Yes, 2+2=4, therefore global warming is a lie by Al Gore, who served as Vice President. I'm sure the linguistic style will look odd at first, but packing one lie per page and lots of valid facts could game the system. That's why they should release it early, so we can start gaming it early, so they can improve it before release (but they'll get around it by calling everything a beta).
The 10,000 person company I worked for, that would never work. At best, you'd get his secretary, who would hand-write a note. Though, the smaller companies I've worked for, that'd work if you asked for him by name. But "may I speak with the CEO" coming in to the reception would get you hung up on in many cases. If you don't know enough to know who the CEO is, then you obviously can't actually need to speak with him. Though hanging up on people is rude, so death-by-hold was second on the list. Put them on hold. Leave them there until they hang up. Problem solved, and you never had to tell them "no".
Not more likely. More simple. A common failure, with no people deciding to do anything, or an experimental test performed by a hostile entity that the US government is covering up part, but not all, of the details about the test? One is a simple mechanical failure. The other is an act of war, with a complex cover-up performed by the attacked nation.
Don't answer what you would prefer the answer to be, or what you think is more likely, but look at the complexity of each of the options, and answer the question of which is more complex?
I worked for a 10,000+ person company, the CEO read the emails identified by his secretary as important. I worked for a 200+ person tech company where the CTO read some of the emails the secretary printed out for him. He didn't have a computer (not in the office, and not at home). If he sent an email, he dictated it to his secretary, and she would then send it for him.
For a 5-man company, you may find CEOs read their own emails. For larger than that, the CEOs don't read emails. The few I know that did, used their personal email for business, and the business email was essentially forwarded to the info@ email box.
I've found that snail mail got insanely quick response. It would get to the CEO and be read. Only obvious advertisements would be withheld by helpers, and even then not aggressively so.
If I didn't want an SD slot, I'd have gotten the Oppo R5. Cheaper and thinner than the S6, and the commercial for it shows a car driving over it, and using it to hammer in a nail, without a scratch. But I passed on the Oppo R5 because of the lack of SD slot. OnePlus, cheaper and better than Samsung. And if you don't like stock Android, I like ColorOS better than TouchWiz (I like Sense over TouchWiz as well, TouchWiz isn't great, but I haven't played with it since it came with fewer bloat items).
Oh, and ppi is stupid. Are they really implying that a 5.1 inch QHD screen is preferable to a 5.5 inch QHD, because the 5.1 has more ppi? I've used both, and much prefer the larger screen.
What's the weight of a '90s Ni-Cad AA battery? How many mAh?
How about the current AA rechargeable batteries, you pick the type. Then compare the Joules in each.
You are confusing the units and such. Stick to total Joules in the device by weight. You didn't. So I assume you are the one you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.
Actually, on that note, I am hard pressed to think of any RTS game where I've seen a computer player populate more than one island, or build a second base.
Empire Earth (not sure which version, if not the original). The AI was told to understand that space empire will have two starting islands, and you are to conquer the foreign island, and they'd invade and build up (with local production), if you locked yourself in a small corner defensively.
My first encounter with "stupid AI" was Dune 2, where you could work out which direction the attacks were coming from (usually, a straight line from their production facility to your most valuable structure), and build a "catcher's glove" of turrets or strong tanks and wipe out everything coming at you with minimal (or sometimes no) losses.
Age of empires. The AI would build multiple home bases (town centers), so is smart for that, based on your measure, but dumber than a 2 year old in so many other ways.
They'd build walls up to (but around) trees. When the trees were cut down, it would never extend walls to protect the exposed areas. So workers, sent along with the military could take out a superior force.
Also, they won't attack a wall when there is another way in. So if you make a maze of walls, with a clear (but winding) path through, and no buildings in range to attack, they'd *always* take the long and winding path. And you can pick them off with strategically placed defenses. Few to no losses, even against massive attack forces.
so it goes nuclear when it gets shot down over their base". It's the unconventional that AIs never seem to achieve.
Reminds me of your complaints about Dune. The Harkonnen couldn't use nukes effectively. If it got to that point of the game, put a few structures away from the base, in a protective ring. The nukes will fall on them, and they'll never push to try to get a nuke to hit the make core of the base. So put all your important buildings packed tight in the corner, and unimportant ones scattered around. The AI will never do max damage with a nuke. Once you figure that out, the AI will spend more resources bombing than they kill with them.
But seriously, nearly every maker has had it happen. Sometimes with new computers. For the case I have personal knowledge about, it was from the repair center.
