Which is what I was ultimately getting at. The reason for a corporate help desk is custom IT infrastructure, custom hardware, networks, databases, etc. It is not usually because a user doesn't know how to use a particular application. That's unlikely to change for the reasons you cite.
Most of the time I know HOW to fix my problem. When I call the corporate help desk, it's not because I don't know how to fix the problem, it's because I don't have permissions to do it because the box is locked down.
Otherwise it's some networking issue which I don't have access to the equipment to fix.
Having done the calculations during a physics course, IIRC the error was on the order of around 20 miles or so if relativity was not accounted for. So while it would still work, sorta, it would not be all that helpful.
It typically isn't a problem with YOUR dept, it is when some nimrod reports your phone number as their own and has dept. You can then spend months/years trying to convince the retards calling your phone day-in and day-out that you actually own the number and you aren't the debtor they're looking for and you can't help them find the person. After I moved a few years ago our new land-line had one of these numbers (probably recycled), and after about 18 months of that crap and repeatedly telling the collectors the facts, we finally got fed up and just cancelled the thing and went cell-only.
So in the end it really isn't about your debt and whether you're responsible or not, it's about the people that are screwing it up for everyone and the collectors just not giving a damn.
I'm quite familiar with how well tested GR is. I'm, not, however, aware of any of those tests involving neutrinos. Besides, we already know we don't know how GR relates to quantum mechanics. Maybe this is just an example of that on a macroscopic scale. The point being is that GR is extremely robust in those areas where it's been heavily verified, but that robustness doesn't automatically translate into robustness in other areas. Before we had high energies / high precision Newtonian mechanics were also extremely well tested. As our knowledge advanced, we came to realize there were situations where it didn't hold up.
I think you might be overstating the significance of Newtonian mechanics and its expansion by relativity by a large amount. Very early on Mercury's orbit was known not to obey Newtonian mechanics. The Mercury problem raised a lot of questions and lots of theory and conjecture were passed around trying to understand and explain why its orbit was non-standard. So not only was Newton not nearly as well established as you let on, there were known issues with it pretty much from the get go. When Relativity came along the mercury problem was the first real test of the theory, and when it fit the predictions of Relativity, everyone had to take notice.
Besides some vague QM and GR don't quite meet in the middle, there's nothing here that fits a previously unexplained bit of data. GR doesn't have a 'mercury problem' to contend with which is why it's far more well established and the new data is treated with such skepticism. Not to mention there are other measurements of the same effect from observed supernovae that did not show the FTL neutrinos as far as we know. However if this observation holds up this could be GR's own new 'mercury problem' waiting for a theory to come and try and explain it.
Never said it did. But it does occur very very very infrequently in the context of the stock market. For arguments sake:
Person A) has stock he wants to buy and person B) has stock. They will trade at whatever price they agree on. If person B and A agree on the price of $1 or $10 million for that stock the company is completely unaffected. They don't get any of it. It might increase the relative value of the stock briefly that allows them to sell more (if they have more left to sell). But the transaction is completely independent of the company's day to day business.
So when person A buys a bunch of stock from other stockholders the company cannot grow, or use that money in any way, which I believe was the GGPs point.
What are you talking about?
Stock issuance is the only stock transaction that invests money in the company. Normally buying stock just gives the previous holder some cash for his stock. The company and industry sees nothing of that transaction. They get no money. High stock value means they might be able to issue some more stock to raise some cash, but affects the actual day-to-day operation of the company not one iota.
Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?
As I understand it, this is In large part because natural sources and sinks balance each other out over time. I.E. A point perturbation like a volcanic eruption will eventually be removed in time. Over time average volcanic activity doesn't overwhelm sinks enough to raise average atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So if concentration due to natural sources and sinks is largely fixed, and there's an increase, look at new sources and check the data. The rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere correlates remarkably well with man's outoput. There is a pretty close match with man made sources.
A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.
The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions.
Annual CO2 emissions are irrelevant on their own, they need to be considered with sinks. The carbon cycle including all natural sources and sinks appeared to be stable, then man started adding to it continuously. What's being looked at is rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that is tracking observed and modeled rises in global mean temperatures for the most part. The debate is in where the differences lie and how to resolve them, how to make the models more accurate, etc.
Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.
A ship is headed for an iceberg, the helm is jammed and the helmsman needs help to try and turn the wheel. There's 2 people available to help, a small child and a big muscle bound heavyweight. The child pulls with all their strength, and muscles is gently pushing with their pinky saying "why should I help more than the kid?"
You can't 'take a discharge' from the military, it's not a job you can just up and quit, and the oath is not optional. It's also given before you know the first thing about what you're getting into, so it's quite easy to be honest and gung-ho at first and find out later things aren't quite what you were led to believe.
