AT&T protects bandwidth on U-Verse for phone calls and television signals. FIOS protects space on the line for the same reasons.
On FiOS, the TV and phone are carried on an entirely different part of the laser spectrum from the Internet, so if that's what you mean by "protects space", then you are correct.
But, it is physically impossible for Internet bandwidth to be reduced because of TV or phone use on FiOS, although they do "share" the overall fiber bandwidth. Since the total fiber bandwidth is on the order of gigabits per second, it's not like you'll ever be close to running out, even with 100Mbps Internet and watching 10 TV channels (each about 20Mbps).
Pay for a dedicated line and you'll get a dedicated line just don't expect it to be as cheap as the non-dedicated lines.
Why not? FiOS is often cheaper than other services.
Yes, technically FiOS is shared bandwidth, just like at some point any "dedicated line" becomes shared with other connections. But, from your house to Verizon's central network, you'll never share with enough other users to not get your full speed, even if FiOS gets 100% uptake in the areas in which it is available.
I would argue, that as opposed to going into a bank account, money saved by most consumers is going into debt payoff.
Maybe, but only for unsecured debt. For secured debt (mortgage, car loan, etc.), it's more effective to refinance the debt. You still have the raw debt, but you'll pay a lot less interest over the long term, so your total debt will be lowered. And, it will be lowered much more than increasing payments by 10-20% would do. If you are "underwater" on a secured debt, then perhaps paying it down would be better, but my guess is that you're better off with lower interest and keeping the secured item for long enough to get out from under it.
Then, you can hopefully take any extra money and put it into something that earns some interest.
I know "God" can also refer to the Jewish God, the Muslim God, the Brahmanistic God, etc, but since the law is mainly written by Christians in reverence to their Christian God, people can infer which God is meant.
No, you can't infer that, since you really don't know exactly what religion the people who voted to include that phrase were.
But, it doesn't matter, since it makes no real difference as far as the rights of the individual is concerned, and that is all that the First Amendment cares about. The current view that thin-skinned people who have no real issues with discrimination should be first in line to write the laws concerning enforcing rights would have been beaten down hard by the Founding Fathers, many of whom had suffered real oppression.
And, despite the general belief that slavery was OK at that time, you can tell that many of them were not comfortable with it. They did want servants, but not to own them. If the southern states had not had an economy based wholly on unskilled labor, or if the industrial revolution had happened sooner, slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
Since the payout varies for the lower ones, there must be some "pool" that is drawn from. Although the pool is bigger when the jackpot maxes out, it does not appear to be infinite. That lottery technically loses money on roll over weeks, but it's just excess profit from previous weeks, so it's not really a loss.
It is also possible that you buy 91,000 tickets and don't win anything.
I suspect that these "professional" players can't ever have that happen. You only need about 1,100 tickets to guarantee a 3-digit payout, and about 32,000 to guarantee a 4-digit payout, and about 900K for a guaranteed 5-digit match.
Even though the winners share the money from the same type of match, there might also be a guaranteed minimum per ticket for some of the rarer types, which would mean that you could do better than the one guy who matches alone. For example, if the pool for a 4-digit match is $20,000, but the minimum is $1K per ticket, you might get "bonus" money if you have 30 4-digit matches.
Possibly not. The game is a "pick numbers on your ticket that attempt to match a single set of numbers generated by the Lottery commission".
Since the point of TFA is that the value of partial matches go up far in excess of odds, then buying more tickets leading to more of a chance of winning would be about coverage of numbers, which should allow an increase in money, because winners of the same type share the payouts.
So, if the pool for paying out 3-digit matches is 100,000, and you have 95% of the winning tickets, you get $95,000. Because the fund for payouts can't get higher than a fixed amount, this also means that for every extra ticket you buy, a higher percentage of the face value goes back into the "must pay" fund, so each extra ticket you buy has an incrementally higher expected value.
I think they are referring to the mistaken belief that the government using the word "God" is a violation of the First Amendment.
This belief came about because some of the interpretations of the First Amendment used the phrase "separation of church and state" (taken out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson). The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar discrimination by to the government. There is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from acknowledging that religious beliefs exist, and in fact they were an important part of the founding of the US.
