Your cat might have a bladder or kidney stone which is causing extreme pain when pooping. Please take your cat to the vet and have that checked out.
I ran into the same thing: Cat pooped in exotic, awkward places, but never the litter box. Never looked like she was in pain -- just being stubborn, I figured. Turned out to be a bladder stone brought on by the ingredients in modern cat food (put in place to help other feline health issues, but which causes stones in a small subset of cats). After the stones were cleared up, all litter box issues disappeared.
..but they do love some simple pebbles, which are, fortunately, dirt-cheap (or pebble-cheap :) ) although a little messier to clean than the above alternatives. I think they'd like sand as well (I live in Uruguay and those pebbles are from Argentina, so I don't know what alternatives are in the U.S.).
"Yeah that's great and all but I've tried that. 3 litter boxes. All cleaned twice a day, and he still shits on the carpet 2 feet away from the box. Lid on, lid off, big sidewalls, different cat litter. I've tried it all. The little shit just likes shitting on carpet I guess. And putting the fear of god into him does nothing."
He also wrote a lot about the early days of science fiction in his 1978 memoir, The Way the Future Was. I was particularly fascinated by his association with the Futurians, a NY-based science fiction club which included Isaac Asimov, James Blish, and Cyril Kornbluth.
Reminds me of The Phantom video game console from around a decade ago. That one also promised the universe, with PA declaring their skepticism back in 2003: http://penny-arcade.com/2003/01/22http://www.penny-arcade.com/2003/08/20/ (the links to the product no longer reference that device -- it never appeared)
There's nothing wrong with civilly expressing skepticism about overly-ambitious claims. This article seems to do a good job of doing just that.
"Well, everything worked fine until you installed that [Chrome | Firefox | Opera] thing on my computer."
Doing free tech support for non-technical people is a wonderful thought, but it can also provide a harsh lesson in the dangers of unlimited liability for open-ended, no-fee, no-contract work.
I just recently wrapped up (hopefully) some donated work for a relative's business while it was struggling, financially.
The relative's business partners were repeatedly dismissive, disrespectful, and ungrateful. The financial bind they'd gotten themselves into made my life more difficult in either having to pony up, myself, for what they needed or spend extra time and effort working around their financial constraints.
The only reason I did it was my commitment to this relative, and the fact that they were now "in for a penny, in for a pound" with them.
That business relationship between this relative and their partners is now unwinding, and I am glad to be shut of the latter. Once they started having some cashflow, their first concern was to spend it on other things rather taking care of past obligations, e.g. offering me even token compensation -- or building up some reserve, as I had suggested and in as much as I was not seeking payment.
I write all this as a preface to the not infrequently commented observation: (Most) people value service in and to the extent they pay for it. If it's "free", they can often be endlessly if ignorantly critical.
> (Most) people value service in and to the extent they pay for it. If it's "free", they can often be endlessly if ignorantly critical.
Maybe people don't want to believe that they wasted their money, so they minimize problems with things that they pay for, while a free product entails no personal investment, financial, social or psychological.
Maybe a low price (including zero) is a signal of a low quality product, which comes with the expectation of something to be criticized. (Their thinking might be) why would you be providing these services to us for free if they didn't suck?
On the other side of the coin, most of these anecdotes are instances of doing favors for friends/relatives. If you tried to charge them, a number of them would be critical of your decision to not 'do them a favor.'
Oh god, tell me about it. Once I came to my parents' house to find the family laptop having gained a wonderful feature where every search result would redirect to spyware. Did my best to clean the mess and get everything somewhat reasonable, and then got a call a few weeks later saying my "porn watching" ruined their computer and deleted their bookmarks.
I stalled the laptop purchasing decision for my mom and grandmother and ended up letting other family members get my grandmother a laptop (Windows), and I let my mom get talked into buying a Mac by some friends and family members and abdicated all tech support responsibility by arguing that I only knew how to use Windows.
It worked; all blame is shifted away from me (as it should be) to the electric contraptions and other people who talked them into getting the laptops in question.
