Part of what you're running into is the distinction between packers and mappers (Google 'The Programmer's Stone' for more info). Packers learn by collecting little packets of information, while mappers learn by making mental maps of information. I don't agree with all the directions the originator of the concept has taken it, but I've found it to be a useful distinction. IT types (especially programmers) tend to be mappers, while the user is typically a packer. Businesses tend to run on a Packer mindset. Packers are typically much more comfortable with memorized procedures than with having to think about unfamiliar information(as you noted).

Instead of trying to tweak error messages to make them memorable, your best bet might be to get management to promulgate a procedure to be followed when the user contacts support about an unfamiliar error message. Make it include grabbing a screen shot of the error message, or writing the error message down. Try to make it short, but sufficient to capture the typical information that you need to diagnose a problem. Since they're good at memorizing a set of steps to follow, give them a memorizable set of steps to follow when they encounter a problem. This might be more successful than trying to push them into a mode of operation they're not good at.

Part of what you're running into is the distinction between packers and mappers (Google 'The Programmer's Stone' for more info). Packers learn by collecting little packets of information, while mappers learn by making mental maps of information. I don't agree with all the directions the originator of the concept has taken it, but I've found it to be a useful distinction. IT types (especially programmers) tend to be mappers, while the user is typically a packer. Businesses tend to run on a Packer mindset. Packers are typically much more comfortable with memorized procedures than with having to think about unfamiliar information(as you noted).

Instead of trying to tweak error messages to make them memorable, your best bet might be to get management to promulgate a procedure to be followed when the user contacts support about an unfamiliar error message. Make it include grabbing a screen shot of the error message, or writing the error message down. Try to make it short, but sufficient to capture the typical information that you need to diagnose a problem. Since they're good at memorizing a set of steps to follow, give them a memorizable set of steps to follow when they encounter a problem. This might be more successful than trying to push them into a mode of operation they're not good at.

Welcome to the world of Bulverism in modern public discourse, where instead of actually answering your opponent's arguments, you assert that their position comes from some nefarious or irrational source, and their arguments can be ignored. This particular use seems to me to have raised Bulverism to something of an art form. By merely labeling anyone who is opposed to a homosexual lifestyle as 'homophobic', they have effectively dismissed those people's reasons for their position.

Of course, it's not like the left is the only ones who use Bulverism. That's the problem - every side uses it. As Lewis says, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs." When everyone uses Bulverism, focusing on the alleged motivations and psychology of their opponent's beliefs, no one actually uses reason to sort through the facts, logic, and assumptions of people's positions (or those few who do get drowned out by everyone else). Lewis again: "For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair advantage to the small and offensive minority who reason."

It's not like the use of Bulverism by one side proves that their side is wrong (especially when all sides are using it). It's just that you don't really have a chance to rationally figure out who is right and who is wrong until Bulverism is no longer taken as a valid argument. And Bulverism isn't a valid argument - it's quite possible for someone's position to be correct despite potential bad motives for believing it (just as it's quite possible for someone to hold an incorrect position despite lofty and good motivations). You don't find out if someone's position is right by speculating on their motivation or psychology. You have to actually think and reason about the assumptions, facts, and logic of a proffered position (and endure their own analysis of your own assumptions, facts, and logic). Unfortunately, speculating about the motivations and psychology of your opponent is much easier, and, alas, often seen as more fun.

When Bulverism becomes as pervasive as it seems to have become, public discourse is no longer carried out on the basis of who can marshal the best facts, logic and argument for their side. It's carried out on the basis of who can portray their side as the most honorably motivated. In short, you no longer argue about who is right, but about who is righteous (and who is demonic). Sound familiar? Ultimately, it becomes a PR and marketing battle, and the prioritization of PR over real effectiveness has its typical corrupting effect.

This probably won't end unless we see a massive grassroots attack on the acceptance of Bulveristic argument. Contemplation of the likelihood of this actually happening are left as an exercise for the reader.

He's not blaming the victim. He's just saying that it's possible for the victim to stop being victimized without having to rely on other people to do it for him. This is, of course, abject and horrifying heresy to some political and sociological viewpoints.

Take a look at Tom DeMarco's Controlling Software Projects. He deals with the issues behind estimating (including that one of the reasons we're so bad at estimating is that we get so little practice - much of what we call "estimating" is actually deadline negotiating). He ends up suggesting a separate measuring and estimating team - probably out of bounds except for fairly large companies, but the book has some good insights.

I can't imagine forcing things into the public domain for living authors

Why not? The original copyright terms in the U.S.did this. And since the purpose of copyright (at least in the U.S.) is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", it could be argued that lifetime copyrights are less useful in that promotion. If someone has the creativity, you don't want to give them incentives to create once and then sit on their laurels. You want to give them incentives to continue creating. Short copyright terms does this, lifetime copyright doesn't.

Sounds like another effect of the seemingly ubiquitous principle of "prioritize PR before effectiveness". Priority is put on looking effective or good rather than on being effective. Being foolish (as well as potentially corrupting), it is self-defeating in the long run, as people eventually spot that you're more concerned about looking good than being good, and that has far worse PR effects than you'll manage to accrue through your efforts to look good - in addition to probably negating those efforts.

I think we're being a little one-track-mind here.

Welcome to /.

(and in case you haven't head the SCOTUS is right now hearing arguments about possibly making it legal for politicians to be "corporate sponsored")

Citations, please.

I do the same on my home network, except I split it by function. Servers get LOTR place names, and workstations get LOTR character names. I try to make them make sense on some level, where I can. E.g. the firewall machine was named Morannon, and the OS/2 machine was named Samwise.

But this isn't the defendant being slapped with the contempt charges, it's his cousin.

Behind a door with a sign saying "Beware of the Tiger"?

Treos have practically never had wifi, what is up with that?

Probably that the cell companies would rather that you access the internet from your cell phone via their expensive cellular data plans than be able to get around that by using a nearby WiFi access point.

The missing piece of data here seems to me to be the relative profit margins between the higher-costing cell companies and the lower-costing cell companies. Do the U.S. cell phone companies make a substantially higher net profit margin than those in, say Finland? If so, then you're looking at the U.S. companies charging what the market will bear, and getting a higher profit out of it. If not, then you're looking at a difference in costs to the companies, and a resulting difference in prices. Plus, in either case, you've got to factor in things like the effect of 'caller pays' vs. 'wireless client pays'.

Isn't that what bankruptcy court is for?