So, they have some passion about the subject. How is that not 'willing to work within the fabric of normal society'? They refuse to deal with Microsoft and / or find Microsoft's business practices unacceptable. How is that "I hate them because they are successful"?
You say '...just demonstrates a set of social rules different from most of society.'. They dont like what they are seeing, and instead of laying low, they talk and do things about it. I'll grant you it is not following the herd, but it is really a different set of social rules? I honestly dont see how. Do you have any companies you would rather not do business with because of how they treat you or others?
I know you stated that loving Microsoft is not necessary to be part of society. Is accepting how they act necessary to be part of society?
This free society we are enjoying is brought to us by government. Property is a construct that comes after goverment. Without this goverment ( which could do a better job, and a more effiecient one ), all would degenerate to violent force.
Compulsion is an unfortunate nessesity some of the time. I think it would be safe to say that most Americans feel compelled to pay their taxes; where they voluntary, they would not be paid. Where would we go from there?
The thing that strikes me about your comment is that early on, you talk in ways that lead me to believe that you see the interdependancy we all have on one another as a society. Then you conclude with "without dependancy on others". It seemed to me to be an about-face.
There was a news article a while ago about how the searchers at the terminals were touching people in places they did not feel comfortable with.
One woman complained about a searcher pressing her hand between her breasts.
The GP was taking the issue a bit farther out, but ( IHMO not too far out ). Kids are ( sometimes ) taught to obey, and might not feel at liberty to say "I dont want this". This is ( sometimes ) how child abuse happens ( as I understand it ), so I think the issue reasonable.
( Yes, the presumption is that your child would be going with you, not an unreasonable presumption ).
Microsoft is the company that goes around touting that they are a world class software development company. Not to mention that Microsoft, in my view, has earned the disaffect they generate here. They have done things that are illegal, that they knew full well were illegal, then did everything they could to skip out of being held accountable. ( Not you, nessesarily, but I should like to be spared the "corporations are only responsible to shareholders, they have to do anything they can to make money. I have a small company, lots of shareholders, it is not doing well, but I *can* stick up 7/11's without much fear of being caught, should I? No, I should not. Shareholders be dratted in this case... )
If you are fine with how they act, then that is where you are at. Why do I have to be OK with it?
But, I do agree that there are a great number of comments that bash Microsoft on issues where they have not earned it. That I would like to see stop, but I dont expect it too. Much like I dont expect those that race to Microsofts defence in equal measures of blindness to stop.
PS: I dont really have a company, that was argumentation setup.....
The programmer has several string manipulation functions to choose from ( talking character array buffers, and the old C runtime.
Say we want to copy a string, or part of a string into another buffer. We might chose a fixed size buffer to copy the item into ( sometime needfull, but there are usually other choices... ). So we declare that buffer, and we give some thought to what might go into it. Well, usually, the programmer says "what I want to copy will never be longer than N characters long". So, he/she/it makes it, oh, say, N + 1 characters long ( to allow for the NULL terminating character ( that which indicates the end of the string ).
Now, on to the copying! Well, we have made the buffer big enough, so, lets just copy, eh?
So the programmer uses his/her/its trusty strcpy ( et al ) function.
So:
char pszBuffer[ 57 ]; strcpy( pszBuffer, );
Great, move on to the next, right?
Wrong. In C\C++, there are *no* checks to see if we are copying more than 56 ( N - 1 ) characters. So, if has 1000 characters, strcpy merrily copies all 1000 characters, and thoughtfully adds a NULL terminating character at the end ( for 1001 characters copied.
Here is the problem you asked about. ( not to mention that if any part of that buffer happens to lie in memory you dont own, *foomp* (tm) you are off in the weed, probably with a crashed application ).
So, what *ought* our valiant programmer do? I think it looks something like this:
char pszBuffer[ 1024 ]/* for the exceptionally anal, remove the comments from this,,, = { 0, } */;
Is that all? No, glad you asked, it is not.
strncpy( pszBuffer, sizeof( pszBuffer ) - 1, );
pszBuffer[ sizeof( pszBuffer ) - 1 ] = 0;// in case strncpy hit the end of the buffer, and did not NULL terminate. Yes, it will overwrite a character in this case, but that is better than crashing.
