Right. My point is that it is kinda hard to prove that nothing in your system doesnt do this, unless you examine all of it ( assuming this is possible ), or built it all yourselv ( and I mean from the "design the circuits" and up ), not just component assembly.
So, are you saying it is not disingenuous for an oil company to commission the making of a video to ridicule Al Gore?
If they wanted to stand up and say, "we, ExxonMobil, think Al Gore is a boring irrelenvant blowhard", that would not have been disingenious, that would have been their opinion.
Better than that would have been to talk ( as themselves ) on the acual issue brought up by Al Gore.
So, no, they are not being honest when they dont disclose who made the video and why. And that is rightfully called disingenuous.
General Ripper wrote PoE all over everything and used it as the encoding for the CRM discriminator. Stood for Purity of Essence. And some other things also, I think.
A: They "have to" be there because that is the way the
system was designed. It could have been designed in
other ways as well.
B: Fine. But these could also be something that
exist outside the partition, rather than inside.
Like the little partitions IBM's and Compaq's
had to store machine configuration executables
and information.
C: The user area is *inside* Documents and Settings.
Sounds like Vista is an improvement.
I knew there were reasons, I just dont find those reasons very compelling.
io.sys, msdos.sys, ntdetect.com, ntldr Why cant they be inside "windows"?
Why arent autoexec.bat, config.sys, and boot.ini inside "windows".
Why arent "Recycler" amd "System Volumn Information" either invisible or inside "windows" or both?
I think these do not have a good reason to be at the root of the file system. They might well have to occupy certain sections of the disk, but the file system representation is not chained to disk location.
And Documents and Settings, why not have that down inside the user area?
Ah, I had forgotten that it is impossible for me to be correct.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Seriously, though, yes, in this case, the manager was not competent enough to see what was going on.
The other side of the arguement designed a system that was moving large amounts of data around as XML. Supposed to be able to store and forward this data. Could only keep about 10 or so days of this data, several orders of magnatude off from what was needed. Lets not store changes as differences, no, lets keep everything. Compression, yeah, that is the answer. Lets double it. Lets not consider another, more efficient format.
And for the record, I have had lots of people disagree with me. I usually learn a lot from that. In this case, I learned that managers can be under-competant.
So, if the manager puts an engineer in that will sign, it is solely the engineer's fault?
Sounds like a management failure to me.
You can *always* find someone who will sign. I dont condone it, dont like it, but the same internal makeup of humans that makes capitalism work will make this fail anytime the management wants it to fail.
If the CPU basic instruction sets are different, then the "driver" is called an "emulator". If they are not, then you have the NULL driver. Identity transform.
Not nessesarily. Say you have two people in your group who differ on the technological solutions to your problems. If you dont know enough to apply a laugh test, how will you decide between these?
I've seen it. I've been there, I wanted to solve problems, the other guy wanted to work with cool technologies. Managers sided with the other guy. They had no way to know who was correct, because they didnt have any appreciation for the issues. They thought the other guy and I were just having a pissing contest.
On the Microsoft hatred topic...why the heck is there so much anti-microsoft sentiments
I started out liking Microsoft. My disaffect grew out of seeing the installer for Windows ( I think 3.1 ) tell me that the OS/2 install that I had on my machine was something I should remove cause it was just taking up space. The wording was something I recall as being very likely for someone unexperienced to decide to remove it. The years of hearing from Microsoft that their products where enterprise ready, when they just were not. The Stac and Novell DR Dos issues were not handled with honor, in my opinion. The 94 consent decree, all but ignored. The issue of coercing OEM's into the "pay for a license for every machine that leaves the building, or pay more, regardless of what is actually on the machine" ( how can the "free market" decide in the face of a built in price step like that ). All the nonsense about "this is about removing our ability to innovate" on the last round of anti trust legal wrangling. Running Netscape out of business for the most part, then having the gall to say that the aquisition of Netscape by AOL was proof that there was plenty of freedom and competition. The decision to embed IE deeper into the system, a stupid decision, excepting for how it allowed them to manipulate things legally. Microsoft's talk of innovation, but constantly seeing others break trail, only to have Microsoft come in later and "take their lunch" ( then complaining about Google taking their lunch, when the only reason there is competition between Google and Microsoft, is because Microsoft decided to enter Google's market niche. Which brings me to the point of Microsoft seeming to need to enter every niche in existance, to make it so that Microsoft is the only company left standing ( yeah, they havent succeeded, but it isnt because they havent tried ). The reduction of innovation that the preceeding point brings ( yeah, I'm going to invest in your startup, but first, how are you going to keep Microsoft from taking it all from you, if you prove this is a winner ). All the hoopla about Microsoft innovating, when the real effect is the opposite. I could go on, but I think I have hit the high notes.
