How is that supposed to be "simple to use?" Second, it means that the
software itself must contain a huge amount of code to perform all of these
various operations, in a variety of configurations. And that costs a lot of
money, and take s alot of time, to produce.
The second type of "simple" is "simple in functionality" and this means less
features. Again, you're talking about a Catch-22 situation. Microsoft
actually has aimed at solutions for these problems, by releasing various
different versions of software for differing purposes. There are a
half-dozen different versions of Visual Studio.Net available, and some of
them are free. Now, how would you solve these problems? It is well and good
to identify problems, but to criticize the solutions of others without
offering your own is hypocritical.
I don't have the time to critique the rest of your post, but let me just say
in conclusion that if you want to be a success as a developer, you're going
to have to discipline your thinking process. The thoughts expressed in this
post (1) are not well-thougt-out, from a logical standpoint, (2) are
therefore not convincing, except perhaps to the ignorant, the undisciplined,
and the weak-minded, and (3) are hypocritical, as you do not offer any
well-explained, well-thought-out, realistic, or viable solutions.
It may be popular to put Bill Gates down, but is popularity all its cracked
up to be? I still see an awful lot of SUVs on the road in America these
days, and for the life of me, I can't figure out the thought process that
spawned them. They are apparently some kind of "status symbol," but the only
status I see is that of an unthinking person with the wrong sense of
priorities, who is apparently wanting to impress other unthinking people
with wrong senses of priorities. That's popularity for you.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
If so, I am puzzled by the following statements, which you assert as
"reality" -
Who is "we?" Thinking people don't "love to blame" anyone for whatever it is
(not mentioned) that you say "we love to blame" him for. There is no place
for "blame" in logic, nor is there any place for loving to do so. There is
certainly the element of diagnosis and identification of the source(s) of
*specific problems*.
What is this "power" you speak of? And what makes you think he has more or
less of it?
I cannot even parse this sentence. A vision does not "live a life." You
might mean that Bill Gates "lives a separate life," but you don't identify
from what it is separate, nor why it is separate. And your reference to "His
vision of reality" therefore is ambiguous at best. In fact, I would
postulate that every human being on the planet might be said to have a
"separate vision of reality." Only the young, the ignorant, and those who
are lazy in their thinking imagine that their "vision of reality" is exactly
the same as someone else's. My guess is that you are young. Young people
have a desire to "belong" to a group of some kind, with which they can
identify. This is part of the social nature of our species.
The older and wiser one becomes, the less important this sort of distinction
becomes, and as one matures, one realizes that the arbitrary divisions we
place upon people and our perception of them are just that - arbitrary. In
fact, people are like snowflakes - no 2 are exactly alike. So, the only
logical division is to divide us into 2 groups: Human beings, and
individuals. Therefore, this abbreviated utterance is meaningless, except to
yourself.
Taken together, I see these 2 statements as alluding to some idea that is
more or less true. All large organizations experience the danger of becoming
beaurocratic in nature, due simply to the nature of human beings to do that
which is expedient to the individual instead of that which is best for all.
Microsoft has been struggling with this problem, and lately there has been
some evidence that they are not entirely succeeding.
However, the statement that "His vision of a better end user experience gets
destroyed" is not accurate. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that
Bill Gates' ideas are on a conceptual scale, and often are tainted or in
danger of being tainted in the process of being filtered down to the
specific application development level, due to the size and encroaching
beaurocracy that endangers Microsoft's ability to maintain its innovative
and agile nature.
Here we go again with the "real world" stuff. Who among us has "an education
of the real world?" The statement is so broad and non-specific as to be
meaningless. It implies something, but you never explain what it is supposed
to imply. As to a need to diversify, that too is ambiguous, and not
explained. In what way would you recommend diversification? There are all
sorts (or perhaps "diverse" sorts would be more appropriate a term) of
"diversification."
Now, this is one of the statements that makes me believe that you are either
not a developer, or are very young. The word "simple," when applied to
software, is ambiguous at best. There are several different types of
simplicity that one may use when describing software as simple. One is
"simple to use." The problem with this is that to truly make software
"simple to use," one must restrict its functionality. A "simple to use"
calculator, for example, cannot do scientific calculations. Depending upon
how simple you wanted it to be, you might restrict it to addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division. But how would you handle rational
numbers? Where does one draw the line at what is "simple to use" and what is
not?