Is that all? Well, no, thanks for asking.
One can, if one is inclined, get the count of characters before copying, and use that number as a check before performing the copy ( adjusted, of course ).
Better would be to drop using raw character buffers, ( at least in C++ ), and use the many provided string classes instead, only dropping back to char buffers when absolutely needfull.
Comes down to habit and laziness, and not fixing what isnt broken ( well, really caught as a bug as yet... ).
I dunno, I suppose it depends on the bureacratic position we are talking about. Is there a manual like the Kama Sutra for this position, and can you tell me which one it is?
Read the treaty between Japan and Germany ( and Italy ). If we attacked Japan, Germany *was* obligated to aid Japan. Not so, if Japan initiated hostilities.
Yes, FDR saw the need, loaned the British ships, shipped them war material, patrolled out to the mid-Adlantic ( and we lost a Destroyer doing it, IIRC ), etc, etc. And yes, he was foresighted, and WWII lead, in part, to our position today.
But, there was no requirement that Germany get into the war if Japan started one. Unless we started one ( even if we had, Germany *could* have abrogated the treaty, if she didnt like the idea... ). I dont think there was any real possiblity of the Japanese invading mainland US. The attack against Pearl Harbor was a huge stretch already. The Naval issues involved, unless we are talking a multi-decade effort in which everything went perfectly for the Japanese were insurmountable. Landing enough Army in the US to do more than raid is, frankly, laughable.
And thanks for putting my email address where it could be harvested. I cant tell you how much I appreciate that. ( I figure if the email addresses that slashdot "shows" required "armoring", I ought to do the same, in case you were thinking I was too paranoid... I just dont know what to say. You are crass, sir, ma-am, or whatever. ).
If you love ships and such, check out navweaps.com and/or hazegray.org.
Bismark was damaged by an aircraft ( stringbags launching torpedoes, IIRC ) which opened some of her fuel tanks to the sea. A later torpedo attack jammed her rudders ( She was one of the first ships that was welded, and apparently they did not "step" the welded sections, leading to a catastophic "line" failure ). She was then caught and sunk by cruiser torpedos and battleship gunfire. ( Well, some Germans dispute this, claiming that the ship would have stayed afloat, except that she was scuttled. She was tought to put down, as I understand the story, so there may be *something* to this... ).
Look at http://www.kbismarck.com/histoperi.html, down near 25 May 1941 (Sunday):
Her ( his? ) sister ship, the Tirpitz was sunk ( eventually ) by high level bombers dropping 12,000 lbs bombs.
Yamato, hit by dive bombers and torpedoes. I think reading it, it sounds like the torpedoes sunk the ship, the bombs did external damage. http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm Around 1234: Note that the 18.1" guns were used in an anti-aircraft role.
Musashi, Yamato's sister ship, indeed, dive bombers attacked the ship. I think you will agree, reading this, that torpedos sunk her: http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm Ar ound "1530:"
So, yes, they were used. I dont think they did more than damage some topside items. I dont think the ships were in danger of sinking due to the bombs. Hard to argue it categorically either way, I guess. So, strictly, employed, yes. Employed because they were going to sink the battleship, no.:-)
I am not up on the Italian battle ships, but I think I now know what is niggling at the back of your head. The Fritz-X guided missile sank the Roma ( 2 weapons ) and damaged the Italia ( both Italian ) and Warspite ( British ). This weapon is not a "dive bomber" weapon, so I dont think it changes my original assertion. Until this weapon, the only airlaunched weapon that could sink a battleship was the torpedo.
I love this stuff also!:-) Use the email I put in my other post if you want for anything you might want to discuss/investigate on anything like this, if you like.
If the difficulties in torpedo technique could not be resolved, the Japanese would have to rely on dive bombing to carry out a projected Pearl Harbor attack,
but this method could not destroy capital ships
emphasis mine
A few web sites, in case you dont have the book handy.
