I'd think there would be an additional consideration, though: BUK and similar systems are "transponder aware", and thus will avoid hitting civilian aircraft by default.
If that were true, they's equip military jets with civilian transponders when on combat missions so they wouldn't be shot down.
Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations? It's so dumb to have to search for a airplane to find the data, that should be the fallback plan. Hey FAA, you listening?
It's happening. It'll get rolled out over the next few years.
I don't see that much need to regulate them now, as there are so few of them. Just as when there were only a few hundred automobiles, there probably wasn't a lot of need to regulate them. But clearly there'd be big problems if automobiles weren't regulated. And the regulations started pretty early.
Drones are going to get far more numerous, and cause lots of problems. In a precedent based world, it's best to take account of forethought, and not set the precedent that drones are a free-for all.
Drawing the distinction between private and commercial is good. No criminalising of toys, whilst still making sure that those that have the business model to fill the skies with problem causing drones are limited to specific uses.
From the email: "While today many people define mobile by devices, Microsoft defines it by experiences."
There's lots of talk of mobile-first and cloud-first. And not a single suggestion of making mobile devices.
Whilst the email says noting specifically, and just hints at what's ahead, this looks pretty much like they are going to abandon their attempt at their own devices, and licensing third parties to run Windows mobile OSs has already failed.
Their future mobile efforts look like it's going to be cross platform apps and cloud enabling software.
All of which means the Nokia staff are generally no longer needed.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Not really, as that statement is not a comparison of two single points. It's guaranteeing that all points on record are lower than the latest one.
I know from years of experience, you'll think you are in a room full of programmers but in reality there will approximately two brainy kids amongst 200. This is the nature of human intelligence, it's a rare commodity and MOST people are âoewannabes.â
So only 1% of people are in the 99th percentile. Amazing. Any other insights?
Fire people in order of how badly they need to be fired, for example.
Over an extended period of time? That's the worst thing you can do for morale. For sure fire the worst people, but you have to do it quickly and get it over with. Otherwise the rest feel that they have the sword of damocles continually hanging over them.
It's probably going to weigh particularly heavily on the ex-Nokia staff. Partly on the last in first out principle. But mostly because it seems the new CEO has accepted they aren't going to succeed in mobile devices.
Embrace, extend, extinguish. It's been a bad way to die for Nokia mobile division.
Pity that corporations like this always seem to want to lay everyone off at once, though. Why can't they do it gradually?
Sometimes they do, through a process of natural wastage. Trouble is that it means that you put a block on hires, meaning that skills gaps can't be filled. And often your best people leave, whilst the dead wood clings on.
It could be that, or it could be that you don't know what you are talking about, but you're desperate for people to think you do.
If country C is subsidizing and country A is applying a tariff to the exact same extent (which never happens) then they are both playing the same game of protectionism, each counteracting the other. However the government of country C is essentially recieving money from the government of country A. Without the tarriff, the consumers of country A become the beneficiary of the largess of government C.
Tariffs exist for real reasons. For example: the solar industry in China is heavily government-subsidized. So by removing any tariffs, the government would allow them to compete on the "free" market (which really isn't) against other companies in the U.S. and Europe that aren't so heavily subsidized.
So the goods we buy would be in part paid for by the Chinese government? Excellent news!
If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess.
So in your first paragraph, you state that the meaning of words are important.
Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.
Then in your third paragraph, the importance of the meanings of words becomes "semantic games".
Oh dear.
The distinction matters. A radio controlled vehicle requires a person to control it at all times. And that limits their number. Drones, like their name implies, could become more numerous than the human population. Existing threats to privacy and safety are as nothing compared with a future of unrestricted drones.
You're just confirming what I wrote. You've done everything you're supposed to, working hard to raise capital, running your own business. And the result is that you aren't even a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, and you're still working harder than your employees, not relaxing on your yacht like the actual rich people are.
Your post confirms only that you still have the dream: If only you keep on working hard, eventually you'll become rich. But you won't. The best you can hope for is a comfortable retirement with the hope that you'll still be healthy enough to enjoy it. Rather less than the American Dream promises.
Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Jobs, etc. Millions of people got rich
That's a handful of people, not millions. And they achieved because they were born with unusual talents. And the American Dream doesn't warn that you need to have unusual talents. It's lie is that the average person can be rich just by working hard.
Furthermore quoting those few big names and implying that that means the American Dream is a valid approach is no more valid that quoting some lottery winners and saying that means buying lottery tickets is a good idea. It's cherry picking the winners. The change of being one of the winners is incredibly small in either case.
Running a business is a lifestyle decision, not a way to become rich. Unless you are already rich or have an unusual talent.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think there would be an additional consideration, though: BUK and similar systems are "transponder aware", and thus will avoid hitting civilian aircraft by default.
If that were true, they's equip military jets with civilian transponders when on combat missions so they wouldn't be shot down.
So your claim sounds unlikely.
Why haven't all airplanes been upgraded so the black box data is streamed to satellites/ground stations? It's so dumb to have to search for a airplane to find the data, that should be the fallback plan. Hey FAA, you listening?
It's happening. It'll get rolled out over the next few years.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1314...
Just the fact that people in the past have tracked down my comments just to mod them down is a pretty good indication that they take me seriously.
On that evidence, people take you as seriously as GNAA and goatse.
Oh, and me for that matter. Seldom a day goes by without me getting 5 or 10 serial downmods of old posts.
In all 4 cases it's because we piss some people off. Not that we're necessarily taken seriously!
Ignore the downmods. I'm sure that just like me, you get more upmods in the long run. So the mod-points are just being squandered.