In "the real world" people want their software to do every possible thing
they can imagine with it. This is because they are ignorant of the
consequences of this extended functionality. First, it means that the
software must have a user interface that accomdates all of these features.
How is that supposed to be "simple to use?" Second, it means that the
software itself must contain a huge amount of code to perform all of these
various operations, in a variety of configurations. And that costs a lot of
money, and take s alot of time, to produce.
The second type of "simple" is "simple in functionality" and this means less
features. Again, you're talking about a Catch-22 situation. Microsoft
actually has aimed at solutions for these problems, by releasing various
different versions of software for differing purposes. There are a
half-dozen different versions of Visual Studio.Net available, and some of
them are free. Now, how would you solve these problems? It is well and good
to identify problems, but to criticize the solutions of others without
offering your own is hypocritical.
I don't have the time to critique the rest of your post, but let me just say
in conclusion that if you want to be a success as a developer, you're going
to have to discipline your thinking process. The thoughts expressed in this
post (1) are not well-thougt-out, from a logical standpoint, (2) are
therefore not convincing, except perhaps to the ignorant, the undisciplined,
and the weak-minded, and (3) are hypocritical, as you do not offer any
well-explained, well-thought-out, realistic, or viable solutions.
It may be popular to put Bill Gates down, but is popularity all its cracked
up to be? I still see an awful lot of SUVs on the road in America these
days, and for the life of me, I can't figure out the thought process that
spawned them. They are apparently some kind of "status symbol," but the only
status I see is that of an unthinking person with the wrong sense of
priorities, who is apparently wanting to impress other unthinking people
with wrong senses of priorities. That's popularity for you.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
J
John Bailo
The part that disturbed me was when he said that he doesn't watch tv,
and that he rarely watches a DVD.
This from a person who is a Chief Architect for a company that wants to
be the King of All Media!
R
Rob R. Ainscough
Look at the numerous posts of frustration from developers and other end
users working with Microsoft's products/tools -- that is the "we". If you
want to pretend "We love to blame" is meaningless then so be it -- but by
YOUR own logic, you've just invalidated yourself.
The Power to implement change rather than talk about change. He doesn't
have more of it any more -- the company as a whole is just too large. Bill
lives in a eutopia that is not reality and thus his persception is based on
that eutopia -- he has evolved into that Eutopia.
You guessed wrong and I don't follow your logic that I must be young.
Belong to a group?? Where did that come from?
You were able to figure out my statement so I guess it stands and is a lot
less wordy than your "more accurate" statement.
"The problem with this is that to truly make software 'simple to use,' one
must restrict its functionality." -- your thinking in the box, not out of
it. Microsoft's software can and should make far better intelligent
defaults and far fewer steps to perform the end result -- they should guide
users thru a task and then save those steps in such a way it is easy for
the user to peform the task again at a later date/time -- and the list goes
ON and ON. There are many ways Microsoft can make a very complex
application/process be "Simple to use" or at the very least easier to work
with.
VS 2005 for example, go under Tools | Options -- what do we have 9 nodes,
open up those nodes and we have more child nodes, and so on and so on.
Seeing as I am a developer in the real world, it is pretty unlikely I'm
gonna have time to explore several hundred (maybe even hit a thousand) VS
2005 options -- we have a common set of things we like to do -- this is
where Microsft fail miserably. Does it sound like a wizard, perhaps, but
something with more meaning more explanation and just more useful. There
are common defaults, common ways in which developers and/or users operate --
these are not explored by MS, they just make assumptions rather than trying
to discover the way people really work and operate.
Microsoft applications/tools are engineered for what turns out to be about
the same number of people that use MS software 20% (1 in 5 people) of the US
population -- if Microsoft want to find the other 80% they need to focus
more on software the works on a human level rather than some "visioned"
level that only 20% of the population can deal with or want to deal with.
Sure 20% still provides a nice big fat revenue stream, but the true
innovation and potential has not yet been discovered by Bill or Microsoft
because they are too consumed within -- they don't stop and ask the
questions.
