I agree its an issue, but something as trivial as copyrights should not be part of the very foundation of our country. Its not THAT critical.
Yes we have.
Can't remember what it was called, but I had to clean up a machine with an old school
Completely hosed every executable on the machine, so it _was_ a matter of reinstalling from scratch.
What are the other reasons? Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, because I've never been able to figure it out.
Not sure if this is a serious question or rhetorical, but I'll assume the former in my reply (yes, I know this is slashdot).
First, it's not uncommon for an employee who has little or no managerial experience to "not get" what managers do so in my jobs where I've had a significant managerial role (e.g. dept head or VP), I try to make some specific information available for staff. For example, if you reported into me at any level and you came to me with this this question, I would pull out your job description and the one for your manager (assuming you had the same job family) and I would review them side by side with you and answer any questions you had.
But speaking generally (I've had everything from IT to Medical Affairs report into me at various times), some of the things I expect from first line managers (different from their direct reports) are as follows:
Granted, there are radically different philosophies about management so ask someone else and you may get a very different answer. That said, I don't think there is anything in my response above that is novel or uncommon.
I always found it very weird, that a manager with a specific competence level gets more than a specialist of the same level in any other job. They just assume to deserve more. "For the responsibility." While in reality, you're the one who is going to get blamed and dumped, as soon as something goes wrong. While he gets a raise for dumping you!
In the US, pay in companies is pretty much determined by pay reference points (PRP) -- i.e. "average" salary statistics for job families and positions in the same locale, industry, company size, etc. These numbers are obtained by HR departments from different companies sharing amongst themselves. While you can reconstruct rules from surveying PRP (e.g. first line managers in my company typically average 4-5k over their direct reports), the pay values are not actually based on any parametric model (such as the one you describe).
As for small group managers and their salaries, I couldn't disagree more. Their average day may not differ much from that of their direct reports, but they get the salary bump for other reasons, which you will figure out if you are in one of these positions for long. And FWIW if I have a manager fire a staff member it pretty much reflects back on them. Hiring staff, retaining good employees, and remediating the less productive ones is all part of what they are "graded" on.
Do you honestly think that the company (any company, not just Apple) would charge you less if people did not do this? The difference is going to boost their profit margin, and since people already have no problems overpaying for a product, they will see no need to lower the price at all.
Are you suggesting that a company will not decrease their profit margin even when it allows them to maximize profit (by increasing sales)?
if the majority of business users don't reject it
Most people in business who use Office 2007 use it because the decision was imposed from above, and there were a lot of reasons for the change beyond the "improvements" in the interface. That it wasn't rejected just tells you that it doesn't suck abysmally.
Is the ribbon better? For a new user, sure. For those of us who knew Word inside and out before, I can't think of a benefit.
But as per a previous poster, it's not about the advanced users (those of us who have had to put up with the various incarnations of Office for 15+ years), because they weren't going to lose us anyway. It's about the new crowd and getting them onboard.
Personally, I hate the ribbon. It's a waste of screen real estate (although MS has never been reluctant to consume as much of my screen as they could get), and after using it now for more than a year I find that I am still not as proficient as I was with Office 2003.
I keep it minimized and try to ignore it.
Of course, I don't care personally what you or anyone else use -- hey, if it makes you happy, great -- but I am bemused by the logic I'm seeing in this thread (i.e. "Emacs is a text editor. And guess what: a calendar consists of text
Anyway, I can tell from your post that you don't just use Emacs, but I swear I think some Emacs users went back for one too many cups of the Kool-aid.
Who the hell say that you have to use the best tool for each task you need to perform?
No one?
Actually, it might.
But usually it does not.
FWIW, I use emacs and prefer to work in a text environment for many tasks. That said, I recognize that there are some tasks better performed outside of a text editor.
Out of curiosity, can anyone else replying concede that point, or is it just emacs all the way down for y'all?
Does that make a text editor the best tool for the job?
Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your statistics/psychology analogy. Are you suggesting one or both of these are not sciences?
He's just saying that significant points of convergence (or overlap) isn't the same thing as identity. I.e. that mathematics isn't science just because of the overlap or reliance of upper-level physics (whatever that is) with mathematics. Differences matter too.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.