Strictly speaking, the user in question is trained to just click yes every time they see the window. They don't know or understand most of the pop ups and do the action most likely to let them keep on doing whatever it is their doing. UAC does nothing to help them either, it is worse than useless.
You keep asking people to battle the wiki-trolls, after they've repeatedly said they don't want or have time to fight that out. They wanted to contribute a bit to public knowledge, got rebuffed, and went on their way. Asking them to slog through a lengthy discussion and appeals process just to add a few words to an article is absurd.
They wanted to commit 20 minutes or so and get on with their day. You are asking for several hours spread over days to weeks of diligent monitoring and arguing. Something they clearly indicated they don't want to do. Which is why the people willing to do that and spend the time on it, are winning AND lowering the overall value of Wikipedia.
The future is threaded applications - if you can't thread, go find yourself a nice FPGA.
Whoa whoa whoa there. How in the world is someone who can't handle multiple concurrent processes (like threads) going to do anything coherent with hardware where everything is concurrent?
Even so 1 accident per 20,000 years of operation is not very good. That means for 1000 reactors operating world wide (absurdly low number for actually supplying world demand) that's one accident every 20 years. The frequency goes up as reactor count goes up. I'd like better reliability than that for nuclear accidents. It's not strictly death toll that counts, it's also the large swath of land that becomes unusable and dangerous for large periods of time in the case of accidents.
Fukushima now has a 20km evacuation zone. That's about 1,256 of land Japan won't be able to use for several years. Cutting that much land/space out of your economy (particularly a small dense country like Japan) is very very expensive. Every day that land isn't producing something is a loss, and that loss is attributable to nuclear power. Lives lost is important to evaluating risk, but there's more to it than that.
I LOVE Star Trek, but that's poppycock, the writers chose never had to deal with the remaining real scarcity. Some things were still scarce, like land. Picard's brother had a whole vineyard. Everyone can't have a vineyard, so who gets left out? Sure, replicators solved most issues of scarcity, but there's still some left. Who gets the land where the resources are mined to create starships? Dilithium mines?
What of starships themselves? In star trek we do meet some privately run ships running around doing things. What if I wanted a private ship instead of doing the Starfleet thing? How do I get it?
There was still some real scarcity left in the world of Star Trek.
Depends, If you want a variety of modern combat planes, but slightly less intense sim, Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 2 is a good start. If you want really intense realistic sims the DCS series from the same company has the KA-50 blackshark, and the A10C warthog. All of these sims can play together online, either co-op in missions, or vs.
There are some decent WWII sims out there as well. Wings of Prey was a fairly recent one that I played and found fun. I never messed with the online multiplayer, but it exists.
Strictly speaking, generally the people that end up on house are the ones that every other available doctor has seen and could not find the answer for. Generally the people that go to him are the "I'm going to die soon if I don't get help type".
Also the show makes a point that solving the medical problems often requires detective work, the patient cannot know what is relevant so the patient doing information filtering is occasionally the cause of the confusion, (i.e. "Florida counts as tropical?") which is why annoyance ensues when, after all the madness, this one little fact the patient didn't feel was important was the key to the whole thing.
And if someone told you to build any of the IC's that were on the C64 where would you start? Do have a fab handy, do you know the chemicals that go into the process? Building something and understanding its operation and components are not the same thing.
At the level I think you're referring to, it's still plenty possible to understand what's going on. But even in the C64 era, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that knew EVERYTHING there was to know about it such that they could built it from raw materials.
buwah? That's not what this means at all, it means that all the extra cost and consumer aggravation has bought you nothing. And even if the rate of consumer aggravation is low, each one will be a potentially lost future customer vs if you had NOT included DRM in the game in the first place. DRM is a huge cost to the publisher as well.
If non-DRM games get pirated at the same rate at DRM games, what motive is there to produce DRM-free games?
If this statement is true, there are two possibilities
A - spend a load of cash and implement DRM with all it's possible consequences
B - don't spend any money on DRM and get none of the consequences
So the question is, what motive is there to produce DRM games at all since the DRM has succeeded at nothing but costing you money and possibly customers?
Of course game publishers know all this, but the purpose of DRM has never been about pirates. The motive for DRM is about control. Which means it is about secondary sales and the used game market and borrowers/lenders. This is would explain why we're seeing all the DLC at launch schemes more frequently now, which again affects pirates not one iota.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is what I was ultimately getting at. The reason for a corporate help desk is custom IT infrastructure, custom hardware, networks, databases, etc. It is not usually because a user doesn't know how to use a particular application. That's unlikely to change for the reasons you cite.