This alludes to it on the first page. On the second page, they talk about how the torpedo and high level bombers went over battleship row. They would not have used high level bombers unless really needed, as the accuracy is terrible. Only the fact that the ships were stationary allowed for hits ( note, B-17 bombers later in the pacific war against manuevering ships sunk nothing of note.. )
Later, you may note that they article talks about dive bombers over the harbor, these were there to attack cruisers, destroyers and below. They may have attacked a battleship, but only with the hope of doing some topside damage, sinking was out of the question.
this is another article that develops these same ideas.
I will open myself up to an accusation of cherry picking my web references and state here that I did find a couple of sites in my search that seemed to say that dive bombers sunk battleships, but I think if you look at the articles and the book referenced above, you will see that those are written as lay-person informing, and not quite as "good" a reference for actual history.
Please, do the research you like, if you find something that seriously contradicts this, let me know.
ddavison_pizza at gmail dot com, without the _pizza.
( A sub note, the referenced torpedo problem was that torpedos of the day would dive down about 75 feet before leveling off and running at the preset depth. Pearl Harbor was only about 40 feet deep, so, torpedos were out, unless someone figured out how to keep them from doing this. Wooden fins were fited to the torpedos, and this did the trick. )
( Another sub note, these technical difficulties were understood by the American Navy, and are a large part of the reason that they were so confident that Pearl could not be attacked in the manner it was. Another technical difficulty was that Japanese ships were not especially long ranged, and had no developed at sea refueling capability, another item the Japanese had to work out. For these reasons, I have a bit of trouble with those historians that insist that we should have seen it coming, and that FDR was baiting the Japanese into war ( that and the war that FDR wanted us in was with Germany, and there was no guarantee that war with Japan would lead to war with Germany. ) )
How about when the battleship ( oklahoma, IIRC ) is turning turtle? All that water spraying out of the deck there above water.
Both the bomb scenes were pretty unrealistic. The bombs used to kill the battleships were converted 16" naval shells ( launched from about 10k feet up ). Regular dive bombers/dive bombs could not penetrate the deck of a battleship.
It was a lot of eye candy for eye candies sake wrapped around a love triangle. Kinda lame, in my opinion.
Because it is easier to enter an epic/mythic story in scifi/fantasy. The watcher of the movie wants to escape his/her/its hum-drum existance, and scifi/fantasy is better at getting them there.
Really, honestly, it was both. It was a lottery ticket that was part of my compensation package. And this view is strictly from *my* point of view as the employee. Across the entire company, it ought to be viewed as based on effort ( the company as a whole's effort ).
No offence taken, but lets say ( only because it is true:-) ) that I put in absolutely stellar effort. I believe that that has an impact on the bottom line, but the payoff is still much more about random internal events ( other employees, including upper management doing a good a job as I have ), and random external events ( performance of the economny, performance of the stock market in general, performance of the market in my industry segment, uptake of the product/service my company is offering, etc, etc ), than on my individual efforts. That may sound like it could be used as an excuse to say " no options / stock for you ". And it could be. But where is the alignment ( that is so crucial to doing well ) with the customer wants/needs/desires that is desired without it.
All that said, my instance data were all former employeers. I am now consulting, and no stock/options are part of my current "portfolio".
You say "problem" when you talk about companies competing for employees. But isnt that just capitalism in action? I dont think it is truly a problem. It is inconvenient to the company that didnt get the employee, but I cant see that as a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, I think, one small difference. With a US contractor, you would have some legal recourse.
There are those that fit what you say, but I think they are in the minority. A vocal minority to be sure.
For myself, it has not been any one event that has led to my dislike of Microsoft.
I know that the world is not black and white. I work in shops that use Microsoft products all day long. It helps pay the bills.
I think there is plenty of room for honour and integrity in this world. It cant be only and just about the value of the transaction.
Curious.
So, they have some passion about the subject. How is that not 'willing to work within the fabric of normal society'? They refuse to deal with Microsoft and / or find Microsoft's business practices unacceptable. How is that "I hate them because they are successful"?