I had a laptop in the '90s. It had a run time better than today's. Though the screen was shit. And the energy density didn't change greatly between then and now. Small improvements, but not massive. The biggest change from Ni-Cad to Li-ion is the memory effects and longevity, not energy density.
And no, I'm not suggesting any particular type of battery was used. I would have no idea what the military would use in a satellite. Perhaps they were willing to pay the extra cost for a sealed lead-acid battery (a more well known and well tested tech, even if heavier and less dense than laptop batteries of the day).
But a battery is a known failure problem. I've personally seen one explode - blew the hood off a car (technically, it wasn't the battery that blew, but the H2 that leaked out of the lead acid battery that collected under the hood, ignited by the starter, to blow while I watched from a safe distance when a friend was starting his car to drive home).
There have been hundreds of incidents of on-board fires in airplanes from batteries - usually laptop batteries, sometimes phones.
I recommend you consider what you are saying before you say it.
It sounds like a battery had a fault, and ran hot, until it exploded. A laptop battery has a greater energy density than a hand grenade. So a sudden catastrophic failure would give the results observed.
Many satellites are hybrid solar+batteries. They have sun enough to run and charge, so in the shade, they run off batteries. Batteries fail, sometimes spectacularly. It's possible that there was a chemical reaction in the batteries that *caused*, not was the result of, the temperature spike. Then the battery failed, exploding.
Nope. That you are too small minded to think of a single definition of "planet" that includes the traditional 9 indicates a lack of thinking on your part. No more. It's not significant that you can't think of a definition for 9 planets.
But under the definition you grew up with where Pluto is a planet, there are over 100,000 planets in our solar system alone.
Nope. You must have grown up in a different dimension than me. Pluto was a planet when I grew up, and there were 9 planets. And fewer inconsistencies in the definition than we have today. Though the definition was just as arbitrary as today's.
You can't, but you can be quite sure that the manufacturer will take serious measures to make sure this doesn't happen.
I worked for HP when every computer re-imaged in their repair shop was sent out with a virus. Other makers have essentially recalled new PCs for the same thing. I can't give cites, because it's covered up. 10x the budget of the repair department was spent to hide the problem. To convince people it can't happen. Must trust the chain of trust. Even when it's broken.
Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?
Well, as someone once told me "Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun."
Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...
If your argument was unrelated to your completely wrong accusations of fraud against Mega, then why fly into the sun to post something so obviously and trivially proven false?
I thought that was your posting style, lead with the outlandish claim, that grabs the attention. But that's what you complain about.
That, and there's proof of the pressure against some lines of business. That they've done it before doesn't mean they are doing it now. What proof do you have that it's the government, and not the media companies, putting the pressure on them? What proof do you have there's any outside pressure being put on them?
No. You are using your definition of "planet", then calling it stupid. I'll agree with you there. Your definition of planet is stupid.
Also, if you are too dumb to think of a single definition of "planet" that includes the traditional 9 planets, then you are too dumb to bother to argue with, there's nothing I could say that would matter. Your tiny, petty little mind is made up and closed, and has no more room for discussions to sway it.
I said "the rules are arbitrary" and you took that as something I didn't say. Obviously you have trouble understanding, anyway. Another reason logic and reason won't work on you.
I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks.
Yes, like telephone networks. It's illegal for your phone company to see you are dialing 1-800-coca-cola and redirect your phone call to 1-800-pepsi-co. But for your Internet connection, that was 100% legal (and done, in many cases).
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations.
Yes. They are not allowed to use abusive QoS configurations. They are perfectly allowed to use every QoS configuration I've ever seen someone assert is illegal. You can prioritize voice over video, and both over HTTP, or whatever you want. What you can't do is prioritize *your* video service over a competitor's video service. You can still block (or set QoS to the absolutel losest level) P2P and the other things that many were saying they couldn't do.
So, what QoS profile were you looking for that you think is illegal now? If it's not one that benefits your service at the expense of a competitors, or is used for extortion practices, it's legal. So I don't believe you that there's a reasonable QoS profile that is now illegal. Sure, there are some that aren't allowed, but those are only the abusive ones.
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations.
policing is QoS, so I don't understand how this is different than the previous statement, also I only hear "metering" as a user billing issue, and it's unrelated to any "configuration" in the network.
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.
No, they don't. You can still influence the routing within your network.
Sounds like all your problems with it are from your misunderstanding of it. The reason you were called a Republican is that you are parroting all the disproved talking points the Republicans are using. But not bringing up any valid objections.
Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...
Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account, despite 5+ "convictions of fraud" (repeated bankruptcies).
And Mega has never been convicted of fraud. Because of such accusations, Kim Dotcom arranged the business structure such that he has no real influence on it, and may not even have any financial stake in it at all, in addition to no control.