I think I increased my life span by twelve years and freed up a couple of hundred hours a month by that.
I went the opposite way and dumped windows and started telling people I had no idea how it worked anymore (Vista was a blessing, moving everything around into new places :P) which reduced my tech support to pretty much nothing.
Now whenever a novice asks for advice on what computer they should buy, I point them towards a Mac. For the most part, people just dont have problems; but when they do I tell them to go in to the genius bar so I _still_ dont have to do tech support. I offer advice, Apple handles support. Wins all round from my perspective!
Likewise for me - after dealing with my in-laws and their insufferable Windows machine, I bought them a Mac mini last year. To justify putting them through that change I told them it would be easier for me to fix it for them since I could more easily remote in from my Mac at home.
In reality I never set up remote access because I haven't needed to. They love the thing and have never had trouble with it now.
Outside of major countries, you will not, for the time being, find any Apple stores (Stores?), unfortunately.
Instead, you get certified premium sellers or something nebulous to that extent whose only relation to Apple is that they sell Apple products; they are basically normal retail stores with some kind of accreditation from Apple, whatever that entails.
I assume Apple will expand globally eventually, but the niceties of the Apple store are a privilege, not a guarantee. :)
I don't have a problem with unlimited liability to do work for my parents...
Anyway, I installed Linux on my mother's system over Win XP years back and it couldn't have gone better. She has been doing great with Ubuntu for 2 years now. The spyware, failed updates and odd networking failures I was summoned to her house to fix frequently went away entirely, so thankfully it was the opposite of your warning. I guess the lesson there is to only provide the best technology, that you trust. Linux is pretty rock solid for home users today, especially people like my mother who primarily use a browser.
Similar situation here. My Dad uses his laptop for browsing and email, maybe to scan a document every few months. After getting fed up with all the calls about spyware and other generally weird issues I installed Ubuntu.
Since then, I've had two support calls from him:
1) "Is it safe to enter my password when it's installing updates?"
2) "I'm at my friend's house... how do I add a new wireless network?"
Whilst it seems like a good idea to install Ubuntu on other peoples computers there are 4 things that would stop me from doing it.
1) Flash player, this crashes allot under Linux and seems to have some weird issues with sound where you will be listening to a video and all of a sudden the sound will start playing from the beginning of the video in addition to the current sound.
2) Wifi , this generally works, but Network Manager doesn't seem to be the best piece of software and I've often had problems with it just not showing up wireless networks which should be there. No idea why.
3) Distro updates, you have to live in fear of the time when they will accidentally or intentionally click the "update to latest ubuntu" button when it asks and half the drivers stop working and/or it replaces their whole user interface with something else.
4) Other software , even if your sure they only need a browser because all they want to do is read the news and browse cookery sites there's going to be some point they decide to buy an ipod and ring you up asking how to install iTunes, sure you could go and spend some time coaching them how to do this under banshee or something but they might be concerned about why they have to do this differently.
Of course they are also likely to buy the 1 scanner / webcam / printer etc that is known not to play well with Linux.
I've never had a problem with Flash Player on Linux. After using it as my primary machine for 10+ years, I started using Mac and Windows more - I can't discern any difference in Flash performance or stability.
Network Manager is simply awful in my experience. I usually can't get it to work for myself. I configure the wifi directly and set an RC script for my mother's set-up. I think NM has gotten better recently, though.
You can set update manager to not check for a new version of Ubuntu.
Every once in a while there's hardware that doesn't work. I guess that's why I don't go around installing Linux on random people's computers. For my parents and girlfriend, though, it's worked very well - they all have become entirely used to Linux, and prefer it, and I see the opposite situation that we all know would happen if people were used to linux - they try Windows and complain about it because it's different and they don't know where everything is.
You've never had a problem with Linux Flash Player? I'm utterly astonished, I have nothing but problems with it. Although I have a feeling this may be partly down to the binary only nvidia drivers not playing nicely with it (I don't get this problem with any other software).
Yes, network manager is pretty bad especially if you want to configure multiple static IP addresses.