You say '...just demonstrates a set of social rules different from most of society.'. They dont like what they are seeing, and instead of laying low, they talk and do things about it. I'll grant you it is not following the herd, but it is really a different set of social rules? I honestly dont see how. Do you have any companies you would rather not do business with because of how they treat you or others?
I know you stated that loving Microsoft is not necessary to be part of society. Is accepting how they act necessary to be part of society?
I cant speak for any others, but I am probably representative. Option 3 *is not* any part of my dislike of Microsoft.
Curious, *why* do *you* think it is option 3?
This free society we are enjoying is brought to us by government. Property is a construct that comes after goverment. Without this goverment ( which could do a better job, and a more effiecient one ), all would degenerate to violent force.
Compulsion is an unfortunate nessesity some of the time. I think it would be safe to say that most Americans feel compelled to pay their taxes; where they voluntary, they would not be paid. Where would we go from there?
The thing that strikes me about your comment is that early on, you talk in ways that lead me to believe that you see the interdependancy we all have on one another as a society. Then you conclude with "without dependancy on others". It seemed to me to be an about-face.
Is it all a plot to "grow" the economy by the amount of the money now being put into SS?
I am a very strange person ( so it suits me quite well ).
Thanks!
There was a news article a while ago about how the searchers at the terminals were touching people in places they did not feel comfortable with.
One woman complained about a searcher pressing her hand between her breasts.
The GP was taking the issue a bit farther out, but ( IHMO not too far out ). Kids are ( sometimes ) taught to obey, and might not feel at liberty to say "I dont want this". This is ( sometimes ) how child abuse happens ( as I understand it ), so I think the issue reasonable.
( Yes, the presumption is that your child would be going with you, not an unreasonable presumption ).
Something flashed into the Marxist part of my brain after I read your analysis of the health insurance issue WRT employment.
I wonder if that barrier to leaving a job is exactly what the monied politicians want.
But...
Microsoft is the company that goes around touting that they are a world class software development company. Not to mention that Microsoft, in my view, has earned the disaffect they generate here. They have done things that are illegal, that they knew full well were illegal, then did everything they could to skip out of being held accountable. ( Not you, nessesarily, but I should like to be spared the "corporations are only responsible to shareholders, they have to do anything they can to make money. I have a small company, lots of shareholders, it is not doing well, but I *can* stick up 7/11's without much fear of being caught, should I? No, I should not. Shareholders be dratted in this case... )
If you are fine with how they act, then that is where you are at. Why do I have to be OK with it?
But, I do agree that there are a great number of comments that bash Microsoft on issues where they have not earned it. That I would like to see stop, but I dont expect it too. Much like I dont expect those that race to Microsofts defence in equal measures of blindness to stop.
PS: I dont really have a company, that was argumentation setup.....
There is a major motion picture by that name, and the Earth is afraid of the lawsuit.
Works like this ( c/c++ code ).
/* for the exceptionally anal, remove the comments from this,,, = { 0, } */;
// in case strncpy hit the end of the buffer, and did not NULL terminate. Yes, it will overwrite a character in this case, but that is better than crashing.
The programmer has several string manipulation functions to choose from ( talking character array buffers, and the old C runtime.
Say we want to copy a string, or part of a string into another buffer. We might chose a fixed size buffer to copy the item into ( sometime needfull, but there are usually other choices... ). So we declare that buffer, and we give some thought to what might go into it. Well, usually, the programmer says "what I want to copy will never be longer than N characters long". So, he/she/it makes it, oh, say, N + 1 characters long ( to allow for the NULL terminating character ( that which indicates the end of the string ).
Now, on to the copying! Well, we have made the buffer big enough, so, lets just copy, eh?
So the programmer uses his/her/its trusty strcpy ( et al ) function.
So:
char pszBuffer[ 57 ];
strcpy( pszBuffer, );
Great, move on to the next, right?
Wrong. In C\C++, there are *no* checks to see if we are copying more than 56 ( N - 1 ) characters. So, if has 1000 characters, strcpy merrily copies all 1000 characters, and thoughtfully adds a NULL terminating character at the end ( for 1001 characters copied.
