In my experience, people who use sarcasm on Slashdot (such as myself, from time to time) like to show off how clever they are and don't post as ACs.
The people who do post as ACs generally do mean what they say but don't have the guts/balls/courage to admit that they're that dumb/childish/backward - that's where the "Coward" in "Anonymous Coward" comes from.
1. On behalf of the rest of us, I'd like to welcome US mobile operators and their customers to the 21st century.
2. That's only true for some handsets. I don't have a breakdown of the numbers but too many US mobiles are locked into one operator.
A quick poll I took amongst some US friends found that most of them couldn't swap providers without swapping handsets. You'd have to look very, very hard to find someone here in the UK that you could say that about.
3. See the comment I made in point 4 of my original post. People can tell it's your mobile they're calling you on because of its area code.
4. I can use my phone in virtually every country in Europe. If dozens (maybe 100+) of European providers can come up with a system that works from one end of the continent to another, why can't a handful of US providers do the same?
Yeah, but in the U.S. we have big guns and are not afraid to use them... When the time comes, we'll just blast your puny, European satelites out of the skies (which, of course, rightfully belong to the U.S.)!
Gee, how nice of you. Is it any wonder that even South Korea thinks that the US presents a greater threat to world peace than North Korea does?
If you have a mobile phone in the UK, its number will begin with 07xxx. As only mobile numbers begin with 07xxx, anyone calling you knows before they dial that it's your mobile that they are calling you on.
Your mobile number will begin 07xxx irrespective of the area code of the city that you live in - whether I live in London (area code 020), Liverpool (0161) or elsewhere, my mobile number will start 07xxx.
I thought my orignal post made that clear but, for those of you with fried brains, this is the "for Dummies" version.:)
Elsewhere, you can port your numbers in days with just a couple of phone calls.
2. You have to ditch your handset if you do switch providers.
In the rest of the world, phones have SIM cards (small smart cards). To change provider all you have to do is get a new SIM card, which costs around $7-15, depending on the provider that you're switching to.
3. You have to pay for the priviledge of being contacted.
Elsewhere, Caller Party Pays (CPP) is standard. If your boss calls you and jabbers on for an hour why should you foot the bill?
4. Numbers are geographically fixed.
Elsewhere, mobile numbers are non-geographic, which means that if you have to move from one end of the country to another, your mobile number doesn't have to change. Indeed, in most countries you can tell if you're calling a mobile number because it will have a unique, non-geographical area code - eg, in the UK all mobile numbers begin with 07xxx.
Seriously, mobile telephony seems to be one area where the US is playing catch-up.
Several years ago (circa 1995 if my memory serves me right) IBM produced a regular-sized notebook which had a full-sized keyboard. This "butterfly" keyboard was the closest anyone has ever come to producing a desktop-type experience in a notebook package but the screen was still no better than that on any other notebook.
Now, with these foldable screens, we'll finally see ultra-ultra portable notebooks with 15in. dispays and usable keyboards in smaller packages than currently possible.
Of course, it'll be a long time until these babies are anything but top-of-the-line models but, eventually, they'll be available at the lower-end of the market too.
Yeah, I saw the story and, immediately, three little words sprung into my head:
AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN
Seriously, to RIAA/MPAA/the powers that be this is about as likely as handing over the running of the DEA to drugs barons. Any business leader or politician that openly advocated this KaZaA's plan would be committing career suicide.
I'm sure that, eventually, movie studios will embrace online distribution but when that day comes it won't be brought to you by KazaA.
Ridiculous, isn't it? Virtually every company the whole world over rounds its pricing up or down a bit to just under a round number.
Flick through any computer magazine and you'll see hundreds of systems priced at $/£/â x99. And the same is true of cars, houses, TVs and just about every other non-grocery item.
To suddenly attribute this to just Apple and Dell is like picking on a kid just because he's got two legs and two arms.
I have no problem with TEACHING un or under developed countries to care for themselves. But I'm totally against taking MY tax dollars and GIVING them away to said countries under the guise that we are HELPING them to build themselves up. TEACH THEM HOW, don't GIVE it to them.
Yet your government has no problem giving billions of dollars a year in military aid worldwide.
Israel alone gets $4 billion a year in military aid from the US. And with those US-built and financed F-16 fighters, Apache gunships and M1A1 Abrams tanks, Israel's armed force drop bombs, fire rockets and launch explosive shells at civilian population centres in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These bombs, rockets and shells don't just kill members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, they kill innocent men, women and children too - including US citizens.