I happily just uninstall it and configure by hand for a server or static desktop. The problem is when you are using a laptop and want to hop between a number of different networks, setting up a wireless network from the command line is a major PIA and not something I'd want to do just to use my laptop in a coffee shop.
You can set update manager not to get new versions of Ubuntu but in that case you had better install an LTS release otherwise you'll possibly stop getting security updates after a year or so plus you will want to keep their browser reasonably upto date (although a 3rd party PPA may solve that).
For me, all the more reason to install Linux on as many machines of as many people as possible. Should the situation arrive where a piece of hardware doesn't work (which is rare, in my experience), I tell people to blame the hardware suppliers, and complain to them, and tell them to stop making shitty products that don't work. The more people do this, the more the hardware suppliers will be pressured into getting their shit together and properly support Linux and other free (as in Freedom) operating systems.
This is of course true, more Linux use would improve hardware support (of course would have the side effect of people writing more crapware for it too which is probably what you got them to switch over to avoid).
The problem is that your unlikely to get your aging relatives to lobby the hardware manufacturers and even if you do it doesn't really solve their immediate problem and they're probably going to ask you to re-install Windows.
The problem is that there are many relatively minor things that can be deal breakers for lots of people in terms of operating systems. For example if they use netflix or decide they want to run a particular game or bit of hobby software if that is not available for the OS then they will probably want to switch away even if it makes their overall experience across the board worse.
This is one of the reasons for continued survival of IE6 in corporates, even though it may have lots of things wrong with it there might be that 1 piece of enterprise software that won't work in anything else, that is basically required to do their jobs so they can't move away.
>The problem is that there are many relatively minor things that can be deal breakers for lots of people in terms of operating systems.
True, but that exactly is one of the greatest sources of hypocrisy in these discussions. Windows has lots (and in my opinion, more) "relatively minor things" which can be deal breakers - except that those are ignored or simply waved aside as "that cannot be helped" (when more often than not it could).
It's incredibly annoying because this bias is completely ridiculous and in many cases makes rational arguments almost impossible.
>This is one of the reasons for continued survival of IE6 in corporates
And this is also the reason why we should refuse to support this prehistoric excuse for a browser and force these enterprises to rewrite or upgrade their software, or face being cut off from the internet. I frankly do not care if some idiotic corporation had the fabulous foresight to base their entire internal infrastructure on a piece of software written as an extension to an application that can be expected to be outdated in a few years (wow, what a sentence). Every person with half a brain should realize that this is a tremendously retarded idea, and everyone who doesn't should be fired and replaced. Including managers.
Not sure what Windows deal breakers would be? Unless you have a specific reason for wanting to use a Unix OS.
Sure you have more problems with virus/crapware etc but getting their long suffering nephew to come around every few months to re-install everything may well be less of an inconvenience than not being able to use their Windows only cross stitch software or train simulator etc.
Problem regards IE6 is that many of these apps will have been built when IE6 had ~90% market share so nobody bothered to build stuff for anything else (not saying they should have done this, but they did).
They may not have the budget or time to rewrite the app (or the contractor who originally wrote it may no longer be around or not want to touch it again). My point is that looking at badly rendered websites and having poor usability may still be better for them than losing use of this app.
Many peoples jobs will revolve around using 1 or 2 corporate apps and any web browsing functionality will be a far second priority.
>Not sure what Windows deal breakers would be? Unless you have a specific reason for wanting to use a Unix OS.
See, that's what I'm talking about. Lots of the crap Windows throws at you is simply accepted because people do not even realize anymore that it's crap.
To name a few which annoy me every time I am forced to use Windows:
-No or very limited customization of the entire GUI (or the OS in general, for no reason whatsoever - this goes for OS X, too, btw).
-Forced mouse usage, either because it's impossible to do something with the keyboard or it's highly inconvenient to do so.
-Hiding basic functionality (for example, showing/hiding hidden folders) deep in some non-intuitive system menus.