Here is the problem you asked about. ( not to mention that if any part of that buffer happens to lie in memory you dont own, *foomp* (tm) you are off in the weed, probably with a crashed application ).
So, what *ought* our valiant programmer do? I think it looks something like this:
char pszBuffer[ 1024 ]
Is that all? No, glad you asked, it is not.
strncpy( pszBuffer, sizeof( pszBuffer ) - 1, );
pszBuffer[ sizeof( pszBuffer ) - 1 ] = 0;
Is that all? Well, no, thanks for asking.
One can, if one is inclined, get the count of characters before copying, and use that number as a check before performing the copy ( adjusted, of course ).
Better would be to drop using raw character buffers, ( at least in C++ ), and use the many provided string classes instead, only dropping back to char buffers when absolutely needfull.
Comes down to habit and laziness, and not fixing what isnt broken ( well, really caught as a bug as yet... ).
Remember, memory is just a roll of toilet paper!
eVictEm?
I dunno, I suppose it depends on the bureacratic position we are talking about. Is there a manual like the Kama Sutra for this position, and can you tell me which one it is?
Obligitory Monty Python joke.
Force Z Prince of Wales and Repulse ( battlecruiser ) sunk by air action.
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/
Read the treaty between Japan and Germany ( and Italy ). If we attacked Japan, Germany *was* obligated to aid Japan. Not so, if Japan initiated hostilities.
Yes, FDR saw the need, loaned the British ships, shipped them war material, patrolled out to the mid-Adlantic ( and we lost a Destroyer doing it, IIRC ), etc, etc. And yes, he was foresighted, and WWII lead, in part, to our position today.
But, there was no requirement that Germany get into the war if Japan started one. Unless we started one ( even if we had, Germany *could* have abrogated the treaty, if she didnt like the idea... ). I dont think there was any real possiblity of the Japanese invading mainland US. The attack against Pearl Harbor was a huge stretch already. The Naval issues involved, unless we are talking a multi-decade effort in which everything went perfectly for the Japanese were insurmountable. Landing enough Army in the US to do more than raid is, frankly, laughable.
And thanks for putting my email address where it could be harvested. I cant tell you how much I appreciate that. ( I figure if the email addresses that slashdot "shows" required "armoring", I ought to do the same, in case you were thinking I was too paranoid... I just dont know what to say. You are crass, sir, ma-am, or whatever. ).
No worries!
o us /airattackstirpitz.html
Around 1234:
r ound "1530:"
:-)
:-)
If you love ships and such, check out navweaps.com and/or hazegray.org.
Bismark was damaged by an aircraft ( stringbags launching torpedoes, IIRC ) which opened some of her fuel tanks to the sea. A later torpedo attack jammed her rudders ( She was one of the first ships that was welded, and apparently they did not "step" the welded sections, leading to a catastophic "line" failure ). She was then caught and sunk by cruiser torpedos and battleship gunfire. ( Well, some Germans dispute this, claiming that the ship would have stayed afloat, except that she was scuttled. She was tought to put down, as I understand the story, so there may be *something* to this... ).
Look at http://www.kbismarck.com/histoperi.html,
down near 25 May 1941 (Sunday):
Her ( his? ) sister ship, the Tirpitz was sunk ( eventually ) by high level bombers dropping 12,000 lbs bombs.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellane
Yamato, hit by dive bombers and torpedoes. I think reading it, it sounds like the torpedoes sunk the ship, the bombs did external damage.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm
Note that the 18.1" guns were used in an anti-aircraft role.
Musashi, Yamato's sister ship, indeed, dive bombers attacked the ship. I think you will agree, reading this, that torpedos sunk her:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm
A
So, yes, they were used. I dont think they did more than damage some topside items. I dont think the ships were in danger of sinking due to the bombs. Hard to argue it categorically either way, I guess. So, strictly, employed, yes. Employed because they were going to sink the battleship, no.