And please, what is with this "you're not a developer" -- and "you're young"
crap?? If your trying to dis-credit me somehow, whether I'm a developer or
not, has little bearing on this discussion, nor whether I'm young or not.
It is pretentious of you to think that only developers have valid opinions,
and that young people should be discredited -- this is the VERY thinking
that keeps the 1 in 5 number stable -- not a good thing. Open your mind
Kevin.
Ahh, SUV's rant -- I begin to see -- you may not like what goes in the
"popular" world, but ignoring it or not understanding it doesn't make it go
away. What people do with their lives for entertainment is up to them, not
you -- otherwise you may as well start a religion. Humans like
entertainment, always have and always will -- how that entertainment is
formed is up to each individual.
users working with Microsoft's products/tools -- that is the "we". If you
want to pretend "We love to blame" is meaningless then so be it -- but by
YOUR own logic, you've just invalidated yourself.
The Power to implement change rather than talk about change. He doesn't
have more of it any more -- the company as a whole is just too large. Bill
lives in a eutopia that is not reality and thus his persception is based on
that eutopia -- he has evolved into that Eutopia.
You guessed wrong and I don't follow your logic that I must be young.
Belong to a group?? Where did that come from?
You were able to figure out my statement so I guess it stands and is a lot
less wordy than your "more accurate" statement.
"The problem with this is that to truly make software 'simple to use,' one
must restrict its functionality." -- your thinking in the box, not out of
it. Microsoft's software can and should make far better intelligent
defaults and far fewer steps to perform the end result -- they should guide
users thru a task and then save those steps in such a way it is easy for
the user to peform the task again at a later date/time -- and the list goes
ON and ON. There are many ways Microsoft can make a very complex
application/process be "Simple to use" or at the very least easier to work
with.
VS 2005 for example, go under Tools | Options -- what do we have 9 nodes,
open up those nodes and we have more child nodes, and so on and so on.
Seeing as I am a developer in the real world, it is pretty unlikely I'm
gonna have time to explore several hundred (maybe even hit a thousand) VS
2005 options -- we have a common set of things we like to do -- this is
where Microsft fail miserably. Does it sound like a wizard, perhaps, but
something with more meaning more explanation and just more useful. There
are common defaults, common ways in which developers and/or users operate --
these are not explored by MS, they just make assumptions rather than trying
to discover the way people really work and operate.
Microsoft applications/tools are engineered for what turns out to be about
the same number of people that use MS software 20% (1 in 5 people) of the US
population -- if Microsoft want to find the other 80% they need to focus
more on software the works on a human level rather than some "visioned"
level that only 20% of the population can deal with or want to deal with.
Sure 20% still provides a nice big fat revenue stream, but the true
innovation and potential has not yet been discovered by Bill or Microsoft
because they are too consumed within -- they don't stop and ask the
questions.
And please, what is with this "you're not a developer" -- and "you're young"
crap?? If your trying to dis-credit me somehow, whether I'm a developer or
not, has little bearing on this discussion, nor whether I'm young or not.
It is pretentious of you to think that only developers have valid opinions,
and that young people should be discredited -- this is the VERY thinking
that keeps the 1 in 5 number stable -- not a good thing. Open your mind
Kevin.
Ahh, SUV's rant -- I begin to see -- you may not like what goes in the
"popular" world, but ignoring it or not understanding it doesn't make it go
away. What people do with their lives for entertainment is up to them, not
you -- otherwise you may as well start a religion. Humans like
entertainment, always have and always will -- how that entertainment is
formed is up to each individual.
G
Gabriel Magaña
Hey, smart drug dealers don't do drugs!
Why would the king of all mediawatch TV all the time?
R
Rob R. Ainscough
Well I not sure how you got good reliable numbers on what drug dealers
do...but:
1. "smart" drug dealers -- is that possible?
2. The only reliable statistic we have is that many drug dealers end up
dead or in jail.
3. Drugs and Media doesn't make sense for an analogy.
do...but:
1. "smart" drug dealers -- is that possible?
2. The only reliable statistic we have is that many drug dealers end up
dead or in jail.
3. Drugs and Media doesn't make sense for an analogy.
G
Gabriel Magaña
It was a joke, you're taking yourself too seriously. Nothing that is said
on these forums will ever matter to Bill Gates.
on these forums will ever matter to Bill Gates.