Most of the time I know HOW to fix my problem. When I call the corporate help desk, it's not because I don't know how to fix the problem, it's because I don't have permissions to do it because the box is locked down. Otherwise it's some networking issue which I don't have access to the equipment to fix.
Having done the calculations during a physics course, IIRC the error was on the order of around 20 miles or so if relativity was not accounted for. So while it would still work, sorta, it would not be all that helpful.
It typically isn't a problem with YOUR dept, it is when some nimrod reports your phone number as their own and has dept. You can then spend months/years trying to convince the retards calling your phone day-in and day-out that you actually own the number and you aren't the debtor they're looking for and you can't help them find the person. After I moved a few years ago our new land-line had one of these numbers (probably recycled), and after about 18 months of that crap and repeatedly telling the collectors the facts, we finally got fed up and just cancelled the thing and went cell-only.
So in the end it really isn't about your debt and whether you're responsible or not, it's about the people that are screwing it up for everyone and the collectors just not giving a damn.
I'm quite familiar with how well tested GR is. I'm, not, however, aware of any of those tests involving neutrinos. Besides, we already know we don't know how GR relates to quantum mechanics. Maybe this is just an example of that on a macroscopic scale. The point being is that GR is extremely robust in those areas where it's been heavily verified, but that robustness doesn't automatically translate into robustness in other areas. Before we had high energies / high precision Newtonian mechanics were also extremely well tested. As our knowledge advanced, we came to realize there were situations where it didn't hold up.
I think you might be overstating the significance of Newtonian mechanics and its expansion by relativity by a large amount. Very early on Mercury's orbit was known not to obey Newtonian mechanics. The Mercury problem raised a lot of questions and lots of theory and conjecture were passed around trying to understand and explain why its orbit was non-standard. So not only was Newton not nearly as well established as you let on, there were known issues with it pretty much from the get go. When Relativity came along the mercury problem was the first real test of the theory, and when it fit the predictions of Relativity, everyone had to take notice.
Besides some vague QM and GR don't quite meet in the middle, there's nothing here that fits a previously unexplained bit of data. GR doesn't have a 'mercury problem' to contend with which is why it's far more well established and the new data is treated with such skepticism. Not to mention there are other measurements of the same effect from observed supernovae that did not show the FTL neutrinos as far as we know. However if this observation holds up this could be GR's own new 'mercury problem' waiting for a theory to come and try and explain it.
Never said it did. But it does occur very very very infrequently in the context of the stock market. For arguments sake: Person A) has stock he wants to buy and person B) has stock. They will trade at whatever price they agree on. If person B and A agree on the price of $1 or $10 million for that stock the company is completely unaffected. They don't get any of it. It might increase the relative value of the stock briefly that allows them to sell more (if they have more left to sell). But the transaction is completely independent of the company's day to day business. So when person A buys a bunch of stock from other stockholders the company cannot grow, or use that money in any way, which I believe was the GGPs point.
What are you talking about? Stock issuance is the only stock transaction that invests money in the company. Normally buying stock just gives the previous holder some cash for his stock. The company and industry sees nothing of that transaction. They get no money. High stock value means they might be able to issue some more stock to raise some cash, but affects the actual day-to-day operation of the company not one iota.
Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?
As I understand it, this is In large part because natural sources and sinks balance each other out over time. I.E. A point perturbation like a volcanic eruption will eventually be removed in time. Over time average volcanic activity doesn't overwhelm sinks enough to raise average atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So if concentration due to natural sources and sinks is largely fixed, and there's an increase, look at new sources and check the data. The rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere correlates remarkably well with man's outoput. There is a pretty close match with man made sources.
A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.
The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions.
Annual CO2 emissions are irrelevant on their own, they need to be considered with sinks. The carbon cycle including all natural sources and sinks appeared to be stable, then man started adding to it continuously. What's being looked at is rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that is tracking observed and modeled rises in global mean temperatures for the most part. The debate is in where the differences lie and how to resolve them, how to make the models more accurate, etc.
Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.
A ship is headed for an iceberg, the helm is jammed and the helmsman needs help to try and turn the wheel. There's 2 people available to help, a small child and a big muscle bound heavyweight. The child pulls with all their strength, and muscles is gently pushing with their pinky saying "why should I help more than the kid?"
You can't 'take a discharge' from the military, it's not a job you can just up and quit, and the oath is not optional. It's also given before you know the first thing about what you're getting into, so it's quite easy to be honest and gung-ho at first and find out later things aren't quite what you were led to believe.
Strictly speaking, the user in question is trained to just click yes every time they see the window. They don't know or understand most of the pop ups and do the action most likely to let them keep on doing whatever it is their doing. UAC does nothing to help them either, it is worse than useless.