Yet, somehow, nobody in Dubya's government can join the dots between this US intervention in the Israli/Palistinean conflict and the actions of muslim extremists against the US.
Seriously, your government is already giving your money away so that someone else living in near poverty can suffer some more. Wouldn't it be better if they gave your money away so that people living in poverty were given a hand up instead?
We're talking about patents that were put in when? Since before the space race?
How can it be make good business sense to have these patents still applicable now? Why the hell were they put in limbo for so damn long?
Chalk and cheese comparisons...
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
There's a huge difference between 98 to XP or 2000. Alot more then what you get for upgrading from 10.2 to 10.3. XP is an entirely new OS, 10.3 no matter what you say is just an upgrade to an existing OS. Based on what I've seen it's more equivalent to a major SP release from MS.
Service Packs for Windows are just a bunch of security patches and bug fixes all rolled up into one neat package. Microsoft doesn't use service packs to roll out new software.
The possible exception to this rule are a couple of recent service packs for Windows 9x and 2000 that have included Microsoft Windows Media Player - a DRM-laden piece of software that Microsoft is trying to push as an all-encompassing alternative to RealOne Player, Winamp, etc, and which is free to download anyhow.
As has been said repeatedly throughout this discussion in other posts, the nearest equivalent Apple has to a Service Pack is the minor releases that it issues - ie, OS X 10.2.1, 10,2.2, 10,2.3, 10,2.4, 10,2.5 and 10.2.6. None of these cost a penny to download.
The nearest equivalent Microsoft has ever had to a Jaguar to Panther leap (if you'll pardon the pun) is Windows 95 to Windows 98 - 98 was the same underlying OS with a few extra bells and whistles. The upgrade cost of Windows 98 was the same for Windows 95 users as it was for Windows 3.1 users.
According to Steve Jobs's keynote address, Panther introduces 100 new features to the OS. Well, that's 100 more than there has ever been in all the Service Packs that Microsoft has introduced for all the versions of Windows.
Comparing Windows Service Packs and these major feature-packed Apple releases is ridiculous. They are like chalk and cheese.
Yes, there is a huge difference between 98 and XP or 2000. But have you seen how much Windows users have to pay for these new features? The difference between 2000 and XP is mostly cosmetic - have you seen how much an upgrade from 2000 to XP costs?
Why is it so unreasonable for Apple to charge half of what Microsoft would for what most people would consider a superior product?
Re:Steve Jobs plan
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why do people constantly bitch (yes, bitch) when someone dares to charge for software that they can do without?
The release od Panther doesn't make your copy of Jaguar any less useful - it doesn't detract from Jaguar's functionality, ease of use or anything else.
If you like what Panther has to offer and can't live without it then buy it. If you don't think it has anything significant to offer or that it's poor value for money then don't. It's that simple.
Nobody forced you to upgrade from OS 9 to OS X and nobody forced you to upgrade from OS X 10.0 to Jaguar. Similarly, nobody's got a gun to your head forcing you to fork over your cash for Panther.
You don't expect free upgrades for life do you?
What comes next after Jaguar and Panther...
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 3, Funny
OS X 10.4 = Bengal OS X 10.5 = Lion
And then Apple will have to move to the non-feline NFL franchises. Names to look forward to are Titan, Giant, Jet, Raider, Buccanneer, Eagle, Falcon and Raven but Packer, Ram, 49er, Colt, Redskin and Seahawk don't sound too good.
Something tells me that they won't ever be using Bill though.
Hmmm, "web of trust" doesn't sound too good - I think it's that whole "being caught in a spider's web" that ruins it for me as a metaphor that works. I mean, if you're the fly, how are you going to trust a web?
I prefer "circle of trust" because it sounds so much more caring - a circle being an unbroken line that joins itself, enclosing a given area as tightly as possible, etc. It just sounds so much warmer, cosier and friendly. Robert de Niro clearly agrees with me, and who's going to argue with him?
Anyhow Redking, you sound like a nice guy, so I've had a word with Robbie and we've decided to put you in our circle of trust. But trust is a two way street - "I keep nothing from you, you keep nothing from me. And around and around we go", as Robbie likes to say.