The "separation of church and state" phrase is popular with people who want the government to take exactly their view on how the government should deal with religion. It is just vague enough to allow whatever interpretation that is needed. For example, if taken to the logical extreme, that phrase would mean that the government could write no law that concerned any church. Or, it could be the basic "no government-mandated church". But, with that wide a range of interpretation, every lawyer is happy.
That's their problem. If I want to release something for Windows, I still need a Windows machine to compile and test on.
No, you only need a Windows machine to test on...you can cross-compile on other OS (like Linux running Wine).
And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who wants to release on Windows has Windows.
No, but they only need it to test the final code, just like you must have an iOS device to test the iOS code, or an Android device to test the Android code. But, you don't need an Android device to compile Android code, nor are you restricted to compiling Android code on Chrome OS. On the other hand, you must have Mac OS X to compile iOS code.
Oh noes! To develop for someone's platform, you have to have their platform.
You are missing the point...he doesn't want to develop for Mac OS X...he wants to develop for iOS. I could understand requiring a iOS device to develop for iOS (at the very least to test), but you shouldn't need a specific different hardware platform to develop for a phone, especially when the phone code doesn't run natively on the other hardware platform.
In other words, since you have to emulate the phone and cross-compile, why is special hardware required to host the tool chain?
Are you trying to claim that you shouldn't have access to the dev platform to dev software? If you want to release something for Solaris, you'd still need a machine running Solaris. If you want to release something for Windows, you'll need access to a machine running Windows. This is no different.
OK, I see...this is the same in that I want to release something for iOS, so I'll need access to a machine running Mac OS X...wait, what?!? I don't think you understand what "different" means.
On the other hand, for Android, I need access to nothing special because I can host my tool chain on pretty much any modern OS. So, assuming I already have a computer, there is no cost to develop for Android other than my time. This is not the case for iOS, which specifically requires both a Mac for development, and a yearly fee to allow deployment to real hardware.
Five years ago, if you wanted a hard-disk based MP3 player with 20GB of capacity, you had one or two choices. The iPod; I believe Toshiba had their own product, as did iRiver.
My five-year-old Archos portable media player (calling a device that can play back HD movies with full surround sound an "MP3 player" is just wrong) with an 80GB hard drive begs to differ with your recollection.
Not only was it was cheaper than even a 32GB iPod, but it also had a much larger screen (so yeah, it was "bulkier", but it still fit in a pocket), an easy-to-use interface, didn't require special software to load media files (it was just a USB hard drive), and inexpensive interchangeable rechargeable batteries (less than $30 for a new battery that gives 12 hours of music or about 4 hours of video, and can be swapped in about 10 seconds).
This is what irks me about the supposedly Free Software and Open Source advocates when it comes to Apple's IOS. Free Software could really go to town on IOS. For example, Apple won't distribute MAME through their App Store; and fair enough too. But anybody with a free developer account could compile the source code for MAME for IOS (assuming it exists) into an app, sign that build with their developer certificate, then upload the binary onto their own phone.
Most people don't have the $1,000 or so to buy the hardware required to make use of the "free developer account". And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who has an iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch also has a Mac.
Unless you are planning on making money from an iOS app, you won't go out and buy a Mac just to allow you to put a few apps on your phone. If you already have a Mac, you might spring for the $99/year for the certificate, even if only for an app or two. But, if you are faced with the same issue on Android (wanting an app that you just can't get from any app store), all you need is any x86 hardware and the completely free Android SDK.
Scenario #2: You've got your laptop (or something else) on the passenger seat. You so much as walk near your car, and the guy opens the door and grabs your stuff and runs.
All the cars I have seen with proximity keys allow you to config what happens when you get close (nothing, unlock driver, unlock all), so this shouldn't be a problem with the correct config.
The worse problem is the relay of the signal. If you know a car has no option other than a proximity key, you simply have your confederate follow the driver into the mall, and the two-way radios you each have will extend the distance of the key signal. Then, you climb in the car and drive away to the chop shop.
To your first point, of course BSA only represents members of BSA.
If BSA truly "represents" (i.e., are lawyers for) a member, then then one thing to make sure of is that the lawsuit is filed correctly. The decisions against Righthaven show that there can never be a "BSA vs. XYZ" lawsuit for copyright infringement. If the lawsuit isn't about copyright infringement, then that might be another way to fight...get the court to realize that copyright infringement is the only viable cause for a suit...a bogus "license violation" suit shouldn't cut it, as either you have an infinging copy (as defined by copyright law) or you don't.