-Often being forced to do something in a specific way because someone at Microsoft thought this should be the only way to do something, whether that's intuitive and/or efficient or not. More often than not, it's neither.
I could go on like this for hours, but I'll admit that I am in fact biased myself. Still, many of the things that annoy me have been noticed by people I know (and who use Windows) as well. Any single one of the points I noted above are deal breakers for me.
>Sure you have more problems with virus/crapware etc but getting their long suffering nephew to come around every few months to re-install everything may well be less of an inconvenience than not being able to use their Windows only cross stitch software or train simulator etc.
I don't think so. That's what wine is for, and 95% of all programs will run flawlessly with it. If you set it up correctly on a user-friendly distro, they will not even notice the difference.
Maybe you can even find free (as in Freedom) alternatives. For lots of applications, these exist, and for the most part, they are either on par or sometimes better than their Windows-only counterparts. I already try to convert people to cross-platform applications on Windows (for example, Pidgin) so they could more easily switch to a better OS some day.
>My point is that looking at badly rendered websites and having poor usability may still be better for them than losing use of this app.
And my point is that badly rendered websites is the price those corporations will have to pay if they want to continue to use their application. The retarded, foresight-lacking decisions of corporate management years ago are no - I repeat, NO - reason for catering to IE6 users. It's like we are rewarding their stupid decision when instead we should punish it - by stopping to support (and consequently, block access for) IE6, completely.
Yup. I have installed Ubuntu on a number of computers for members of my congregation and provide them technical support. After one or two calls, it gets real quiet and they just enjoy using it.
My mother-in-law has Ubuntu on her laptop and brought it with her while they visit for Thanksgiving. I'll show her a few new things this weekend, but that's about the size of my technical support burden.
> The Atlantic advises a conservative approach: don't switch to a different browser, just give them the latest version of the browser they're already using. Be on hand for the first time or two they use the browser, just in case they notice the change and have questions.
Oh, tell me about it! I love how doing something as simple as checking your email on your parents' computer somehow turns into you giving them a virus or installing some weird thing.
We recently upgraded our Internet service to 20mbps and we got a new all in one modem/wireless router with it. Well, the wireless signal wasn't strong enough to reach my little corner of the house office so I plugged in another spare router to the new modem-router combo.
My dad went off on me about "what the hell is this shit you're plugging in?!" and "my Internet is slower than ever now!". Well, his computer was hard wired to the 20mbps modem-router and the auxiliary router was also by itself plugged into a completely separate port on the modem. So there was no way the router could affect him.
He heard me and the cable guy discussing how it sucks that I couldn't take advantage of the new modem-router because it supports the new high speed while my old spare router will only give me half the bandwidth. He thought my extra router was affecting him because of this conversation. We immediately went to speedtest.net and lo and behold, he was actually getting over 35mbps speeds, over 15 Meg's more bandwidth than we were promised.
Was anyone harmed? ... I'm joking of course. So they were frustrated for a second and then you showed them how to get the menu bar and everything was ok, right? Why was there a lot of angst, and why was it unsafe?
It's about "moving the cheese". Most people are creaturea of habit, when you move their cheese it forces them to change their habits and instills panic due to fear of the unknown. More so if the person affected isn't tech savvy. They are afraid they won't be able to do what they did before, they are afraid they'll make some new mistake that will have disastrous consequences, they are afraid of being embarrassed with making some novice blunder that will cause everyone to laugh at them, etc.
For these folks changing their browser, even a little bit would be like you or I walking into the bathroom and finding the toilet paper replaced with 3 seashells. You can get past that moment of panic with some coaching but some people don't like to be helped so there may or may not be anything you can do.
My philosophy: if you're getting tasked with being the family IT department, lay down some rules: they use what you suggest or they don't get support.
It is "unsafe" for the would-be helper to help people who aren't asking/paying for help and who don't understand the difference between a easily changed default setting and installed spyware.
With such people, you never know when they will simultaneously accuse you of "breaking" their computer and remove your access to said computer so that whatever you've done that they believe "breaks" the computer indeed becomes "permanent" and is something they can be permanently pissed at you for.