So where are these frauds you assert, and when did Mega commit them? Or are you lying because you hate Kim Dotcom so much you can't think straight?
No, you can have 9. The definition doesn't need to be consistent, and I've seen hundreds of definitions that would include Pluto, but not the other 4 you are referencing.
Anyone who made that definition could just move the arbitrary line of "too small" and remove the classification of the Earth as a planet. That's part of the complaint. The rules are all completely arbitrary.
. The standard File/Edit/View/Window menu is not in there.
Are you lying, or just an idiot? Have you ever tried it? You still have the File/Edit/View menus when you delete ie.exe in older versions of windows. I haven't tried on the newest, but older ones would actually load IE in File Explorer (all the menus across the top, the E logo, and all, no idea about bookmarks, didn't think that would be such an issue years later for some jackass on the Internet), when IE.EXE was deleted and you browsed in File Explorer to a web site.
I said "the user interface of the presentation of [...]" but you ignored that for your incorrect rant about what a browser is.
You are wrong. A program that renders is a browser. For Windows, that's the OS.
The proof you are wrong? You mentioned bookmarks, but what about cache? If the OS puts things in IE cache with IE deleted, wouldn't that indicate that the application function of caching is still active? Or is bookmarks a application function, but cache isn't. If bookmarks are required to differentiate a browser from rendering? Then Lynx is a rendering engine, but not a browser, because the last time I used it, it didn't have bookmarks. Oh, and my Android phone will save bookmarks, even if you delete all the browsers off it. So your arbitrary metric isn't consistent or useful. But it wasn't chosen for being a useful metric, but just to try to prove someone else wrong to distract from the fact that you are the only one that's wrong.
The user interface of the presentation of the rendering is the application. That application survives if you delete IE. Deleting the TCP stack doesn't kill the rendering engine, you can still render C:\example.html without TCP or IP.
You've over-thought it to the point you are 100% wrong, and your only point is that you don't know what a browser is.
Also, because the rendering engine was embedded and separate, you could render an external web page in the OS, as IE would, with IE deleted. That isn't "deleted" to most people. That's, at best, hidden. Like my kids playing hide and seek, with their feet showing and their head hidden.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, 2+2=4, therefore global warming is a lie by Al Gore, who served as Vice President. I'm sure the linguistic style will look odd at first, but packing one lie per page and lots of valid facts could game the system. That's why they should release it early, so we can start gaming it early, so they can improve it before release (but they'll get around it by calling everything a beta).
The 10,000 person company I worked for, that would never work. At best, you'd get his secretary, who would hand-write a note. Though, the smaller companies I've worked for, that'd work if you asked for him by name. But "may I speak with the CEO" coming in to the reception would get you hung up on in many cases. If you don't know enough to know who the CEO is, then you obviously can't actually need to speak with him. Though hanging up on people is rude, so death-by-hold was second on the list. Put them on hold. Leave them there until they hang up. Problem solved, and you never had to tell them "no".
Not more likely. More simple. A common failure, with no people deciding to do anything, or an experimental test performed by a hostile entity that the US government is covering up part, but not all, of the details about the test? One is a simple mechanical failure. The other is an act of war, with a complex cover-up performed by the attacked nation.
Don't answer what you would prefer the answer to be, or what you think is more likely, but look at the complexity of each of the options, and answer the question of which is more complex?
I worked for a 10,000+ person company, the CEO read the emails identified by his secretary as important. I worked for a 200+ person tech company where the CTO read some of the emails the secretary printed out for him. He didn't have a computer (not in the office, and not at home). If he sent an email, he dictated it to his secretary, and she would then send it for him.
For a 5-man company, you may find CEOs read their own emails. For larger than that, the CEOs don't read emails. The few I know that did, used their personal email for business, and the business email was essentially forwarded to the info@ email box.
I've found that snail mail got insanely quick response. It would get to the CEO and be read. Only obvious advertisements would be withheld by helpers, and even then not aggressively so.
If I didn't want an SD slot, I'd have gotten the Oppo R5. Cheaper and thinner than the S6, and the commercial for it shows a car driving over it, and using it to hammer in a nail, without a scratch. But I passed on the Oppo R5 because of the lack of SD slot. OnePlus, cheaper and better than Samsung. And if you don't like stock Android, I like ColorOS better than TouchWiz (I like Sense over TouchWiz as well, TouchWiz isn't great, but I haven't played with it since it came with fewer bloat items).
