users often claim to be "power users" and say they have done "everything" and now the product is "broken"
Sorry about replying twice, but I didn't think of this until after I'd submitted the first reply. When I call (or, more often use live chat) I generally need one, specific piece of data. As an example, my newsreader may stop connecting to the server while everything else including email is fine. After checking my config, I may go into chat to find out if either their news server is down, or if they've migrated to a different server, and if so, which. I don't need them trying to trouble-shoot my connection (Especially as I use Linux, not Windows or Mac.) or fumble around the settings on a program they've never heard of. (I've done things like that a few times over the phone. It can be done, but it's not that easy.)
If I were calling about a Windows box, and (let's say) it couldn't connect, I'd tell them that I'd checked the settings, and found $FOO. Then, if they heard/saw anything wrong, they could tell me exactly what needed changing. That's how they'd know that I wasn't BSing them about my ability.
When I was doing tech and a caller claimed to know what they were doing, I'd take them at their word. Instead of "Click on Start, Settings, Control Panel, Network," I'd say, "OK, let's go to Network Control Panel." If they got there OK, fine. If not, I scaled back my expectations. Generally, it's pretty easy to tell if somebody on the phone knows what they're doing.
I once had a "network administrator" call up from his car to find out why his LAN couldn't connect to the Internet. I explained to him that unless he was on-site, there was nothing I could do. After the call, I added a note to our tech support database and found out that I was the third tech he'd called that day, all from his car. I'm sure that if he had been on-site, he'd not have turned out to be a real power-user.
There's a flip side to that, most admins I've run into presume you are a stupid user
I've done tech support at a senior level. Now, if I need support, it's almost always because I need some very specific info, and can handle things myself once I have it. I always start off by telling the tech my experience level, that I know exactly what piece of information I need and that I neither need nor want to be baby-stepped. (Generally, I ask them to give me the same type of support they'd want to get themselves.) A good tech will respond, ask a few questions to make sure I've not overlooked anything and give me what I need. A bad tech will just try to run me through their cheat-sheet, without thinking. (How can I tell the difference? Well, the good tech will say, "Have you..." while the bad one says, "I need you to...") If I get a bad tech that can't think outside the box, I go to their supervisor, who generally handles things somewhat better. Sorry for rambling, but it seemed better to illustrate how I get support rather than just asserting it.
Have you actually read Knuth? I have. It assumes quite a bit of computer knowledge, and more math than any 10th grade student could fairly be expected to have.
Better to holler and shout and be wrong than stay silent and be proven right when your no longer able to access your email on the official site.
Even better is to go right to the source and ask the horse. Why not check with Fairpoint itself and find out just what's going on? If "m right, no problem; if I'm wrong, we'll know what to do next.
Yes, I did RTFA, but unlike you, I did so with an open mind. Before the part you quote, it says, "
Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6." In that context, it looks to me as though the Verizon webmail page is the "third party Web site" referred to. I'll grant that it's not written as clearly as it should be, but it does make more sense than the interpretation in the summary. Cutting off access to other provider's webmail site while allowing unhindered access to all of their other content just doesn't make sense. Telling new customers that if they want their third-party email on their homepage they need to use yours instead of their other providers does. My guess is that when the dust clears this will turn out to be Yet Another Slashdot Tempest In A Teapot.
You seem to think that I consider the end of the war a bad thing; I don't. What I consider bad is the way it ended, and the myth that the US was defeated in Vietnam. As far as the 50,000 go, I regret that. By good luck, nobody I knew was killed, or even injured there, because my war was strictly off-shore. However, I've never regretted going, or what I did there, and about the only thing keeping me alive right now are my VA benefits. (Type II diabetes, probably caused by Agent Orange, but I've yet to persuade them to agree.) My perspective on the war as a 'Nam vet is different from yours, and let's just leave it at that.
The point I was making, and you ignored, is that we weren't defeated in 'Nam. (I was there, or at least off-shore; I can call it that if I want.) Enough people made enough noise about getting out, and Congress bowed to their wishes.
Good thing the U.S. withdrew and left an entire region of the earth to the whims of that benevolent political philosophy.
And the credit for that deserves to be given to Congress, for giving up and letting the NVA do whatever it wanted after it had been repeatedly defeated in the field.
Six 15" guns in three turrets saved a lot of tonnage over eight in four, and allowed for faster ships without sacrificing armour.
IIRC, the Iowa class was built with nine 16"/50s in three turrets, but your point is well taken. BTW, the main "flaw" that caused the explosions at Jutland, and killed the Hood weren't in their design, but in how they were fought. In peacetime practice, the powder monkeys would clip back the blast curtains to get a faster loading rate, and then did the same thing in battle. Thus, a turret hit could flash right down to the magazine and set it off because the only thing stopping it had been disabled by the crew.
Or get a bunkerbuster bomb out of stores, and drop it on top.