Hate them? No, not really. But I dont like them, nor the effect that they have had. No, that effect has not been 100% bad, but it could have been so much better.
Quite. My reaction was to the "well, it worked, so, there was no risk..." kind of thinking from the post I responded too. I thought about putting in something about "I would rather have this experimental thing done than die" proviso in my post, but I didnt, silly me.
All the people who prefer safe to free, go form your own country elsewhere. YOu can call it the land of the safe and the home of the not too brave. Then the US can rever to being the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I dont know about anyone else, but I prefer free to safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I didnt graduate college till 30, started
my second ( third? ) career as a programmer then.
Had to work my way thru college. Tisnt easy, but
doable.
You are here, it is now. Start.
No, the answer to the question: Prinz Eugen or Bizmark.
Right. My point is that it is kinda hard to prove that nothing in your
system doesnt do this, unless you examine all of it ( assuming this is possible ),
or built it all yourselv ( and I mean from the "design the circuits" and up ),
not just component assembly.
Unless of course, the item placed in line to remove the jitters is compromised.
So, are you saying it is not disingenuous for an oil company
to commission the making of a video to ridicule Al Gore?
If they wanted to stand up and say, "we, ExxonMobil, think
Al Gore is a boring irrelenvant blowhard", that would not
have been disingenious, that would have been their opinion.
Better than that would have been to talk ( as themselves )
on the acual issue brought up by Al Gore.
So, no, they are not being honest when they dont disclose
who made the video and why. And that is rightfully called
disingenuous.
As they are retention specialists, wont they just
use their magic powers to retain their jobs?
Craigslist
Evolution in Action?
I was playing off the PoE in Dr Strangelove.
General Ripper wrote PoE all over everything
and used it as the encoding for the CRM
discriminator. Stood for Purity of Essence.
And some other things also, I think.
PoE ? Purity of Ethernet?
Interesting. I did not know that.
I figured there was probably a reason
why Microsoft still had them there.
I thougth it might be the WOW stuff.
A: They "have to" be there because that is the way the
system was designed. It could have been designed in
other ways as well.
B: Fine. But these could also be something that
exist outside the partition, rather than inside.
Like the little partitions IBM's and Compaq's
had to store machine configuration executables
and information.
C: The user area is *inside* Documents and Settings.
Sounds like Vista is an improvement.
I knew there were reasons, I just dont find those
reasons very compelling.
Back in my day, lines didnt wrap.
And we liked it!
Confounded youngsters! Get off my lawn!
And turn down the radio! Get a hair cut!
I would not expect old DOS apps to do anything with
those files. They were for setting up DOS. Course,
there may well be more than I know about....
Your parent post had a good point.
io.sys, msdos.sys, ntdetect.com, ntldr
Why cant they be inside "windows"?
Why arent autoexec.bat, config.sys, and boot.ini
inside "windows".
Why arent "Recycler" amd "System Volumn Information"
either invisible or inside "windows" or both?
I think these do not have a good reason to be
at the root of the file system. They might well
have to occupy certain sections of the disk, but
the file system representation is not chained to
disk location.
And Documents and Settings, why not have that
down inside the user area?
Ah, I had forgotten that it is impossible for me to be correct.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Seriously, though, yes, in this case, the manager
was not competent enough to see what was going on.
