There's No Box ...

Okay, it's been an annoyance that I've had to tolerate for far, far too long.

It's not that I've got a problem with what they are trying to do, it's that I've got a problem with the whole line of thought.

If you've any level of cooperate experience, you've heard the phrase 'outside the box'.

Now upon hearing this phrase, there's two logical questions that one usually asks.

1. What's the box?
2. Why do we need to go outside of it?

In most cases, the box represents either a product, or service. Long and short of it, the box usually is a 'standard' product that a company offers.

Now why do we have to go outside of it, well that's simple. In order to make money we've decided to do something that the 'box' we previously had didn't encompass.

After we're done going outside of the box, we then box up the out of the box process, and we've got ourselves a whole new box. Then the process starts all over again.

Now, we get to the funny part ... if you're going to constantly be going outside the box... which will lead to the creation of new boxes... why even have a box at all?

Probably the best example of the 'box' is Microsoft's, not so recent release of Windows Vista. In XP there was two boxes. You had a home box, and a business box (aka 'pro') , eventually these boxes got expanded out to include Media Center, and Tablet PC... but in reality they were just spin offs of XP home with some special features that were 'out of the box'.

Now comes windows vista, and we've got 6, yes 6 boxes. Home Basic, Home Pro, Business, Enterprise, Starter, and Ultimate.

Now I certainly do appreciate the fact that you don't want to charge your customers for features they don't want and/or don't use.

But let's face it, by box up things, you've only managed to box yourself into a corner.

It's something that I've see all too often in technology, is this over use of boxes, buckets, and other enclosed objects that are used to describe rigid services, and products.

At the end of the day, the reality of the situation is ... the box doesn't exist.

After all the fast food industry learned this a long time ago.

While a good portion of the population enjoys, ketchup, mustard, onions and a pickle on their cheeseburgers. By refusing to remove them, you loose customers. After all, that's where burger king's "have it your way" slogan came from ... poking fun of the fact that McDonnald's had the whole one size fits all ... burger going on.

Anyway I think I made my point about a paragraph or so ago ... I hate the box, I really do. They have their uses, but by far and large they hurt more then the help.

Bored Lawyers, or Idiot Consumers? You decide.

Okay, so there's been an on going lawsuit, surrounding Windows Vista.

Here's the high level summery.

Back when windows vista was coming out, computers had two certifications ...

'Vista Ready': This basically implied that the computer could run windows vista.

'Premium Ready': This basically ment that the computer could run the more demanding Vista Home Premium/Ultimate

The fallout, happened when Microsoft released windows vista. Specifically, Windows Vista Home Basic, where the OS is striped of alot of the more flashy features (mainly the Aero-Glass interface). So what the claim is, is that Windows Vista Home Basic, is infact NOT windows vista. 

This all started 2 years ago. 

The recipients of 'Vista Ready' computers, were pulling together a class action lawsuit, claiming that microsoft mislead them with the 'Vista Ready' labels they stuck on the computers.

Anyways, today, the Class Action status got defeated (this however still allows the consumers to pursue lawsuits individually.)

Now we get to the -REALLY- stuid part.

This is all stemming from someone not happy that their $500 computer, they purchased 3 years ago can't run Windows Vista Home Premium. 

So instead of paying out another $500, to get a new computer which -can- run Home Premium. They instead decided to sue Microsoft, a lawsuit which has gone on for two years now. With the class status defeated, it sounds like the suit itself is going down hill. 

So my question is, $500 for a new computer ... or 2 years of lawer fees? 

Not sure who's the idiot, the lawyer(s) with too much free time, so they took the case hoping to get a % of the winnings. Or the client, who actually thought it would be better for them, if they sued microsoft, instead of spending the $500 to get a new computer. 

(and yea, for the record... I can build a computer capable of running vista ultimate for around $300)

Idiots...

It's been recently brought to my attention that I've got the diplomacy of an ICBM(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missle). In short, I'm what people in my company refer to as a 'strait shooter', I've little patience for politics. 