J
John Bailo
Gabriel said:
So you're saying he doesn't watch TV, he doesn't watch dvds, and now, also,
he doesn't read newsgroups related to his products.
And, yet, he wants to sell America software that manages its media and
communications?
G
Gabriel Magaña
LOL! You guys are just in a raunchy mood today. If you guys are so pissed
off with Microsoft write them a letter, start a competing company, switch to
Linux, or organize a protest in your hometown... But by all means stop
developing Windows software, you are just letting MS be perpetually dominant
by doing so!
Aaaannnyway, time to let this thread die...
off with Microsoft write them a letter, start a competing company, switch to
Linux, or organize a protest in your hometown... But by all means stop
developing Windows software, you are just letting MS be perpetually dominant
by doing so!
Aaaannnyway, time to let this thread die...
K
Kevin Spencer
The part that disturbed me was when he said that he doesn't watch tv, and
Since when does tv constitute the better part of "All Media?" Now, when I
was a kid in the '60s, sure. Today, well, we're not talking about this issue
on a tv set, are we?
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
Since when does tv constitute the better part of "All Media?" Now, when I
was a kid in the '60s, sure. Today, well, we're not talking about this issue
on a tv set, are we?
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
K
Kevin Spencer
Well, I'm not going to convince *you* of anything, but for the benefit of
the rest of us...
Again, you're identifying yourself with a group that you have invented in
your own mind. I'm frustrated every day; if I didn't accept that, I'd be
better off doing something else for a living. However, I am not about to
"blame" anyone for my frustration, and if I did "blame" someone for
something, I certainly would not "love to" do so. That would not be logical.
Change is part of life. The entire universe is in a constant state of
change. And every individual has "power" to change certain small things, by
the decisions they make. I believe your concept of having "The Power to
implement change" is not well-thought-out. It simply doesn't exist. We are
like flotsam on the ocean of the universe, swept along by currents that make
our individual influence on our tiny slice of the universe insignificant.
That is true for you, for me, for Bill Gates, and for the President of the
United States. "Power" is an illusion. Personal responsibility is not. And
as far as that goes, you are not repsonsible for Bill Gates, and he is not
resposible for you.
If humans were immortal, you might have a point. But we are not. We live,
and we die. In the end, we accomplish nothing in this world. If there is a
world beyond this, we take nothing from this world into it.
Either you are young, or you are a case of arrested development. I tend to
assume the best. The fact that you don't follow my logic in making this
guess is not surprising. I didn't explain the guess with any logic. It was a
guess. It was based on evidence, but not enough evidence to make an
authoritative statement. The guess was based upon a combination of things.
First, your logic is undisciplined. If you are not a developer, this is
often normal. If you are a developer, and you are young and/or
inexperienced, this is also normal. Young people tend to want to identify
themselves with one or more groups (as evidenced by the reference to "we"
that I spoke of earlier). The idea that software which performs a huge
variety of tasks can be made simple is naive at best. This also tends to
inidicate youth, laziness, a non-technical person, or lack of intelligence.
In any case, it was a guess, and the fact that you don't deny it tends to
reinforce the guess.
As I said, young people tend to identify themselves as belonging to one or
more groups. This gives them a feeling of security. The desire to be popular
is an outgrowth of this. It is not possible to be universally popular.
Therefore, when one desires popularity, it is always with a specific group
of people. The touting of ideas which are popular to a certain group of
people, and are not logical, is evidence that one desires to belong to that
group of people. If the ideas were logical, it would not indicate this. The
criticism of Bill Gates as a person, particularly with the reference "we
love to blame" is (1) pointless, and (2) indicates a desire to be thought
well of by that group of people who "love to blame" Bill Gates. Therefore,
taken together, your statements tend to indicate that you either want to
feel like you belong to some group of people, and/or feel like you belong to
that group of people.
Making a statement less wordy is only a virtue if it does not lose meaning
in the process. I was able to make a guess as to what you were trying to
say, but because of the ambiguous syntax of your 2 statements, it was not
possible to be sure. You apparently agree that my interpretation was
correct. However, the reason I said that my statement was "more accurate" is
that it was less ambiguous. Ambiguity is not an aid to communication, but a
hindrance. If you are able to make a more concise summation of the idea than
mine, with the same lack of ambiguity, you're quite welcome to.