Remember, there are no secrets inside the circle. If you break the circle of trust, you'll be placed outside the circle. Once you're out, there's no coming back.
Yep, circle's are definitely the way to go. Webs are just so 1990s.
I think that you'll find that your personal definition of hypocrisy is flawed.
By your definition, anyone who opposes any stance taken by any organisation should boycott it immediately, because anything less would be hypocritical.
So all Democrats should leave the US right now, because living under a Republican President and a Republican Congress when you don't agree with their politics and/or actions is hypocrisy?
See how easy it is to blow a hole through your argument?
It's not exactly as if the New York Times is the bastion of journalistic integrity that it likes to think that it is, is it?
One quick examination of mediagate tells you all you have to know - journalists, even ones that write for the most reputable publications, sometimes lie through their teeth.
Obviously, the AO player in question doesn't have the financial resources of the NYT and its parent company (market capitalisation in the billions), but perhaps he could find a lawyer who'd be willing to represent him on a "no win, no fee" basis (or perhaps pro bono) if he wanted to take the matter further.
Normally, I wouldn't recommend litigation, but the player concerned seems to feel that the article was very unfriendly (in his online reply he says he feels like he's been raped) so perhaps the legal route would be good for him, if only to provide a sense of closure.
Even if each screen costs $50,000, and there are 50,000 screens in the country, that's STILL "only" $2,500,000,000.
"Only $2.5 billion? But where would they find this cash? If films like Forrest Gump and Spider-Man can't make a profit then where's the money coming from?
What's that you say? Those fims did make money but the accounting figures were just manipulated so as to screw the original writers so that they couldn't get anything from the net profits that they were promised? You mean the people who run the movie business would rather screw people over than pay them the royalties that they're due?
Yet, somehow, you hope that the Hollywood moguls that are so tight with other people's money would spend some of their own cash to benefit others?
OK, I realise that to some people that's going to be a revolutionary concept, but I'll wager that a great many of the Slashdot crowd have one too.
Part of the fun of said relationship is that, sometimes, I find myself doing things that I'd never dreamt of doing. Like visiting a garden centre, spending half the weekend looking for the right pair of shoes, or wondering what's the point of underwear that's so small that you could swallow it without even noticing. But after nine years or so, you tend to develop the ability to either tune out that stuff or - shock, horror - like it. (There's a degree of sadomasochism involved here - relationships aren't for the those with low pain thresholds.)
On the plus side, I also find myself doing things that lots of you, err, more available guys are always dreaming of doing. Believe me, there are plenty of things in life better than downloading your favourite distro at maximum speed on the day it's released and, for most of them, two's better than one.
I RTFA'ed and clicked the link to the site in question using my browser of choice, Opera 7.10. The row of links along the top was all bunched up, with all the text overlapping itself.
I then opened up the site in MSIE 6.0 and the site appeared "properly". Clearly, the code in question isn't 100 percent browser-independent. (I'm guessing that it works fine with Mozilla, or else someone else would have mentioned it already in another post.)
Is it asking too much for professional web designers (such as the one who designed the site in question) to check their code on more than one non-MS platforms?
QuesTec isn't a fully automated system - a human operator is required to input the lower and upper limits of the strike zone (lower limit is the batter's knees, upper limit is the batter's belt buckle).
This human input alone makes QuesTec fallible, but's what's worse is the fact that the operator-entered limits can never be perfect. Why? Because batters move in the batter's box - they don't stay static like the computer assumes - and thus the strike zone can move from the moment in time at which the strike zone is set by the QuesTec and the ball actually enters the strike zone.
So, with the QuesTec system, it's easy for the machine to call a pitch a ball when it should be a strike and vice versa. This is one of the umpires major objection to the system as it works at the moment.
I'm all for employee evaluation but when MLB says that umpires who calls don't agree with QuesTec x percent of the time will be under review, yet assumes that every disagreement is due to poor calling on the part of the umpire, then there's something wrong with the system.
Let me be the first to thank a work colleague for jumping to my defence. Let me also be the first one to call him a complete idiot for not checking just who exactly was logged in at the PC he posted from.
Oh well, I guess he's going to be buying the first round of drinks on Friday evening then.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, people who use sarcasm on Slashdot (such as myself, from time to time) like to show off how clever they are and don't post as ACs.