Oh, and ppi is stupid. Are they really implying that a 5.1 inch QHD screen is preferable to a 5.5 inch QHD, because the 5.1 has more ppi? I've used both, and much prefer the larger screen.
What's the weight of a '90s Ni-Cad AA battery? How many mAh?
How about the current AA rechargeable batteries, you pick the type. Then compare the Joules in each.
You are confusing the units and such. Stick to total Joules in the device by weight. You didn't. So I assume you are the one you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.
Actually, on that note, I am hard pressed to think of any RTS game where I've seen a computer player populate more than one island, or build a second base.
Empire Earth (not sure which version, if not the original). The AI was told to understand that space empire will have two starting islands, and you are to conquer the foreign island, and they'd invade and build up (with local production), if you locked yourself in a small corner defensively.
My first encounter with "stupid AI" was Dune 2, where you could work out which direction the attacks were coming from (usually, a straight line from their production facility to your most valuable structure), and build a "catcher's glove" of turrets or strong tanks and wipe out everything coming at you with minimal (or sometimes no) losses.
Age of empires. The AI would build multiple home bases (town centers), so is smart for that, based on your measure, but dumber than a 2 year old in so many other ways.
They'd build walls up to (but around) trees. When the trees were cut down, it would never extend walls to protect the exposed areas. So workers, sent along with the military could take out a superior force.
Also, they won't attack a wall when there is another way in. So if you make a maze of walls, with a clear (but winding) path through, and no buildings in range to attack, they'd *always* take the long and winding path. And you can pick them off with strategically placed defenses. Few to no losses, even against massive attack forces.
so it goes nuclear when it gets shot down over their base". It's the unconventional that AIs never seem to achieve.
Reminds me of your complaints about Dune. The Harkonnen couldn't use nukes effectively. If it got to that point of the game, put a few structures away from the base, in a protective ring. The nukes will fall on them, and they'll never push to try to get a nuke to hit the make core of the base. So put all your important buildings packed tight in the corner, and unimportant ones scattered around. The AI will never do max damage with a nuke. Once you figure that out, the AI will spend more resources bombing than they kill with them.
Was it called McAfee?
But seriously, nearly every maker has had it happen. Sometimes with new computers. For the case I have personal knowledge about, it was from the repair center.
I had a laptop in the '90s. It had a run time better than today's. Though the screen was shit. And the energy density didn't change greatly between then and now. Small improvements, but not massive. The biggest change from Ni-Cad to Li-ion is the memory effects and longevity, not energy density.
And no, I'm not suggesting any particular type of battery was used. I would have no idea what the military would use in a satellite. Perhaps they were willing to pay the extra cost for a sealed lead-acid battery (a more well known and well tested tech, even if heavier and less dense than laptop batteries of the day).
But a battery is a known failure problem. I've personally seen one explode - blew the hood off a car (technically, it wasn't the battery that blew, but the H2 that leaked out of the lead acid battery that collected under the hood, ignited by the starter, to blow while I watched from a safe distance when a friend was starting his car to drive home).
There have been hundreds of incidents of on-board fires in airplanes from batteries - usually laptop batteries, sometimes phones.
I recommend you consider what you are saying before you say it.
Occam's razor. Which is simpler. A routine battery failure, or a complicated military test on a hostile satellite?
It sounds like a battery had a fault, and ran hot, until it exploded. A laptop battery has a greater energy density than a hand grenade. So a sudden catastrophic failure would give the results observed.
Many satellites are hybrid solar+batteries. They have sun enough to run and charge, so in the shade, they run off batteries. Batteries fail, sometimes spectacularly. It's possible that there was a chemical reaction in the batteries that *caused*, not was the result of, the temperature spike. Then the battery failed, exploding.
Nope. That you are too small minded to think of a single definition of "planet" that includes the traditional 9 indicates a lack of thinking on your part. No more. It's not significant that you can't think of a definition for 9 planets.
But under the definition you grew up with where Pluto is a planet, there are over 100,000 planets in our solar system alone.
Nope. You must have grown up in a different dimension than me. Pluto was a planet when I grew up, and there were 9 planets. And fewer inconsistencies in the definition than we have today. Though the definition was just as arbitrary as today's.
You can't, but you can be quite sure that the manufacturer will take serious measures to make sure this doesn't happen.
I worked for HP when every computer re-imaged in their repair shop was sent out with a virus. Other makers have essentially recalled new PCs for the same thing. I can't give cites, because it's covered up. 10x the budget of the repair department was spent to hide the problem. To convince people it can't happen. Must trust the chain of trust. Even when it's broken.
Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?
Well, as someone once told me "Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun."
Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...