Last, if "Kagetsuki's" company is not using any software from any of the members of the BSA, then they should have nothing to worry about. Run your own audit, and if you find any software from any of those companies, delete it. Based on the list, if your company doesn't do graphic design, then you are likely pretty safe if you really have legally purchased all your software, as it's pretty cheap to be in compliance for the software the other companies on the list sell.
Re:How Good is "Good Enough?"
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
How much resolution you need to get the same experience in the front row of a home theatre with a 10+ foot screen, I dunno.
Although 35mm film has far more resolution than any other video source (about 4096 effective pixels hoizontal, with variable vertical because of different aspect ratios), a lot of movies are run through 2K digitizing (for special effects, color correction, etc.) before the final print is made.
So, with a typical movie screen about 40-50 feet wide and sitting quite close (12 feet), you'd have the screen fill about 120 degrees of your field of view. Farther away (30 feet), the screen would fill about 70 degrees. Near the back of the theater (about 80 feet), you'd only have about 35 degrees filled. The first is "way too close" (front row), the second "immersive", and the third merely OK.
To match these fields of view at home with a 120" diagonal screen and 1920x1080 resolution (close enough to 2K), that screen would be about 8 feet wide, so you'd need to be 2 feet, about 5 feet, or about 13 feet (respectively) to match the theater experience.
But in my head 20-40 also seems like twice as much.
The easy way to see is to pick a number of miles and see how many gallons it takes. So, for 12,000 miles, we have:
1,200 gallons at 10mpg
600 gallons at 20mpg
400 gallons at 30mpg
300 gallons at 40mpg
So, a jump from 10mpg to 20mpg save 600 gallons per year, while moving from 20mpg to 40mpg only saves 300 gallons. This assumes that miles traveled remain the same, but they don't. The number of miles traveled tends to increase when the fuel cost for a given trip is reduced, so actual savings won't be as much.
It also shows that other than reducing miles traveled, nothing can be done that saves as much fuel as increase from 10mpg to 20mpg.
Speaking of KISS, it's hard to understand what the need for the new press a button thing on cars was supposed to be. (Fulfill a nonexistent need?)
The advantage isn't so much in being able to start the car, but to unlock the doors without even having to touch your key (which is useful if your hands are full, especially in bad weather). That feature was then extended to starting without the key in the ignition (the "no turn" interlock on the ignition switch is disabled by the proximity of the key). This then led to the completely useless push-button start.
The reason push-button start is useless is that you still need the other features of the ignition switch (steering wheel lock, accessory position, etc.), which means that a push-button doesn't reduce complexity in any way.
Okay. Show me that industry wide receivers that cost in excess of eight grand are vastly inferior to the SX-1980 and we'll have a conversation. What's the Yamaha RX-V1800 cost these days? One grand?
I'd also like to point out that the RX-V1800 is rated at 170W x 7 channels for a total power output of 1,190W, compared to the 273W x 2 for the SX-1980. How much more would the SX-1980 have cost if it had to output twice the wattage at the same other specs (frequency response, THD, etc.)?
What exactly is so important that you need a HUD for it in a car?
For every display that I might want to look at but don't want to take my eyes off the road, like GPS map, current speed, etc.
Even the audio information would be handy to have up there. Along with steering wheel controls, it would allow better attention. You still shouldn't be fiddling with the controls when traffic is bad, but keeping you from ever having to look down can mean that you have a fraction of a second more when the truly unexpected happens at time when you thought it was OK to look down.
The truth is that many system administrators prefer the command line, because you can come up with a bunch of repeatable commands that can be put into a script file and replayed on lots of machines
The truth is that most real-world system administrators prefer things like Group Policy, that allows you to easily configure which machines or users get which custom configuration without having to write insanely complicated scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T protects bandwidth on U-Verse for phone calls and television signals. FIOS protects space on the line for the same reasons.
On FiOS, the TV and phone are carried on an entirely different part of the laser spectrum from the Internet, so if that's what you mean by "protects space", then you are correct.