This is purely naive. First, if it were presently possible to solve this
problem, some software company would have solved it. It's well and good to
criticize Microsoft, but only fair if one comparitively criticizes
Microsoft. What other software company has achieved this utopian goal? Have
you?
This is another statement which tends to indicate that you are either young
(and therefore naive) or not a developer. Developers know how difficult this
sort of problem is to solve. Users see the tip of the iceberg, and ignore
the (,uch greater) part under the water.
Yes, software is becoming increasingly intelligent across the board. This is
the natural course of events, and it cannot be accelerated. This is not
"thinking inside the box." It is simply a fact. "Thinking inside the box" is
the process of attempting to solve a problem by using only existing
methodologies. To "think outside the box" one must be keenly aware of what
is fact, and what is not. One must also be mindful of "the box" and how it
came to be there. Albert Einstein didn't just "come up with" the General and
Special Theory of Relativity. First, he studied all the previous related
work. Then he was able to build on that and come up with something new.
However, I don't see you attempting to solve anything, or proposing any
solution. So, in your case, you are neither thinking "inside the box" nor
"outside the box." When you begin to attempt a solution, we can talk about
it some more.
I can tell you this much: When computers become as intelligent as people,
they will in all probability become just as unreliable.
As for what software "should" do, well, Microsoft is a business. The purpose
of a business is to make money, and provide a good living for those who
participate in it. In addition, a business has a moral responsibility to not
cause any harm to anyone. As far as that goes, Microsoft does what it
"should" do very well. Any other moral evaluation of Microsoft, or its
software, is purely subjective and arbitrary. Yes, I know that statement is
irritating to you, but as my Uncle Chutney sez, "If the truth hurts, wear
it."
Try Tools|Import/Export Settings. Good software has the ability to change a
lot of things to a somewhat common configuration, which is what Settings are
for. It also has the ability to adapt to more specialized and low-level
tweaking, which is what Options is for. The fact that you are unaware of
this capability is a reflection on you, not the software.
Why would I want to discredit *you*? I don't even know you. I find it
humorous that you feel that you can dump all over Microsoft and Bill Gates,
but if someone criticizes your arguments, you become incredibly defensive.
Sauce for the goose, Rob.
"Rant?" It was an illustration of the foolishness of doing something which
one considers to be "popular," but is, in fact, illogical. SUVs are
gas-guzzlers, Rob. Gas is becoming increasingly more expensive, and
automobiles depreciate at a very fast rate. The purpose of a transportation
vehicle is to transport. It is part of the "business" of running one's life.
And taken from a purely financial/business standpoint, an SUV is an
extremely poor investment, unless one needs some of the "off-road"
functionality which it comes with. And that is very rare among SUV owners.
The fact that you think that was a "rant" also tends to indicate
youthfulness on your part. You tend to want to group people into nice neat
little self-defined categories. This colors your perception. "Neither a
follower nor a lender be," as my Uncle Chutney sez. I believe *you* need to
think "outside the box" of whatever group you think you belong to. There are
more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy,
Horatio. And more types of human beings. About 7 billion types at the
moment.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
the rest of us...
Again, you're identifying yourself with a group that you have invented in
your own mind. I'm frustrated every day; if I didn't accept that, I'd be
better off doing something else for a living. However, I am not about to
"blame" anyone for my frustration, and if I did "blame" someone for
something, I certainly would not "love to" do so. That would not be logical.
Change is part of life. The entire universe is in a constant state of
change. And every individual has "power" to change certain small things, by
the decisions they make. I believe your concept of having "The Power to
implement change" is not well-thought-out. It simply doesn't exist. We are
like flotsam on the ocean of the universe, swept along by currents that make
our individual influence on our tiny slice of the universe insignificant.
That is true for you, for me, for Bill Gates, and for the President of the
United States. "Power" is an illusion. Personal responsibility is not. And
as far as that goes, you are not repsonsible for Bill Gates, and he is not
resposible for you.
If humans were immortal, you might have a point. But we are not. We live,
and we die. In the end, we accomplish nothing in this world. If there is a
world beyond this, we take nothing from this world into it.