I am not up on the Italian battle ships, but I think I now know what is niggling at the back of your head. The Fritz-X guided missile sank the Roma ( 2 weapons ) and damaged the Italia ( both Italian ) and Warspite ( British ). This weapon is not a "dive bomber" weapon, so I dont think it changes my original assertion. Until this weapon, the only airlaunched weapon that could sink a battleship was the torpedo.
I love this stuff also!
Use the email I put in my other post if you want for anything you might want to discuss/investigate on anything like this, if you like.
Prange, Gordon ( ISBN 0 14 01.5734 4 ), page 162
emphasis mine
A few web sites, in case you dont have the book handy.
This alludes to it on the first page. On the second page, they talk about how the torpedo and high level bombers went over battleship row. They would not have used high level bombers unless really needed, as the accuracy is terrible. Only the fact that the ships were stationary allowed for hits ( note, B-17 bombers later in the pacific war against manuevering ships sunk nothing of note.. )
Later, you may note that they article talks about dive bombers over the harbor, these were there to attack cruisers, destroyers and below. They may have attacked a battleship, but only with the hope of doing some topside damage, sinking was out of the question.
this is another article that develops these same ideas.
I will open myself up to an accusation of cherry picking my web references and state here that I did find a couple of sites in my search that seemed to say that dive bombers sunk battleships, but I think if you look at the articles and the book referenced above, you will see that those are written as lay-person informing, and not quite as "good" a reference for actual history.
Please, do the research you like, if you find something that seriously contradicts this, let me know.
ddavison_pizza at gmail dot com, without the _pizza.
( A sub note, the referenced torpedo problem was that torpedos of the day would dive down about 75 feet before leveling off and running at the preset depth. Pearl Harbor was only about 40 feet deep, so, torpedos were out, unless someone figured out how to keep them from doing this. Wooden fins were fited to the torpedos, and this did the trick. )
( Another sub note, these technical difficulties were understood by the American Navy, and are a large part of the reason that they were so confident that Pearl could not be attacked in the manner it was. Another technical difficulty was that Japanese ships were not especially long ranged, and had no developed at sea refueling capability, another item the Japanese had to work out. For these reasons, I have a bit of trouble with those historians that insist that we should have seen it coming, and that FDR was baiting the Japanese into war ( that and the war that FDR wanted us in was with Germany, and there was no guarantee that war with Japan would lead to war with Germany. ) )
Thank you for an interesting conversation.
How about when the battleship ( oklahoma, IIRC ) is turning turtle? All that water spraying out of the deck there above water.
Both the bomb scenes were pretty unrealistic. The bombs used to kill the battleships were converted 16" naval shells ( launched from about 10k feet up ). Regular dive bombers/dive bombs could not penetrate the deck of a battleship.
It was a lot of eye candy for eye candies sake wrapped around a love triangle. Kinda lame, in my opinion.
Because it is easier to enter an epic/mythic story in scifi/fantasy. The watcher of the movie wants to escape his/her/its hum-drum existance, and scifi/fantasy is better at getting them there.
I didnt have a lot of choice in this regard. :-)
:-) ) that I put in absolutely stellar effort. I believe that that has an impact on the bottom line, but the payoff is still much more about random internal events ( other employees, including upper management doing a good a job as I have ), and random external events ( performance of the economny, performance of the stock market in general, performance of the market in my industry segment, uptake of the product/service my company is offering, etc, etc ), than on my individual efforts. That may sound like it could be used as an excuse to say " no options / stock for you ". And it could be. But where is the alignment ( that is so crucial to doing well ) with the customer wants/needs/desires that is desired without it.
Really, honestly, it was both. It was a lottery ticket that was part of my compensation package. And this view is strictly from *my* point of view as the employee. Across the entire company, it ought to be viewed as based on effort ( the company as a whole's effort ).
No offence taken, but lets say ( only because it is true
All that said, my instance data were all former employeers. I am now consulting, and no stock/options are part of my current "portfolio".
You say "problem" when you talk about companies competing for employees. But isnt that just capitalism in action? I dont think it is truly a problem. It is inconvenient to the company that didnt get the employee, but I cant see that as a problem.