The people who do post as ACs generally do mean what they say but don't have the guts/balls/courage to admit that they're that dumb/childish/backward - that's where the "Coward" in "Anonymous Coward" comes from.
Oops. Major typo. As a Liverpool fan I knew that. My hand must have slipped on the numeric keypad.
Oh the shame of having confused Liverpool and Manchester even by accident.
1. On behalf of the rest of us, I'd like to welcome US mobile operators and their customers to the 21st century.
2. That's only true for some handsets. I don't have a breakdown of the numbers but too many US mobiles are locked into one operator.
A quick poll I took amongst some US friends found that most of them couldn't swap providers without swapping handsets. You'd have to look very, very hard to find someone here in the UK that you could say that about.
3. See the comment I made in point 4 of my original post. People can tell it's your mobile they're calling you on because of its area code.
4. I can use my phone in virtually every country in Europe. If dozens (maybe 100+) of European providers can come up with a system that works from one end of the continent to another, why can't a handful of US providers do the same?
Yeah, but in the U.S. we have big guns and are not afraid to use them... When the time comes, we'll just blast your puny, European satelites out of the skies (which, of course, rightfully belong to the U.S.)!
Gee, how nice of you. Is it any wonder that even South Korea thinks that the US presents a greater threat to world peace than North Korea does?
If you have a mobile phone in the UK, its number will begin with 07xxx. As only mobile numbers begin with 07xxx, anyone calling you knows before they dial that it's your mobile that they are calling you on.
:)
Your mobile number will begin 07xxx irrespective of the area code of the city that you live in - whether I live in London (area code 020), Liverpool (0161) or elsewhere, my mobile number will start 07xxx.
I thought my orignal post made that clear but, for those of you with fried brains, this is the "for Dummies" version.
If for some reason Canada was wiped of the face of the earth tomorrow people would still be able live elsewhere.
Ah, but then who would the good people of South Park have to blame?
1. You can't port your number between providers.
Elsewhere, you can port your numbers in days with just a couple of phone calls.
2. You have to ditch your handset if you do switch providers.
In the rest of the world, phones have SIM cards (small smart cards). To change provider all you have to do is get a new SIM card, which costs around $7-15, depending on the provider that you're switching to.
3. You have to pay for the priviledge of being contacted.
Elsewhere, Caller Party Pays (CPP) is standard. If your boss calls you and jabbers on for an hour why should you foot the bill?
4. Numbers are geographically fixed.
Elsewhere, mobile numbers are non-geographic, which means that if you have to move from one end of the country to another, your mobile number doesn't have to change. Indeed, in most countries you can tell if you're calling a mobile number because it will have a unique, non-geographical area code - eg, in the UK all mobile numbers begin with 07xxx.
Seriously, mobile telephony seems to be one area where the US is playing catch-up.
Several years ago (circa 1995 if my memory serves me right) IBM produced a regular-sized notebook which had a full-sized keyboard. This "butterfly" keyboard was the closest anyone has ever come to producing a desktop-type experience in a notebook package but the screen was still no better than that on any other notebook.
Now, with these foldable screens, we'll finally see ultra-ultra portable notebooks with 15in. dispays and usable keyboards in smaller packages than currently possible.
Of course, it'll be a long time until these babies are anything but top-of-the-line models but, eventually, they'll be available at the lower-end of the market too.
I can't wait to see one.
Yeah, I saw the story and, immediately, three little words sprung into my head:
AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN
Seriously, to RIAA/MPAA/the powers that be this is about as likely as handing over the running of the DEA to drugs barons. Any business leader or politician that openly advocated this KaZaA's plan would be committing career suicide.
I'm sure that, eventually, movie studios will embrace online distribution but when that day comes it won't be brought to you by KazaA.
Ridiculous, isn't it? Virtually every company the whole world over rounds its pricing up or down a bit to just under a round number.
Flick through any computer magazine and you'll see hundreds of systems priced at $/£/â x99. And the same is true of cars, houses, TVs and just about every other non-grocery item.
To suddenly attribute this to just Apple and Dell is like picking on a kid just because he's got two legs and two arms.
I have no problem with TEACHING un or under developed countries to care for themselves.
But I'm totally against taking MY tax dollars and GIVING them away to said countries under the guise that we are HELPING them to build themselves up. TEACH THEM HOW, don't GIVE it to them.
Yet your government has no problem giving billions of dollars a year in military aid worldwide.