But, it is physically impossible for Internet bandwidth to be reduced because of TV or phone use on FiOS, although they do "share" the overall fiber bandwidth. Since the total fiber bandwidth is on the order of gigabits per second, it's not like you'll ever be close to running out, even with 100Mbps Internet and watching 10 TV channels (each about 20Mbps).
Pay for a dedicated line and you'll get a dedicated line just don't expect it to be as cheap as the non-dedicated lines.
Why not? FiOS is often cheaper than other services.
Yes, technically FiOS is shared bandwidth, just like at some point any "dedicated line" becomes shared with other connections. But, from your house to Verizon's central network, you'll never share with enough other users to not get your full speed, even if FiOS gets 100% uptake in the areas in which it is available.
I would argue, that as opposed to going into a bank account, money saved by most consumers is going into debt payoff.
Maybe, but only for unsecured debt. For secured debt (mortgage, car loan, etc.), it's more effective to refinance the debt. You still have the raw debt, but you'll pay a lot less interest over the long term, so your total debt will be lowered. And, it will be lowered much more than increasing payments by 10-20% would do. If you are "underwater" on a secured debt, then perhaps paying it down would be better, but my guess is that you're better off with lower interest and keeping the secured item for long enough to get out from under it.
Then, you can hopefully take any extra money and put it into something that earns some interest.
I know "God" can also refer to the Jewish God, the Muslim God, the Brahmanistic God, etc, but since the law is mainly written by Christians in reverence to their Christian God, people can infer which God is meant.
No, you can't infer that, since you really don't know exactly what religion the people who voted to include that phrase were.
But, it doesn't matter, since it makes no real difference as far as the rights of the individual is concerned, and that is all that the First Amendment cares about. The current view that thin-skinned people who have no real issues with discrimination should be first in line to write the laws concerning enforcing rights would have been beaten down hard by the Founding Fathers, many of whom had suffered real oppression.
And, despite the general belief that slavery was OK at that time, you can tell that many of them were not comfortable with it. They did want servants, but not to own them. If the southern states had not had an economy based wholly on unskilled labor, or if the industrial revolution had happened sooner, slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
Since the payout varies for the lower ones, there must be some "pool" that is drawn from. Although the pool is bigger when the jackpot maxes out, it does not appear to be infinite. That lottery technically loses money on roll over weeks, but it's just excess profit from previous weeks, so it's not really a loss.
It is also possible that you buy 91,000 tickets and don't win anything.
I suspect that these "professional" players can't ever have that happen. You only need about 1,100 tickets to guarantee a 3-digit payout, and about 32,000 to guarantee a 4-digit payout, and about 900K for a guaranteed 5-digit match.
Even though the winners share the money from the same type of match, there might also be a guaranteed minimum per ticket for some of the rarer types, which would mean that you could do better than the one guy who matches alone. For example, if the pool for a 4-digit match is $20,000, but the minimum is $1K per ticket, you might get "bonus" money if you have 30 4-digit matches.
Possibly not. The game is a "pick numbers on your ticket that attempt to match a single set of numbers generated by the Lottery commission".
Since the point of TFA is that the value of partial matches go up far in excess of odds, then buying more tickets leading to more of a chance of winning would be about coverage of numbers, which should allow an increase in money, because winners of the same type share the payouts.
So, if the pool for paying out 3-digit matches is 100,000, and you have 95% of the winning tickets, you get $95,000. Because the fund for payouts can't get higher than a fixed amount, this also means that for every extra ticket you buy, a higher percentage of the face value goes back into the "must pay" fund, so each extra ticket you buy has an incrementally higher expected value.
I think they are referring to the mistaken belief that the government using the word "God" is a violation of the First Amendment.
This belief came about because some of the interpretations of the First Amendment used the phrase "separation of church and state" (taken out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson). The reality is that the prohibition is against showing legal favoritism to any religion in such a way that it causes a person of a particular religion to become disenfranchised or face similar discrimination by to the government. There is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from acknowledging that religious beliefs exist, and in fact they were an important part of the founding of the US.
The "separation of church and state" phrase is popular with people who want the government to take exactly their view on how the government should deal with religion. It is just vague enough to allow whatever interpretation that is needed. For example, if taken to the logical extreme, that phrase would mean that the government could write no law that concerned any church. Or, it could be the basic "no government-mandated church". But, with that wide a range of interpretation, every lawyer is happy.