The other side of the arguement designed a system
that was moving large amounts of data around as
XML. Supposed to be able to store and forward
this data. Could only keep about 10 or so days
of this data, several orders of magnatude off from
what was needed. Lets not store changes as differences,
no, lets keep everything. Compression, yeah, that
is the answer. Lets double it. Lets not consider
another, more efficient format.
And for the record, I have had lots of people disagree
with me. I usually learn a lot from that. In this
case, I learned that managers can be under-competant.
So, if the manager puts an engineer in that will
sign, it is solely the engineer's fault?
Sounds like a management failure to me.
You can *always* find someone who will sign. I
dont condone it, dont like it, but the same internal
makeup of humans that makes capitalism work
will make this fail anytime the management
wants it to fail.
If the CPU basic instruction sets are different, then the "driver" is called
an "emulator". If they are not, then you have the NULL driver. Identity
transform.
Not nessesarily. Say you have two people in your
group who differ on the technological solutions to
your problems. If you dont know enough to apply a laugh
test, how will you decide between these?
I've seen it. I've been there, I wanted to solve problems,
the other guy wanted to work with cool technologies.
Managers sided with the other guy. They
had no way to know who was correct, because they
didnt have any appreciation for the issues. They
thought the other guy and I were just having a pissing
contest.
I started out liking Microsoft. My disaffect grew out of seeing the
installer for Windows ( I think 3.1 ) tell me that the OS/2 install that
I had on my machine was something I should remove cause it was just
taking up space. The wording was something I recall as being very
likely for someone unexperienced to decide to remove it. The years
of hearing from Microsoft that their products where enterprise ready,
when they just were not. The Stac and Novell DR Dos issues were not
handled with honor, in my opinion. The 94 consent decree, all but
ignored. The issue of coercing OEM's into the "pay for a license for
every machine that leaves the building, or pay more, regardless of
what is actually on the machine" ( how can the "free market" decide in
the face of a built in price step like that ). All the nonsense about
"this is about removing our ability to innovate" on the last round
of anti trust legal wrangling. Running Netscape out of business for
the most part, then having the gall to say that the aquisition of Netscape
by AOL was proof that there was plenty of freedom and competition. The
decision to embed IE deeper into the system, a stupid decision, excepting
for how it allowed them to manipulate things legally. Microsoft's talk
of innovation, but constantly seeing others break trail, only to have
Microsoft come in later and "take their lunch" ( then complaining about
Google taking their lunch, when the only reason there is competition
between Google and Microsoft, is because Microsoft decided to enter
Google's market niche. Which brings me to the point of Microsoft seeming
to need to enter every niche in existance, to make it so that Microsoft
is the only company left standing ( yeah, they havent succeeded, but it
isnt because they havent tried ). The reduction of innovation that the
preceeding point brings ( yeah, I'm going to invest in your startup,
but first, how are you going to keep Microsoft from taking it all from
you, if you prove this is a winner ). All the hoopla about Microsoft
innovating, when the real effect is the opposite. I could go on, but
I think I have hit the high notes.
Hate them? No, not really. But I dont like them, nor the effect that they
have had. No, that effect has not been 100% bad, but it could have been
so much better.
Quite. My reaction was to the "well, it
worked, so, there was no risk..."
kind of thinking from the
post I responded too. I thought about putting
in something about "I would rather have this
experimental thing done than die" proviso
in my post, but I didnt, silly me.
They were testing it, so it was unknown if it was
perfectly safe or not.
:-)
Maybe we should all carry guns.
How about this:
All the people who prefer safe to free, go form your
own country elsewhere. YOu can call it the land
of the safe and the home of the not too brave. Then
the US can rever to being the land of the free and
the home of the brave.
I dont know about anyone else, but I prefer free to safe.
David
The secret shopper would know who the air marshal is,
and observe them. Then we will have a secret shopper
shopper to watch the secret shopper.
I'll bet they can find jobs this way for all their friends.