Some people can't be helped. In such extreme cases with incredibly unreasonable and unknowledgeable people just don't upgrade their browser. Let them languish.
On the other hand it could be a benefit to be removed from the duty of maintaing their computer, so maybe pissing them off is a (selfish) win.
You're doing it wrong. The most important part of upgrading somebodys browser is to not tell them about it. Nobody cares about these things until you bring it to their attention.
You're still doing it wrong! You don't switch browsers, you upgrade the current one. For years I tried to explain the merits of using anything over IE. over the years my explanations got dumbed down to the point where I tell my parents "It works better" or "You won't get a virus" instead of the other simple-but-complicated-to-them explanations involving standards, accessibility, etc.
In the end, my dad actually got on board with Firefox which was awesome! But then Chrome came out and he won't try it and I'm not about to try to push it more than the passing comment I made about it a few weeks back. My mother on the other hand won't switch to anything. She won't even let you upgrade from IE7. She's now dating a guy who does IT work for the IL State Gov and she listened to him and at least upgraded. Thank god for her new boyfriend. Now I go to him whenever she needs computer help. I call and say "hey, you're the new computer guy in the family. Mom needs X done. Can you go over there?" and I no longer do computer support for my mother.
You must all really have very inflexible parents. My parents are very non-technical (when it comes consumer electronics – my dad can engineer a kick-ass water supply infrastructure for you if you need it) and generally clueless about many things having to do with computers but they never had a problem with me switching browsers for them (from IE to Firefox to Safari to Chrome; they are currently using both Safari and Chrome depending on which computer they use).
Maybe it has something to do with the features they use? What my parents need is Google as a start page, the back and forward buttons and sometimes the address bar. All browsers I installed for them had those features in the same places and looking (approximately) the same.
What I want to say is this: all parents are different and you shouldn’t be discouraged by the experience of some not to update or change browsers. Before you do so I would recommend watching your parents how they use their old browser. If there is some feature they use that is in a different place or has a different name or works in a different way or isn’t there at all you have an uphill battle ahead of you and maybe you don’t want to change anything. If not you are fine.
Remember that this article is advising that you upgrade to the most recent version. That means if your parents are running IE 6, let it update itself.
Although I agree with you're point about not contract work, I think that upgrading to a newer version of the same software holds low enough liability (esp when compared with changing to Firefox/Opera/Chrome)
Yeah, I got heat earlier in the year when I had my girlfriend upgrade her 80 year old dad's computer to IE9. Something was different with his favorites. Impossible to troubleshoot over the phone. Hopefully, he's over it by Christmas. :-)
My sister still gives me the "my computer runs slower now" after I had her do IE9.
Personally, I just take the opportunity to work on my sells skills. After all, IE9 is only a Microsoft blessed upgrade.
My mom asked about Chrome because she saw a Google ad. Let's see if I can "sell" her on it. Keep up those ads Google.
>...a large number of little hurdles add up to a big hurdle. Maybe not for them,
>developers who have already committed to this platform and have a stake in it
A quick perusal of the BlackBerry developer forums will show how much this nonsense matters to individuals who have already developed their applications and have a large stake in the platform. Yes, getting started with BlackBerry is a pain, but the minor errors continue to compound the longer you develop for the devices. This adds up to an impression of institutional incompetence and leaves one considering whether time spent developing for a BlackBerry device is a waste of effort.
It's not as though any of these issues are a surprise to RIM. Just running a search on their own forums will show the same topics appearing over and over again through the years as developers find themselves bitten by bureaucratic quirks, frustrating quests for direct internet access, or surprises due to poor App World implementation.
No, these problems cannot be corrected overnight, but one would think they would be addressed in some manner. This thread alone gives an example of how RIM's developer-oriented initiatives seem to completely miss the mark:
Android and iPhone have shown the value small and mid-sized developers bring to a platform through quality applications, but RIM remains completely out to lunch on developer support. It's gotten so bad that RIM has had to offer a free PlayBook just to get developers to bother with the device, and now there's talk of providing Android app compatibility on PlayBook's release to make up for the lack of professional BlackBerry developers addressing the tablet:
Seriously RIM? Why should I go through the pain of developing a BlackBerry app when spending the same effort developing for Android will give me access to both Android and RIM devices?