Everything I do has a purpose, and reason. And while, the execution is sometimes, flawed... the reason seldom is. 

In short, I've got a nasty habbit of going about things the wrong way... to take a spin on a quote my father used alot when I was growing up ... It's not what you do, but how you do it. Okay so maybe that dosn't translate as well as the original 'it's not what you say but how you say it'. 

Anyways, this is in reguard to the 'diplomatic' process of a community I help to manage. 

It's been slowly coming to my attention that there's something wrong with the community. The community was originally founded with 6 moderators, one of them being myself. 

Over the course of time some came and some went, now we're left with 4 day to day moderators, two of which were originally there to being with. Myself, and another person, we shall call person X. 

The dynamic that is going on, is one that's got me a little bit concerned... overall. 

Firstly, Person X has been the public face for the community since it's creation for the most part.  They have a very empathic personality, and have a burning desigher to make sure everyone's happy. 

Over the course of these two years, this person has formed a bubble in which to deal with problems.  Basically, she interacts with the users... and presents the problem to the rest of us. 

She then usually handles the resolution as well. 

It's easy to see both how and why this bubble formed. However, when people start questioning the fairness of the moderation staff it makes me scratch my head a little bit. 

Maybe it's hyperbole, but yet again maybe there is something to it. 

Combine that with the fact that of the four main moderators of this community, she recruited 2 of them. 

And while I don't want to think about it, the idea that there's a clique in the moderation staff infuriates me to no end. 

My biggest problem, is what to do? 

If this clique does exist, and we've got 3 moderators who are willing to back each other to the end... what am I to do?

How can I justify doing nothing? ... How will I convince them, that -they- maybe a part of the problem. 

As the saying goes, between a rock and a hard place. 

Dear RIAA

I'm happy that you decided to stop suing dead people.

But, seriously what are you guys thinking now? Getting the ISPs to do your dirty work for you?

Do you know how insane that logic is? I guess you don't but here let me give it a stab.

Point of order 1. This is America... like it or not, money trumps ideals any day of the week. So you claim that ISP's are cooperating with you.

That's nice, but you're asking an ISP to deny service to a client, who is paying them. Who most likely will simply seek out another ISP after going though a head ache in dealing with you're rather ... incompetent minons.

And to top this off, the ISP is going to do this for free, just because you're a bunch of nice guys right?

So what it boils down to....

You're going to pay money to people who will put pressure on ISPs, so that they'll disconnect their paying customers.

And what exactly is the plan from there, to reconnect them once they agree to not do it again? A fine perhaps?

Who sold you on that idea? The same idiots that told you taking legal action against peer to peer users would stop the piracy? Just out of curiosity... how are those lawyer fees standing against you're 'winnings'.

Anyways I digress, you're approach to the problem is all wrong... if you spent half the time you spend on trying to stop peer to peer piracy, instead trying to find a way to use it to your advantage. You may actually start making progress... but you know... maybe this loosing battle agaist the pirates is some how benefical to you.

As for me, I'm out of this one... as I actuallly use one of the many 'purchase' options out there for MP3s.

But figured I'd toss you a lifeline, as the people at the top seem to lack any semblance of inteligence.

What darkness lies inside...

Thanks to the Music Genome Project, which takes the form of a music service called Pandora. I've been listening to quite a bit of new music that I like, but haven't been exposed to.

My typical line up of Linkin Park, Evanescence, 3 Doors Down, Paramore and Lacuna Coil are now injected with names like Leaves Eyes, Flyleaf, and Sirenia.

Anyways, I've only recently realized that one of my favorite flyleaf songs... 'Cassie' is about which is a tribute to Cassie Barnell, one of the victims of the Columbine Massacre.

I spent a portion of my lunch browsing though all the stuff about it. I know, there's been plenty of people who have thought alot about that day. But it got me thinking about religion a little bit. I'm not exactly a very religious person, but in the same breath I'm respectful of those who are.

However, all this does come to a point.