Buy an old Mac. You can get a mini on ebay for about $200 that will run Xcode.
Today, maybe, but as soon as OS X Lion is required for Xcode, then you're SOL.
Meanwhile, Windows 2000, 10 year old Linux distros, or even that old Mac will allow Android development.
That's their problem. If I want to release something for Windows, I still need a Windows machine to compile and test on.
No, you only need a Windows machine to test on...you can cross-compile on other OS (like Linux running Wine).
And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who wants to release on Windows has Windows.
No, but they only need it to test the final code, just like you must have an iOS device to test the iOS code, or an Android device to test the Android code. But, you don't need an Android device to compile Android code, nor are you restricted to compiling Android code on Chrome OS. On the other hand, you must have Mac OS X to compile iOS code.
Oh noes! To develop for someone's platform, you have to have their platform.
You are missing the point...he doesn't want to develop for Mac OS X...he wants to develop for iOS. I could understand requiring a iOS device to develop for iOS (at the very least to test), but you shouldn't need a specific different hardware platform to develop for a phone, especially when the phone code doesn't run natively on the other hardware platform.
In other words, since you have to emulate the phone and cross-compile, why is special hardware required to host the tool chain?
Are you trying to claim that you shouldn't have access to the dev platform to dev software? If you want to release something for Solaris, you'd still need a machine running Solaris. If you want to release something for Windows, you'll need access to a machine running Windows. This is no different.
OK, I see...this is the same in that I want to release something for iOS, so I'll need access to a machine running Mac OS X...wait, what?!? I don't think you understand what "different" means.
On the other hand, for Android, I need access to nothing special because I can host my tool chain on pretty much any modern OS. So, assuming I already have a computer, there is no cost to develop for Android other than my time. This is not the case for iOS, which specifically requires both a Mac for development, and a yearly fee to allow deployment to real hardware.
Five years ago, if you wanted a hard-disk based MP3 player with 20GB of capacity, you had one or two choices. The iPod; I believe Toshiba had their own product, as did iRiver.
My five-year-old Archos portable media player (calling a device that can play back HD movies with full surround sound an "MP3 player" is just wrong) with an 80GB hard drive begs to differ with your recollection.
Not only was it was cheaper than even a 32GB iPod, but it also had a much larger screen (so yeah, it was "bulkier", but it still fit in a pocket), an easy-to-use interface, didn't require special software to load media files (it was just a USB hard drive), and inexpensive interchangeable rechargeable batteries (less than $30 for a new battery that gives 12 hours of music or about 4 hours of video, and can be swapped in about 10 seconds).
This is what irks me about the supposedly Free Software and Open Source advocates when it comes to Apple's IOS. Free Software could really go to town on IOS. For example, Apple won't distribute MAME through their App Store; and fair enough too. But anybody with a free developer account could compile the source code for MAME for IOS (assuming it exists) into an app, sign that build with their developer certificate, then upload the binary onto their own phone.
Most people don't have the $1,000 or so to buy the hardware required to make use of the "free developer account". And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who has an iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch also has a Mac.
Unless you are planning on making money from an iOS app, you won't go out and buy a Mac just to allow you to put a few apps on your phone. If you already have a Mac, you might spring for the $99/year for the certificate, even if only for an app or two. But, if you are faced with the same issue on Android (wanting an app that you just can't get from any app store), all you need is any x86 hardware and the completely free Android SDK.
Scenario #2: You've got your laptop (or something else) on the passenger seat. You so much as walk near your car, and the guy opens the door and grabs your stuff and runs.
All the cars I have seen with proximity keys allow you to config what happens when you get close (nothing, unlock driver, unlock all), so this shouldn't be a problem with the correct config.
The worse problem is the relay of the signal. If you know a car has no option other than a proximity key, you simply have your confederate follow the driver into the mall, and the two-way radios you each have will extend the distance of the key signal. Then, you climb in the car and drive away to the chop shop.
How about increasing from 1mpg to 2mpg. Or 1mpg to 10mpg
Since my statement already assumed the increase from 10mpg to 20mpg, then it would be hard to "increase" it to 2mpg.
And, since we are talking about fleets, the 10-20 increase has already been made.