Do you know what a bunkerbuster bomb is? It's an old 6" artillery tube stuffed with explosives and a set of fins stuck on the back. Not exactly something you keep in stores. It reminds me of the armor piercing bombs from WW II: 12" armor piercing shells with fins, because we weren't using guns that small any more.
There's a story (true or not, I've no idea) from 'Nam about a bunker they hadn't been able to break from the air. They called in the Jersey. One turret pointed at it, and one tube went off. Short. The next tube elevated some more. Over. The third one split the difference, hit the bunker and collapsed it. One hit did more than hours by the Air Force. And that was bombardment rounds, mind you, because I don't think they had any armor piercers with them.
Alas, the Jersey has been out of commission for 17 years or so.
And for a very good reason, too. Keeping a battleship in commission when there's no current use for it is very expensive. Mothballing it not only saves money, it saves wear and tear on what is now very old equipment. No point using up its service life when there's no mission needing it. Close air support is great; it's more flexible than artillery, but there are times that what you really need is 2100 pound shells coming screaming down from the sky. Got a bunker you can't bust? Try some armor piercing shells, tipping the scales at a hefty 2700 pounds...
The definition I gave wasn't a formal one, it was a practical one. In most cases, the way they got the battlecrusier's speed up was by skimping on the armor, making them, in effect, underarmored battleships. As to the Prince of Wales, I sit corrected; I'd thought it was a battlecruiser and never checked.
The only really evidence that carriers could beat battleships was the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, which were done exclusively by aerial attack.
Neither the Repulse nor the Prince of Wales were battleships. They were both battlecruisers. That was a class of ship with a battleship's guns, engines and hull, but the armor of a heavy cruiser. The idea was that they could outrun anything they couldn't beat and win against anything that could catch it. Oddly enough, it was the only class of ship that couldn't engage another of its own class because it would be suicidal for both.
believe that modern navies don't have anything bigger than a cruiser because they're just too much of an indefensible target for modern missiles, and that became true with the advent of the torpedo bomber.
A battleship is designed to do two things: dish out considerable punishment to anything it hits and survive an equivalent licking from its opponent while doing so. I suggest that you look at how many bombs and torpedoes it took to put down the Yamato and Musashi. In the Musashi's case, it took 17 bombs, 20 torpedo hits on her, plus 18 near misses. No aircraft carrier of the era could have survived that long. IIRC, the Japanese carriers sunk at Midway took either three or four bombs at most.
But, frankly, the only role battleships have EVER had was to sink the other fellow's battleships.
Shore bombardment. There were four battleships (two US) at D-Day, and others at just about every major landing in the Pacific. That's why we keep the New Jersey around. There's something about exploding VWs in close formations of nine that nothing less than a nuke or FAE can compare with, and they can be used in places where nothing else is appropriate. And, with a range of 25 nautical miles, you don't have to be right on the coast to be in range.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations! I'm glad to see that you didn't settle for a new dartboard, even if Detritus does ruin them.
Sorry about replying twice, but I didn't think of this until after I'd submitted the first reply. When I call (or, more often use live chat) I generally need one, specific piece of data. As an example, my newsreader may stop connecting to the server while everything else including email is fine. After checking my config, I may go into chat to find out if either their news server is down, or if they've migrated to a different server, and if so, which. I don't need them trying to trouble-shoot my connection (Especially as I use Linux, not Windows or Mac.) or fumble around the settings on a program they've never heard of. (I've done things like that a few times over the phone. It can be done, but it's not that easy.)
If I were calling about a Windows box, and (let's say) it couldn't connect, I'd tell them that I'd checked the settings, and found $FOO. Then, if they heard/saw anything wrong, they could tell me exactly what needed changing. That's how they'd know that I wasn't BSing them about my ability.
I once had a "network administrator" call up from his car to find out why his LAN couldn't connect to the Internet. I explained to him that unless he was on-site, there was nothing I could do. After the call, I added a note to our tech support database and found out that I was the third tech he'd called that day, all from his car. I'm sure that if he had been on-site, he'd not have turned out to be a real power-user.
I've done tech support at a senior level. Now, if I need support, it's almost always because I need some very specific info, and can handle things myself once I have it. I always start off by telling the tech my experience level, that I know exactly what piece of information I need and that I neither need nor want to be baby-stepped. (Generally, I ask them to give me the same type of support they'd want to get themselves.) A good tech will respond, ask a few questions to make sure I've not overlooked anything and give me what I need. A bad tech will just try to run me through their cheat-sheet, without thinking. (How can I tell the difference? Well, the good tech will say, "Have you..." while the bad one says, "I need you to...") If I get a bad tech that can't think outside the box, I go to their supervisor, who generally handles things somewhat better. Sorry for rambling, but it seemed better to illustrate how I get support rather than just asserting it.
Have you actually read Knuth? I have. It assumes quite a bit of computer knowledge, and more math than any 10th grade student could fairly be expected to have.
Actually, we did it to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even better is to go right to the source and ask the horse. Why not check with Fairpoint itself and find out just what's going on? If "m right, no problem; if I'm wrong, we'll know what to do next.