Israel alone gets $4 billion a year in military aid from the US. And with those US-built and financed F-16 fighters, Apache gunships and M1A1 Abrams tanks, Israel's armed force drop bombs, fire rockets and launch explosive shells at civilian population centres in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These bombs, rockets and shells don't just kill members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, they kill innocent men, women and children too - including US citizens.
Yet, somehow, nobody in Dubya's government can join the dots between this US intervention in the Israli/Palistinean conflict and the actions of muslim extremists against the US.
Seriously, your government is already giving your money away so that someone else living in near poverty can suffer some more. Wouldn't it be better if they gave your money away so that people living in poverty were given a hand up instead?
We're talking about patents that were put in when? Since before the space race?
How can it be make good business sense to have these patents still applicable now? Why the hell were they put in limbo for so damn long?
There's a huge difference between 98 to XP or 2000. Alot more then what you get for upgrading from 10.2 to 10.3. XP is an entirely new OS, 10.3 no matter what you say is just an upgrade to an existing OS. Based on what I've seen it's more equivalent to a major SP release from MS.
Service Packs for Windows are just a bunch of security patches and bug fixes all rolled up into one neat package. Microsoft doesn't use service packs to roll out new software.
The possible exception to this rule are a couple of recent service packs for Windows 9x and 2000 that have included Microsoft Windows Media Player - a DRM-laden piece of software that Microsoft is trying to push as an all-encompassing alternative to RealOne Player, Winamp, etc, and which is free to download anyhow.
As has been said repeatedly throughout this discussion in other posts, the nearest equivalent Apple has to a Service Pack is the minor releases that it issues - ie, OS X 10.2.1, 10,2.2, 10,2.3, 10,2.4, 10,2.5 and 10.2.6. None of these cost a penny to download.
The nearest equivalent Microsoft has ever had to a Jaguar to Panther leap (if you'll pardon the pun) is Windows 95 to Windows 98 - 98 was the same underlying OS with a few extra bells and whistles. The upgrade cost of Windows 98 was the same for Windows 95 users as it was for Windows 3.1 users.
According to Steve Jobs's keynote address, Panther introduces 100 new features to the OS. Well, that's 100 more than there has ever been in all the Service Packs that Microsoft has introduced for all the versions of Windows.
Comparing Windows Service Packs and these major feature-packed Apple releases is ridiculous. They are like chalk and cheese.
Yes, there is a huge difference between 98 and XP or 2000. But have you seen how much Windows users have to pay for these new features? The difference between 2000 and XP is mostly cosmetic - have you seen how much an upgrade from 2000 to XP costs?
Why is it so unreasonable for Apple to charge half of what Microsoft would for what most people would consider a superior product?
Why do people constantly bitch (yes, bitch) when someone dares to charge for software that they can do without?
The release od Panther doesn't make your copy of Jaguar any less useful - it doesn't detract from Jaguar's functionality, ease of use or anything else.
If you like what Panther has to offer and can't live without it then buy it. If you don't think it has anything significant to offer or that it's poor value for money then don't. It's that simple.
Nobody forced you to upgrade from OS 9 to OS X and nobody forced you to upgrade from OS X 10.0 to Jaguar. Similarly, nobody's got a gun to your head forcing you to fork over your cash for Panther.
You don't expect free upgrades for life do you?
OS X 10.4 = Bengal
OS X 10.5 = Lion
And then Apple will have to move to the non-feline NFL franchises. Names to look forward to are Titan, Giant, Jet, Raider, Buccanneer, Eagle, Falcon and Raven but Packer, Ram, 49er, Colt, Redskin and Seahawk don't sound too good.
Something tells me that they won't ever be using Bill though.
Hmmm, "web of trust" doesn't sound too good - I think it's that whole "being caught in a spider's web" that ruins it for me as a metaphor that works. I mean, if you're the fly, how are you going to trust a web?
I prefer "circle of trust" because it sounds so much more caring - a circle being an unbroken line that joins itself, enclosing a given area as tightly as possible, etc. It just sounds so much warmer, cosier and friendly. Robert de Niro clearly agrees with me, and who's going to argue with him?
Anyhow Redking, you sound like a nice guy, so I've had a word with Robbie and we've decided to put you in our circle of trust. But trust is a two way street - "I keep nothing from you, you keep nothing from me. And around and around we go", as Robbie likes to say.