If your argument was unrelated to your completely wrong accusations of fraud against Mega, then why fly into the sun to post something so obviously and trivially proven false?
I thought that was your posting style, lead with the outlandish claim, that grabs the attention. But that's what you complain about.
That, and there's proof of the pressure against some lines of business. That they've done it before doesn't mean they are doing it now. What proof do you have that it's the government, and not the media companies, putting the pressure on them? What proof do you have there's any outside pressure being put on them?
No. You are using your definition of "planet", then calling it stupid. I'll agree with you there. Your definition of planet is stupid.
Also, if you are too dumb to think of a single definition of "planet" that includes the traditional 9 planets, then you are too dumb to bother to argue with, there's nothing I could say that would matter. Your tiny, petty little mind is made up and closed, and has no more room for discussions to sway it.
I said "the rules are arbitrary" and you took that as something I didn't say. Obviously you have trouble understanding, anyway. Another reason logic and reason won't work on you.
I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks.
Yes, like telephone networks. It's illegal for your phone company to see you are dialing 1-800-coca-cola and redirect your phone call to 1-800-pepsi-co. But for your Internet connection, that was 100% legal (and done, in many cases).
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations.
Yes. They are not allowed to use abusive QoS configurations. They are perfectly allowed to use every QoS configuration I've ever seen someone assert is illegal. You can prioritize voice over video, and both over HTTP, or whatever you want. What you can't do is prioritize *your* video service over a competitor's video service. You can still block (or set QoS to the absolutel losest level) P2P and the other things that many were saying they couldn't do.
So, what QoS profile were you looking for that you think is illegal now? If it's not one that benefits your service at the expense of a competitors, or is used for extortion practices, it's legal. So I don't believe you that there's a reasonable QoS profile that is now illegal. Sure, there are some that aren't allowed, but those are only the abusive ones.
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations.
policing is QoS, so I don't understand how this is different than the previous statement, also I only hear "metering" as a user billing issue, and it's unrelated to any "configuration" in the network.
They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.
No, they don't. You can still influence the routing within your network.
Sounds like all your problems with it are from your misunderstanding of it. The reason you were called a Republican is that you are parroting all the disproved talking points the Republicans are using. But not bringing up any valid objections.
Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...
Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account, despite 5+ "convictions of fraud" (repeated bankruptcies).
And Mega has never been convicted of fraud. Because of such accusations, Kim Dotcom arranged the business structure such that he has no real influence on it, and may not even have any financial stake in it at all, in addition to no control.
So where are these frauds you assert, and when did Mega commit them? Or are you lying because you hate Kim Dotcom so much you can't think straight?
No, you can have 9. The definition doesn't need to be consistent, and I've seen hundreds of definitions that would include Pluto, but not the other 4 you are referencing.
Anyone who made that definition could just move the arbitrary line of "too small" and remove the classification of the Earth as a planet. That's part of the complaint. The rules are all completely arbitrary.
. The standard File/Edit/View/Window menu is not in there.
Are you lying, or just an idiot? Have you ever tried it? You still have the File/Edit/View menus when you delete ie.exe in older versions of windows. I haven't tried on the newest, but older ones would actually load IE in File Explorer (all the menus across the top, the E logo, and all, no idea about bookmarks, didn't think that would be such an issue years later for some jackass on the Internet), when IE.EXE was deleted and you browsed in File Explorer to a web site.
I said "the user interface of the presentation of [...]" but you ignored that for your incorrect rant about what a browser is.
You are wrong. A program that renders is a browser. For Windows, that's the OS.
The proof you are wrong? You mentioned bookmarks, but what about cache? If the OS puts things in IE cache with IE deleted, wouldn't that indicate that the application function of caching is still active? Or is bookmarks a application function, but cache isn't. If bookmarks are required to differentiate a browser from rendering? Then Lynx is a rendering engine, but not a browser, because the last time I used it, it didn't have bookmarks. Oh, and my Android phone will save bookmarks, even if you delete all the browsers off it. So your arbitrary metric isn't consistent or useful. But it wasn't chosen for being a useful metric, but just to try to prove someone else wrong to distract from the fact that you are the only one that's wrong.
The user interface of the presentation of the rendering is the application. That application survives if you delete IE. Deleting the TCP stack doesn't kill the rendering engine, you can still render C:\example.html without TCP or IP.
You've over-thought it to the point you are 100% wrong, and your only point is that you don't know what a browser is.
Also, because the rendering engine was embedded and separate, you could render an external web page in the OS, as IE would, with IE deleted. That isn't "deleted" to most people. That's, at best, hidden. Like my kids playing hide and seek, with their feet showing and their head hidden.