The one mark of relgion is they are usually very nice to people who think like they do. However, when it comes to people who don't necessarily think like them they are noticeably less kind. Ironically, the same can be said of a lack of religion.

This is summed up by the reports that the Columbine shooters asked people if they believed in God be for killing them?

It rings all to familiar with the attitude that religious zealots had with people they deemed witches. Asking them to embrace God, shortly before burning them.

The on startling fact about all this... if every religion teaches us the same basic principals ... to live a good life, and to respect life... why is it that there are more people killed in the name of religion, then there are people that are saved by it.

There's been a bunch of movies about AI taking over, iRobot, the Matrix... pretty much what it boils down to is that ... the biggest threat to our own lives ... is ourself.

People use any excuse they can think of to kill other human beings, and one of the top items on that list is religion. Which is a bit odd considering there's not a religion in existence today that teaches violence is an answer.

... anyways the moral of my story is ...

Less zeal.
More logic and understanding.

After all even a zealot spouting atheistic ideals, is still a zealot.

Google, and it's children.

Google’s been in the news alot lately.

Chrome, Andriod, Native Client, and the Open Handset Alliance…

Then of course there’s rumors of a google opperating system.

Chrome

It’s market share is standing quite stationary at the moment. However, as with all things the impact of the product itself is not just measured in by a market share (especially for a product that is free)

Chrome’s big goal was to change the way we look at the internet and web apps. Futhermore, it was to change the philosophy behind the browsers. The core behind Chrome was google’s new Javascript engine, called V8, which is able to execute Javascript more effeciantly then any other browser on the market according to google.

This is true if you test it by google’s metrics. It also was true on the other tests till recently. Firefox’s latest Beta, contains a new Mozilla powered Javascript engine. Which was able to match Chrome’s speed, in some of the more common tests. The moral of the story is that While it’s not making a huge splash as a browser, google’s philosophy is ringing loud and clear.

Chrome is by no means a bad browser choice, infact it’s quite good browser consider it’s still in beta (it’s what I’m using currently as I write this post).

Android

It’s an open source based mobile phone OS, which is based on Linux (Yea, bet you didn’t see that coming). So far there’s only one phone that uses it, the T-Mobile G1. The phone was well recieved for the most part, and recieved it’s fair share of good reviews.

In the plus colum andriod, as far as an OS pretty much crushes Microsoft’s Windows Moble, and the Blackberry OS.

However, the biggest thing that it has against it right now is that it’s not a corperate friendly OS at the moment. As it’s lacking alot of the tools that corperate users require, like an Exchange connection. My guess is that this is already in the works.

As it stands Apple’s Iphone still has the G1 beat, in most respects. However, Android’s got the open handset alliance behind it. This is looking to be a bit of a rehash of the IBM/Apple computer battle of old.

This race, is a marathon not a sprint…

Native Client

Well, Google’s had alot of people buzzing with rumors of an OS. Many people expected them to put together an OS based on the Ubunto Linux client that company uses on their internal computers. However, what ended up getting pushed out was something google called native client.

It’s a nice mix of Flash and Java in short.

It’s basically something that’s aimed to allow a web site to take advantage of a computers processor and other resources. Which will further blur the line between Web and Local applications. Which google gears is already doing.

Open Handset Alliance

Currently, especially in the USA. Cellphone carriers have pretty much walled up their services. Even more so when it comes to smart phones.

A cellphone that works for one carrier usually won’t work for any other carrier, and in the event that it does work… the features are severly limited.

The open handset alliance (or OHA) is aiming to tear down these walls. They’ve got alot of work ahead of themselves… as there is currently two standards that are supported in the US’s Cell Phones.

Once complete, the idea is to have any andriod phone, work with any andriod network.

As far as Carriers goes, (in the US) the only major carrier missing from the alliance is AT&T, but that’s in large because of a contract with Apple. (Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless are all part of the alliance)

What does this mean for the consumer? Well a more friendly enviornment that’s for sure. All phones offer the same features, all carriers offer the same phones…