Should I just abandon the platform now and focus 100% on Android?
Whenever I do, I seem to find myself caring too much about the responses. This leads me to returning again and again to a thread I've already learned from and replying to responses in an attempt to clarify my position. Before I know it, a half-hour has passed to no benefit.
Since arrows tend to be clicked to reflect a worldview which conforms to a reader's own and not to promote posts of substance, I find the result is more poking a hive-mind than learning through discussion. That agitates me far more than it should and, for myself, it's best by far to simply lurk.
How much in the minority am I for thinking this is a good plan for Nokia?
Echoing my post in another thread, Apple received $150 million in financing from Microsoft back in 1997 in exchange for including IE on the Mac (among other partnership goodies).
If you don't recall that period of computer history (when Apple almost went bust), you may want to watch this Steve Jobs Macworld 1997 presentation discussing their joint venture:
> Echoing my post in another thread, Apple received $150 million in financing from Microsoft back in 1997 in exchange for including IE on the Mac (among other partnership goodies).
Actually, based on my hazy recollection, someone at Apple had discovered an IP violation by MSFT (something to do with QuickTime code having leaked over to MSFT). Apple at that time was in pretty dire shape. Steve basically called up (Bill or Ballmer, not sure which) and said here's the deal..., after which it was decided that rather than protracted litigation, Apple would take a $150M investment from MSFT, and would issue a special class of stock, which could be convertible to regular stock at a later date. I do believe there was some kind of agreement to include MSIE, and/or that MSFT would make Office for the Mac a guaranteed product for a certain period of time.
From what I read, no one lost money on the deal. The cash investment helped Apple survive the rough patch, MSFT sold off their investment at a later date, Office moved on to be a solid product on the Mac, etc.
I do not believe that MSFT would have done any of this without a little persuasive arm twisting.
I don't think the comparison between 1997 Apple and 2011 Nokia is particularly close, or instructive for understanding the deal.
But I do agree that this probably is a good deal Nokia; and for Microsoft. Nokia was never all tha great with software, and is generally a hardware engineering focused company. Basically, they're outsourcing all the software dev work to Microsoft. And, apparently, getting paid (possibly very well) to do so.
Microsoft, on the other hand, buys themselves exclusivity with a major hardware manufacturer. Instead of getting secondary consideration after Android from the likes of motorola or HTC, they get the whole smartphone focus from a company with a reputation for producing reliable and high quality hardware.
Honestly, and all jokes about two dinosaurs getting together to avoid extinction aside, this is probably the best move for both companies, if they're going to stand an chance of being able to compete in the upcoming smartphone market.
I never got this argument that "Nokia is a hardware company, they don't do good software." That's a shallow argument which doesn't really mean anything at all.
After all, most of their R&D budget is in software development. They have developed two dumbphone OSes (S30, S40) and two smartphone OSes (Symbian, Maemo), which are feature-by-feature the most complete software in the market. There's lots more of course.
Im fine with the dumb phone OSes they've produced - they're actually nice to use and probably the best of such systems that I've used.
My experiences with their symbian devices, though (all s60, devices) was terrible. Crashy, with ugly and poorly implemented features, and a ui experience well behind other devices. To be honest, I haven't tried the ^3 series, but the reviews I've read don't indicate to me that they've addressed the problems.
Maemo, I've played with a bit, and it seems fine, but not great and not compelling over iOS or Android. And ive only seen it on one of their tablets.
I ran into the same thing: Cat pooped in exotic, awkward places, but never the litter box. Never looked like she was in pain -- just being stubborn, I figured. Turned out to be a bladder stone brought on by the ingredients in modern cat food (put in place to help other feline health issues, but which causes stones in a small subset of cats). After the stones were cleared up, all litter box issues disappeared.