Either you are young, or you are a case of arrested development. I tend to
assume the best. The fact that you don't follow my logic in making this
guess is not surprising. I didn't explain the guess with any logic. It was a
guess. It was based on evidence, but not enough evidence to make an
authoritative statement. The guess was based upon a combination of things.
First, your logic is undisciplined. If you are not a developer, this is
often normal. If you are a developer, and you are young and/or
inexperienced, this is also normal. Young people tend to want to identify
themselves with one or more groups (as evidenced by the reference to "we"
that I spoke of earlier). The idea that software which performs a huge
variety of tasks can be made simple is naive at best. This also tends to
inidicate youth, laziness, a non-technical person, or lack of intelligence.
In any case, it was a guess, and the fact that you don't deny it tends to
reinforce the guess.
As I said, young people tend to identify themselves as belonging to one or
more groups. This gives them a feeling of security. The desire to be popular
is an outgrowth of this. It is not possible to be universally popular.
Therefore, when one desires popularity, it is always with a specific group
of people. The touting of ideas which are popular to a certain group of
people, and are not logical, is evidence that one desires to belong to that
group of people. If the ideas were logical, it would not indicate this. The
criticism of Bill Gates as a person, particularly with the reference "we
love to blame" is (1) pointless, and (2) indicates a desire to be thought
well of by that group of people who "love to blame" Bill Gates. Therefore,
taken together, your statements tend to indicate that you either want to
feel like you belong to some group of people, and/or feel like you belong to
that group of people.
Making a statement less wordy is only a virtue if it does not lose meaning
in the process. I was able to make a guess as to what you were trying to
say, but because of the ambiguous syntax of your 2 statements, it was not
possible to be sure. You apparently agree that my interpretation was
correct. However, the reason I said that my statement was "more accurate" is
that it was less ambiguous. Ambiguity is not an aid to communication, but a
hindrance. If you are able to make a more concise summation of the idea than
mine, with the same lack of ambiguity, you're quite welcome to.
This is purely naive. First, if it were presently possible to solve this
problem, some software company would have solved it. It's well and good to
criticize Microsoft, but only fair if one comparitively criticizes
Microsoft. What other software company has achieved this utopian goal? Have
you?
This is another statement which tends to indicate that you are either young
(and therefore naive) or not a developer. Developers know how difficult this
sort of problem is to solve. Users see the tip of the iceberg, and ignore
the (,uch greater) part under the water.
Yes, software is becoming increasingly intelligent across the board. This is
the natural course of events, and it cannot be accelerated. This is not
"thinking inside the box." It is simply a fact. "Thinking inside the box" is
the process of attempting to solve a problem by using only existing
methodologies. To "think outside the box" one must be keenly aware of what
is fact, and what is not. One must also be mindful of "the box" and how it
came to be there. Albert Einstein didn't just "come up with" the General and
Special Theory of Relativity. First, he studied all the previous related
work. Then he was able to build on that and come up with something new.
However, I don't see you attempting to solve anything, or proposing any
solution. So, in your case, you are neither thinking "inside the box" nor
"outside the box." When you begin to attempt a solution, we can talk about
it some more.
I can tell you this much: When computers become as intelligent as people,
they will in all probability become just as unreliable.
As for what software "should" do, well, Microsoft is a business. The purpose
of a business is to make money, and provide a good living for those who
participate in it. In addition, a business has a moral responsibility to not
cause any harm to anyone. As far as that goes, Microsoft does what it
"should" do very well. Any other moral evaluation of Microsoft, or its
software, is purely subjective and arbitrary. Yes, I know that statement is
irritating to you, but as my Uncle Chutney sez, "If the truth hurts, wear
it."
Try Tools|Import/Export Settings. Good software has the ability to change a
lot of things to a somewhat common configuration, which is what Settings are
for. It also has the ability to adapt to more specialized and low-level
tweaking, which is what Options is for. The fact that you are unaware of
this capability is a reflection on you, not the software.
Why would I want to discredit *you*? I don't even know you. I find it
humorous that you feel that you can dump all over Microsoft and Bill Gates,
but if someone criticizes your arguments, you become incredibly defensive.
Sauce for the goose, Rob.