I don't see that much need to regulate them now, as there are so few of them. Just as when there were only a few hundred automobiles, there probably wasn't a lot of need to regulate them. But clearly there'd be big problems if automobiles weren't regulated. And the regulations started pretty early.
Drones are going to get far more numerous, and cause lots of problems. In a precedent based world, it's best to take account of forethought, and not set the precedent that drones are a free-for all.
Drawing the distinction between private and commercial is good. No criminalising of toys, whilst still making sure that those that have the business model to fill the skies with problem causing drones are limited to specific uses.
From the email: "While today many people define mobile by devices, Microsoft defines it by experiences."
There's lots of talk of mobile-first and cloud-first. And not a single suggestion of making mobile devices.
Whilst the email says noting specifically, and just hints at what's ahead, this looks pretty much like they are going to abandon their attempt at their own devices, and licensing third parties to run Windows mobile OSs has already failed.
Their future mobile efforts look like it's going to be cross platform apps and cloud enabling software.
All of which means the Nokia staff are generally no longer needed.
That's like saying "The fastest way to Rome is to set off yesterday."
Heck I could be a concert pianist tomorrow if I start when I was 3 years old.
All things are simple with a time machine.
Oh absolutely. The hottest X does tend to happen rather more often when you're on an uptrend though.
But there's not much to be made of it in isolation. It's that long term climate trend that matters.
Not really, because you're just shifting the start point of the layoffs. The question of how fast they are done is the same regardless.
You wouldn't believe it was warming if you were the proverbial frog in a pan.
Pure conspiracy theory nonsense.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Not really, as that statement is not a comparison of two single points. It's guaranteeing that all points on record are lower than the latest one.
That's a different thing entirely. That's firing for reasons of employee performance, not to adjust the headcount.
Microsoft couldn't have started this layoff process years ago, because the decision wasn't made years ago.
(Whether they SHOULD have made such a decision is another matter.)
Or not...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Tree branches kill people. Being safer than that is a low bar.
I know from years of experience, you'll think you are in a room full of programmers but in reality there will approximately two brainy kids amongst 200. This is the nature of human intelligence, it's a rare commodity and MOST people are âoewannabes.â
So only 1% of people are in the 99th percentile. Amazing. Any other insights?
Meanwhile, not firing those people promptly, and keeping them around to cause problems shows other people that they don't have to work to get paid.
Which is another reason why you do it fast, not slow.
Fire people in order of how badly they need to be fired, for example.
Over an extended period of time? That's the worst thing you can do for morale. For sure fire the worst people, but you have to do it quickly and get it over with. Otherwise the rest feel that they have the sword of damocles continually hanging over them.
It's probably going to weigh particularly heavily on the ex-Nokia staff. Partly on the last in first out principle. But mostly because it seems the new CEO has accepted they aren't going to succeed in mobile devices.
Embrace, extend, extinguish. It's been a bad way to die for Nokia mobile division.
Pity that corporations like this always seem to want to lay everyone off at once, though. Why can't they do it gradually?
Sometimes they do, through a process of natural wastage. Trouble is that it means that you put a block on hires, meaning that skills gaps can't be filled. And often your best people leave, whilst the dead wood clings on.
You forgot shape and materials.
Is a dart and a block of polystyrene of the same weight equally dangerous?
Do you think a car with a chassis is no more dangerous than a monocoque design with crumple zones?
Good lord you clowns are dense.
It could be that, or it could be that you don't know what you are talking about, but you're desperate for people to think you do.
If country C is subsidizing and country A is applying a tariff to the exact same extent (which never happens) then they are both playing the same game of protectionism, each counteracting the other. However the government of country C is essentially recieving money from the government of country A. Without the tarriff, the consumers of country A become the beneficiary of the largess of government C.
Tariffs exist for real reasons. For example: the solar industry in China is heavily government-subsidized. So by removing any tariffs, the government would allow them to compete on the "free" market (which really isn't) against other companies in the U.S. and Europe that aren't so heavily subsidized.
So the goods we buy would be in part paid for by the Chinese government? Excellent news!
So US customers will be able to buy PVs and windmills not only without import tariffs, but in part paid for by the Chinese government? Excellent news!
You're wanting protectionism for expensive American factory workers?
If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess.
So in your first paragraph, you state that the meaning of words are important.
Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.
Then in your third paragraph, the importance of the meanings of words becomes "semantic games".
Oh dear.
The distinction matters. A radio controlled vehicle requires a person to control it at all times. And that limits their number. Drones, like their name implies, could become more numerous than the human population. Existing threats to privacy and safety are as nothing compared with a future of unrestricted drones.
You're just confirming what I wrote. You've done everything you're supposed to, working hard to raise capital, running your own business. And the result is that you aren't even a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, and you're still working harder than your employees, not relaxing on your yacht like the actual rich people are.
Your post confirms only that you still have the dream: If only you keep on working hard, eventually you'll become rich. But you won't. The best you can hope for is a comfortable retirement with the hope that you'll still be healthy enough to enjoy it. Rather less than the American Dream promises.
Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Jobs, etc. Millions of people got rich
That's a handful of people, not millions. And they achieved because they were born with unusual talents. And the American Dream doesn't warn that you need to have unusual talents. It's lie is that the average person can be rich just by working hard.
Furthermore quoting those few big names and implying that that means the American Dream is a valid approach is no more valid that quoting some lottery winners and saying that means buying lottery tickets is a good idea. It's cherry picking the winners. The change of being one of the winners is incredibly small in either case.
Running a business is a lifestyle decision, not a way to become rich. Unless you are already rich or have an unusual talent.