No. If you were using Verizon's webmail page you're going to have to change to Fairpoint's. If you weren't, nothing changes.
Yes, I did RTFA, but unlike you, I did so with an open mind. Before the part you quote, it says, " Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6." In that context, it looks to me as though the Verizon webmail page is the "third party Web site" referred to. I'll grant that it's not written as clearly as it should be, but it does make more sense than the interpretation in the summary. Cutting off access to other provider's webmail site while allowing unhindered access to all of their other content just doesn't make sense. Telling new customers that if they want their third-party email on their homepage they need to use yours instead of their other providers does. My guess is that when the dust clears this will turn out to be Yet Another Slashdot Tempest In A Teapot.
No, not in my opinion. I do, however, know those who'd agree.
You seem to think that I consider the end of the war a bad thing; I don't. What I consider bad is the way it ended, and the myth that the US was defeated in Vietnam. As far as the 50,000 go, I regret that. By good luck, nobody I knew was killed, or even injured there, because my war was strictly off-shore. However, I've never regretted going, or what I did there, and about the only thing keeping me alive right now are my VA benefits. (Type II diabetes, probably caused by Agent Orange, but I've yet to persuade them to agree.) My perspective on the war as a 'Nam vet is different from yours, and let's just leave it at that.
The point I was making, and you ignored, is that we weren't defeated in 'Nam. (I was there, or at least off-shore; I can call it that if I want.) Enough people made enough noise about getting out, and Congress bowed to their wishes.
And the credit for that deserves to be given to Congress, for giving up and letting the NVA do whatever it wanted after it had been repeatedly defeated in the field.
Another reason is that the best place to defend your country is on somebody else's territory.
I'm in Southern California. A white Christmas would be a nightmare.
You mean like in Live Free or Diebold? I see what you mean.
Oh, come on now! We're geeks; we can do better than that! How about Spoo?
IIRC, the Iowa class was built with nine 16"/50s in three turrets, but your point is well taken. BTW, the main "flaw" that caused the explosions at Jutland, and killed the Hood weren't in their design, but in how they were fought. In peacetime practice, the powder monkeys would clip back the blast curtains to get a faster loading rate, and then did the same thing in battle. Thus, a turret hit could flash right down to the magazine and set it off because the only thing stopping it had been disabled by the crew.
Do you know what a bunkerbuster bomb is? It's an old 6" artillery tube stuffed with explosives and a set of fins stuck on the back. Not exactly something you keep in stores. It reminds me of the armor piercing bombs from WW II: 12" armor piercing shells with fins, because we weren't using guns that small any more.
There's a story (true or not, I've no idea) from 'Nam about a bunker they hadn't been able to break from the air. They called in the Jersey. One turret pointed at it, and one tube went off. Short. The next tube elevated some more. Over. The third one split the difference, hit the bunker and collapsed it. One hit did more than hours by the Air Force. And that was bombardment rounds, mind you, because I don't think they had any armor piercers with them.
And for a very good reason, too. Keeping a battleship in commission when there's no current use for it is very expensive. Mothballing it not only saves money, it saves wear and tear on what is now very old equipment. No point using up its service life when there's no mission needing it. Close air support is great; it's more flexible than artillery, but there are times that what you really need is 2100 pound shells coming screaming down from the sky. Got a bunker you can't bust? Try some armor piercing shells, tipping the scales at a hefty 2700 pounds...
The definition I gave wasn't a formal one, it was a practical one. In most cases, the way they got the battlecrusier's speed up was by skimping on the armor, making them, in effect, underarmored battleships. As to the Prince of Wales, I sit corrected; I'd thought it was a battlecruiser and never checked.
Neither the Repulse nor the Prince of Wales were battleships. They were both battlecruisers. That was a class of ship with a battleship's guns, engines and hull, but the armor of a heavy cruiser. The idea was that they could outrun anything they couldn't beat and win against anything that could catch it. Oddly enough, it was the only class of ship that couldn't engage another of its own class because it would be suicidal for both.
A battleship is designed to do two things: dish out considerable punishment to anything it hits and survive an equivalent licking from its opponent while doing so. I suggest that you look at how many bombs and torpedoes it took to put down the Yamato and Musashi. In the Musashi's case, it took 17 bombs, 20 torpedo hits on her, plus 18 near misses. No aircraft carrier of the era could have survived that long. IIRC, the Japanese carriers sunk at Midway took either three or four bombs at most.
Shore bombardment. There were four battleships (two US) at D-Day, and others at just about every major landing in the Pacific. That's why we keep the New Jersey around. There's something about exploding VWs in close formations of nine that nothing less than a nuke or FAE can compare with, and they can be used in places where nothing else is appropriate. And, with a range of 25 nautical miles, you don't have to be right on the coast to be in range.
Ubuntu might also have smolt, which can also be disabled if you don't want a monthly hardware report being sent in for statistical reasons.