"Rant?" It was an illustration of the foolishness of doing something which
one considers to be "popular," but is, in fact, illogical. SUVs are
gas-guzzlers, Rob. Gas is becoming increasingly more expensive, and
automobiles depreciate at a very fast rate. The purpose of a transportation
vehicle is to transport. It is part of the "business" of running one's life.
And taken from a purely financial/business standpoint, an SUV is an
extremely poor investment, unless one needs some of the "off-road"
functionality which it comes with. And that is very rare among SUV owners.
The fact that you think that was a "rant" also tends to indicate
youthfulness on your part. You tend to want to group people into nice neat
little self-defined categories. This colors your perception. "Neither a
follower nor a lender be," as my Uncle Chutney sez. I believe *you* need to
think "outside the box" of whatever group you think you belong to. There are
more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy,
Horatio. And more types of human beings. About 7 billion types at the
moment.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
J
John Bailo
Kevin said:
Lost?
Veronica Mars?
Numb3rs?
House?
These are shows that are not only great, and fun to watch, but which
influence our culture and find their way into numerous references in
society. Then there are the bad shows that do this as well (The
Apprentice, Beauty and the Geek), but still relevent to our culture.
Again, it's hard to believe that someone so aloof and cut off from it all
wants to run the show. Seems ridiculous.
R
Rob R. Ainscough
Kevin,
You're anti-user and you rant about SUVs -- your long diatribes offer
nothing concrete or useful in the real world. For one moment take on the
"users" perspective -- you don't have to like it, agree with it, or accept
it -- but you'll find that understanding it will help you return from your
fantasy land.
Somewhere along the adventure of life you got lost Kevin just as did Mr.
Gates and Microsoft.
A user can describe what they need in a day, and it will take a development
team a year or more to produce it -- you think about it Kevin and stop
diverting to "not a developer" -- "naive and young" -- etc. etc. -- it
doesn't NOTHING to address a problem. I know exactly how complex software
development is, I started at age 16 in 1980, before computer science was
even taught in my high school.
Rob.
You're anti-user and you rant about SUVs -- your long diatribes offer
nothing concrete or useful in the real world. For one moment take on the
"users" perspective -- you don't have to like it, agree with it, or accept
it -- but you'll find that understanding it will help you return from your
fantasy land.
Somewhere along the adventure of life you got lost Kevin just as did Mr.
Gates and Microsoft.
A user can describe what they need in a day, and it will take a development
team a year or more to produce it -- you think about it Kevin and stop
diverting to "not a developer" -- "naive and young" -- etc. etc. -- it
doesn't NOTHING to address a problem. I know exactly how complex software
development is, I started at age 16 in 1980, before computer science was
even taught in my high school.
Rob.
K
Kevin Spencer
Waa.
--
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A brute awe as you,
a Metallic hag entity, eat us.
--
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A brute awe as you,
a Metallic hag entity, eat us.
K
Kevin Spencer
Again, it's hard to believe that someone so aloof and cut off from it all
Who said anything about "running the show?" Anyone who thinks that anyone
can "run the show" is entertaining a ridiculous assumption. I can assure you
that Bill Gates doesn't.
The funny thing to me is all of this paranoia about Bill Gates. He's just a
geek, and he's just doing his geek thing. Sure, he's made a lot of money at
it, but that hasn't changed him. I'm almost the same age as Bill. I can
remember when he was just a kid with a bad haircut. I can assure you he's
the same kid now that he was then.
Remember, as my Uncle Chutney sez, "Paranoia is just a state of mind."
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A brute awe as you,
a Metallic hag entity, eat us.
Who said anything about "running the show?" Anyone who thinks that anyone
can "run the show" is entertaining a ridiculous assumption. I can assure you
that Bill Gates doesn't.
The funny thing to me is all of this paranoia about Bill Gates. He's just a
geek, and he's just doing his geek thing. Sure, he's made a lot of money at
it, but that hasn't changed him. I'm almost the same age as Bill. I can
remember when he was just a kid with a bad haircut. I can assure you he's
the same kid now that he was then.
Remember, as my Uncle Chutney sez, "Paranoia is just a state of mind."
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A brute awe as you,
a Metallic hag entity, eat us.
J
John Bailo
Kevin said:
Help!
The paranoids are after me!
U
umesh tiwari
notepad source coding for development.