Are you advocating man should go extinct to make room for whatever comes after? How noble! I'm impressed with your selflessness. You go first.
You keep asking people to battle the wiki-trolls, after they've repeatedly said they don't want or have time to fight that out. They wanted to contribute a bit to public knowledge, got rebuffed, and went on their way. Asking them to slog through a lengthy discussion and appeals process just to add a few words to an article is absurd.
They wanted to commit 20 minutes or so and get on with their day. You are asking for several hours spread over days to weeks of diligent monitoring and arguing. Something they clearly indicated they don't want to do. Which is why the people willing to do that and spend the time on it, are winning AND lowering the overall value of Wikipedia.
The future is threaded applications - if you can't thread, go find yourself a nice FPGA.
Whoa whoa whoa there. How in the world is someone who can't handle multiple concurrent processes (like threads) going to do anything coherent with hardware where everything is concurrent?
Even so 1 accident per 20,000 years of operation is not very good. That means for 1000 reactors operating world wide (absurdly low number for actually supplying world demand) that's one accident every 20 years. The frequency goes up as reactor count goes up. I'd like better reliability than that for nuclear accidents. It's not strictly death toll that counts, it's also the large swath of land that becomes unusable and dangerous for large periods of time in the case of accidents.
Fukushima now has a 20km evacuation zone. That's about 1,256 of land Japan won't be able to use for several years. Cutting that much land/space out of your economy (particularly a small dense country like Japan) is very very expensive. Every day that land isn't producing something is a loss, and that loss is attributable to nuclear power. Lives lost is important to evaluating risk, but there's more to it than that.
I LOVE Star Trek, but that's poppycock, the writers chose never had to deal with the remaining real scarcity. Some things were still scarce, like land. Picard's brother had a whole vineyard. Everyone can't have a vineyard, so who gets left out? Sure, replicators solved most issues of scarcity, but there's still some left. Who gets the land where the resources are mined to create starships? Dilithium mines?
What of starships themselves? In star trek we do meet some privately run ships running around doing things. What if I wanted a private ship instead of doing the Starfleet thing? How do I get it?
There was still some real scarcity left in the world of Star Trek.
Depends, If you want a variety of modern combat planes, but slightly less intense sim, Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 2 is a good start. If you want really intense realistic sims the DCS series from the same company has the KA-50 blackshark, and the A10C warthog. All of these sims can play together online, either co-op in missions, or vs.
There are some decent WWII sims out there as well. Wings of Prey was a fairly recent one that I played and found fun. I never messed with the online multiplayer, but it exists.
I think that's the most awesome thing I've heard all day.
Strictly speaking, generally the people that end up on house are the ones that every other available doctor has seen and could not find the answer for. Generally the people that go to him are the "I'm going to die soon if I don't get help type". Also the show makes a point that solving the medical problems often requires detective work, the patient cannot know what is relevant so the patient doing information filtering is occasionally the cause of the confusion, (i.e. "Florida counts as tropical?") which is why annoyance ensues when, after all the madness, this one little fact the patient didn't feel was important was the key to the whole thing.
+1 mod parent up
As much as I agree, this is a little different. This is for entertainment (Netflix), not knowledge.
Uhm, ok. Try and come up with a definition of entertainment vs knowledge that doesn't have any overlap.
And for your second trick, lets see you lasso the Andromeda Galaxy with this spool of dental floss
And if someone told you to build any of the IC's that were on the C64 where would you start? Do have a fab handy, do you know the chemicals that go into the process? Building something and understanding its operation and components are not the same thing.
At the level I think you're referring to, it's still plenty possible to understand what's going on. But even in the C64 era, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that knew EVERYTHING there was to know about it such that they could built it from raw materials.
+1 My kingdom for a mod point!
buwah? That's not what this means at all, it means that all the extra cost and consumer aggravation has bought you nothing. And even if the rate of consumer aggravation is low, each one will be a potentially lost future customer vs if you had NOT included DRM in the game in the first place. DRM is a huge cost to the publisher as well.
If non-DRM games get pirated at the same rate at DRM games, what motive is there to produce DRM-free games?
If this statement is true, there are two possibilities
A - spend a load of cash and implement DRM with all it's possible consequences
B - don't spend any money on DRM and get none of the consequences
So the question is, what motive is there to produce DRM games at all since the DRM has succeeded at nothing but costing you money and possibly customers?
Of course game publishers know all this, but the purpose of DRM has never been about pirates. The motive for DRM is about control. Which means it is about secondary sales and the used game market and borrowers/lenders. This is would explain why we're seeing all the DLC at launch schemes more frequently now, which again affects pirates not one iota.