Remember, there are no secrets inside the circle. If you break the circle of trust, you'll be placed outside the circle. Once you're out, there's no coming back.
Yep, circle's are definitely the way to go. Webs are just so 1990s.
I think that you'll find that your personal definition of hypocrisy is flawed.
By your definition, anyone who opposes any stance taken by any organisation should boycott it immediately, because anything less would be hypocritical.
So all Democrats should leave the US right now, because living under a Republican President and a Republican Congress when you don't agree with their politics and/or actions is hypocrisy?
See how easy it is to blow a hole through your argument?
It's not exactly as if the New York Times is the bastion of journalistic integrity that it likes to think that it is, is it?
One quick examination of mediagate tells you all you have to know - journalists, even ones that write for the most reputable publications, sometimes lie through their teeth.
Obviously, the AO player in question doesn't have the financial resources of the NYT and its parent company (market capitalisation in the billions), but perhaps he could find a lawyer who'd be willing to represent him on a "no win, no fee" basis (or perhaps pro bono) if he wanted to take the matter further.
Normally, I wouldn't recommend litigation, but the player concerned seems to feel that the article was very unfriendly (in his online reply he says he feels like he's been raped) so perhaps the legal route would be good for him, if only to provide a sense of closure.
You, my friend, are a ruby in the dust.
Even if each screen costs $50,000, and there are 50,000 screens in the country, that's STILL "only" $2,500,000,000.
"Only $2.5 billion? But where would they find this cash? If films like Forrest Gump and Spider-Man can't make a profit then where's the money coming from?
What's that you say? Those fims did make money but the accounting figures were just manipulated so as to screw the original writers so that they couldn't get anything from the net profits that they were promised? You mean the people who run the movie business would rather screw people over than pay them the royalties that they're due?
Yet, somehow, you hope that the Hollywood moguls that are so tight with other people's money would spend some of their own cash to benefit others?
Wow, you are naive aren't you?
OK, I realise that to some people that's going to be a revolutionary concept, but I'll wager that a great many of the Slashdot crowd have one too.
Part of the fun of said relationship is that, sometimes, I find myself doing things that I'd never dreamt of doing. Like visiting a garden centre, spending half the weekend looking for the right pair of shoes, or wondering what's the point of underwear that's so small that you could swallow it without even noticing. But after nine years or so, you tend to develop the ability to either tune out that stuff or - shock, horror - like it. (There's a degree of sadomasochism involved here - relationships aren't for the those with low pain thresholds.)
On the plus side, I also find myself doing things that lots of you, err, more available guys are always dreaming of doing. Believe me, there are plenty of things in life better than downloading your favourite distro at maximum speed on the day it's released and, for most of them, two's better than one.
I RTFA'ed and clicked the link to the site in question using my browser of choice, Opera 7.10. The row of links along the top was all bunched up, with all the text overlapping itself.
I then opened up the site in MSIE 6.0 and the site appeared "properly". Clearly, the code in question isn't 100 percent browser-independent. (I'm guessing that it works fine with Mozilla, or else someone else would have mentioned it already in another post.)
Is it asking too much for professional web designers (such as the one who designed the site in question) to check their code on more than one non-MS platforms?
Ah, but what do you do when a player makes an adjustment to his batting stance?
QuesTec isn't a fully automated system - a human operator is required to input the lower and upper limits of the strike zone (lower limit is the batter's knees, upper limit is the batter's belt buckle).
This human input alone makes QuesTec fallible, but's what's worse is the fact that the operator-entered limits can never be perfect. Why? Because batters move in the batter's box - they don't stay static like the computer assumes - and thus the strike zone can move from the moment in time at which the strike zone is set by the QuesTec and the ball actually enters the strike zone.
So, with the QuesTec system, it's easy for the machine to call a pitch a ball when it should be a strike and vice versa. This is one of the umpires major objection to the system as it works at the moment.
I'm all for employee evaluation but when MLB says that umpires who calls don't agree with QuesTec x percent of the time will be under review, yet assumes that every disagreement is due to poor calling on the part of the umpire, then there's something wrong with the system.
Let me be the first to thank a work colleague for jumping to my defence. Let me also be the first one to call him a complete idiot for not checking just who exactly was logged in at the PC he posted from.
Oh well, I guess he's going to be buying the first round of drinks on Friday evening then.