To your first point, of course BSA only represents members of BSA.
If BSA truly "represents" (i.e., are lawyers for) a member, then then one thing to make sure of is that the lawsuit is filed correctly. The decisions against Righthaven show that there can never be a "BSA vs. XYZ" lawsuit for copyright infringement. If the lawsuit isn't about copyright infringement, then that might be another way to fight...get the court to realize that copyright infringement is the only viable cause for a suit...a bogus "license violation" suit shouldn't cut it, as either you have an infinging copy (as defined by copyright law) or you don't.
Last, if "Kagetsuki's" company is not using any software from any of the members of the BSA, then they should have nothing to worry about. Run your own audit, and if you find any software from any of those companies, delete it. Based on the list, if your company doesn't do graphic design, then you are likely pretty safe if you really have legally purchased all your software, as it's pretty cheap to be in compliance for the software the other companies on the list sell.
How much resolution you need to get the same experience in the front row of a home theatre with a 10+ foot screen, I dunno.
Although 35mm film has far more resolution than any other video source (about 4096 effective pixels hoizontal, with variable vertical because of different aspect ratios), a lot of movies are run through 2K digitizing (for special effects, color correction, etc.) before the final print is made.
So, with a typical movie screen about 40-50 feet wide and sitting quite close (12 feet), you'd have the screen fill about 120 degrees of your field of view. Farther away (30 feet), the screen would fill about 70 degrees. Near the back of the theater (about 80 feet), you'd only have about 35 degrees filled. The first is "way too close" (front row), the second "immersive", and the third merely OK.
To match these fields of view at home with a 120" diagonal screen and 1920x1080 resolution (close enough to 2K), that screen would be about 8 feet wide, so you'd need to be 2 feet, about 5 feet, or about 13 feet (respectively) to match the theater experience.
But in my head 20-40 also seems like twice as much.
The easy way to see is to pick a number of miles and see how many gallons it takes. So, for 12,000 miles, we have:
So, a jump from 10mpg to 20mpg save 600 gallons per year, while moving from 20mpg to 40mpg only saves 300 gallons. This assumes that miles traveled remain the same, but they don't. The number of miles traveled tends to increase when the fuel cost for a given trip is reduced, so actual savings won't be as much.
It also shows that other than reducing miles traveled, nothing can be done that saves as much fuel as increase from 10mpg to 20mpg.
Speaking of KISS, it's hard to understand what the need for the new press a button thing on cars was supposed to be. (Fulfill a nonexistent need?)
The advantage isn't so much in being able to start the car, but to unlock the doors without even having to touch your key (which is useful if your hands are full, especially in bad weather). That feature was then extended to starting without the key in the ignition (the "no turn" interlock on the ignition switch is disabled by the proximity of the key). This then led to the completely useless push-button start.
The reason push-button start is useless is that you still need the other features of the ignition switch (steering wheel lock, accessory position, etc.), which means that a push-button doesn't reduce complexity in any way.
Okay. Show me that industry wide receivers that cost in excess of eight grand are vastly inferior to the SX-1980 and we'll have a conversation. What's the Yamaha RX-V1800 cost these days? One grand?
I'd also like to point out that the RX-V1800 is rated at 170W x 7 channels for a total power output of 1,190W, compared to the 273W x 2 for the SX-1980. How much more would the SX-1980 have cost if it had to output twice the wattage at the same other specs (frequency response, THD, etc.)?
Fine, I should have said "Group Policy editor", even though the window title for that program is "Group Policy".
What exactly is so important that you need a HUD for it in a car?
For every display that I might want to look at but don't want to take my eyes off the road, like GPS map, current speed, etc.
Even the audio information would be handy to have up there. Along with steering wheel controls, it would allow better attention. You still shouldn't be fiddling with the controls when traffic is bad, but keeping you from ever having to look down can mean that you have a fraction of a second more when the truly unexpected happens at time when you thought it was OK to look down.
Thats entirely different than other people changing a name because they want to suck up to you.
FTFY
The truth is that many system administrators prefer the command line, because you can come up with a bunch of repeatable commands that can be put into a script file and replayed on lots of machines
The truth is that most real-world system administrators prefer things like Group Policy, that allows you to easily configure which machines or users get which custom configuration without having to write insanely complicated scripts.