I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
Bad example. Does not apply. In no way, shape, or form can this be used as an example. One, UNIX is fairly stagnant. Catching it was only a question of time. Two, Linux did and does not require the use of someone else's patents to be implemented. Three, AT&T does not have a long history of purposely breaking compatibility with other UNIX vendors. Just imagine AT&T constantly breaking TCP/IP specifications and implementations to cause fragmentation.
Your comparision seems to highlight that you don't have enough facts and surrounding history to completely understand the situation.
Great quote! I love how it ignores basic facts of the players in question, not to mention the very, very long history of Microsoft's monopoly and abuse of the market.
Nope...sure wouldn't want basic facts known, for people to make a decision.
You can either look at history and nod knowingly, this is going to be bad for everyone except for Microsoft, or you can be a sucker and get kicked in the nuts, some time down the road, for the 1000th-time, and try your best to act suprised. While everyone around is laughing and pointing at the sheer stupidity of it all, I might add. Meanwhile, +10 points for Microsoft. Good thing you were there to help them. They sure needed help with their monopoly!
I agree. Supporting MONO is very, very, very short sighted, closed minded, and selfish to boot. It is only helpful to Microsoft. The majority of the world doesn't care about.NET, at least not currently. This only adds fuel to the fire to speed migration to.NET and potential lock-in and legal action down the road.
The.GNU project has slightly different goals, so I'm not nearly as harsh on the project. Just the same, MONO is a huge waste of dollars and man-hours. Just think what could be done if they chased after making Python bigger, faster, more robust. Python with a native JIT compiler, plus wxPython, would rock. Would be crossplatform, and would be wicked fast. What about helping boost Java? I'm no Java fan, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense to support Java than it does.NET.
I think you nailed it completely. The writing is on the wall for anyone that cares to look and read. You've even spelled it out. History is clear. Sadly, there will be many, many idiots that refuse to see what's clubbing them on the head. I guess once a fool, always a fool.
Take a look at the MONO project folks. Look whos leading it. Now, look at all of the problems, misdirection, false starts, and bad implementations that came from that project. Gnome still suffers today from all of the bad decisions.
Who of you are going to read the writing on the wall? Who of you are going to remain the fool?
No idea why this was rated, "insightful". I suggest you go read the article again. Or, prehaps you're missing a very basic set of commonly accepted facts. Microsoft doesn't own patents on C++ technology. In fact, C++ does not originate from Microsoft. Microsoft is also not using C++ to leverage their monopoly. Microsoft would be unable to leverage C++ to leverage their monopoly because C++ isn't their technology base.
Now that you know even the most basic of facts, perhaps now you'll understand why your posting belongs in/dev/null. It adds no value to the discussion.
No, I didn't miss your point at all. It's just the I'm tired of hearing exactly your comment from people that clearly don't have any idea what they are talking about.
I am, by no means, an awesome AA player. I get spanked on a regular basis. I have no problem playing or finding players with skills that far exceed my own. Likewise, I certainly don't have the fastest net connection in the world. Not to mention, my system certainly isn't the fastest either. Put those all together, I get my arse handed to me on a regular basis. No complaints here. That's part of the game. That's life. As such, it's VERY easy to decern cheaters from skilled players. No matter how skilled you are, you are not going to single-shot headshot me through a wall where you have zero visibility...let alone, round after round...and half the team, at that, while still being half way across the map.
How about the run cheats? Hmmm...two players are running 10x faster than everyone else. I guess they are just more skilled too. What about hte guy that can point his gun at the ground, with his back to you, and headshot you, first shot? He must be really skilled! Impossibly so. What about the guys that can shoot their 203's, from within a building, having zero visibility on anything outside that room, and rain them down directly on your head, everytime, no matter where you are at...nope, no radar and/or aim bot there....it's just skill. How abou they guys that can headshot your with a 203 round everytime. Even though they normally won't blow, with a luck shot, those "skilled" players, somehow, pull it off.
I could go on and on. This has nothing to do with skill. You can observe skill. You can learn from skill. But what you can't do is, constantly, every round, break the statistical odds and call every headshot a luckshot. Headshot once, fine. Headshot twice, maybe. Three times? Somthing fishy? Maybe? Everytime? That is one cheating SOB and people like you are keeping them on the server.
I'm constantly amazed at how stupid people can be when playing these games when it's so obvious. And the ignorance shared here, is a major contributor to why so many cheaters get by, not being held accountable.
Be part of the solution...not part of the problem.
Sometimes they are just really good/lucky and not a cheater.
You're right. I have no problem with luck shots. Sometimes they happen. They just don't happen, every round, through walls, taking out the majority of the team, round after round. Either you've never played AA, or you're just very, very, very naive.
So tired of hearing this. In AA, after you die, you almost always get a dead camera view of your body. Being headshot, while the enemy had zero visibility, in no way, shape, or form, can be confused with a lucky shot. Specially when one guy is taking out 1/2 or more of the team by him self in something like 2 or three minutes, all single shot headshots. Total BS. Naive opinions like yours are part of the cheating problem.
Put it this way. Almost everytime I've had to call an admin, someone has been kick or banned. Only once have I ever been kicked by an admin, and it was because of the situation I outlined above. People like you, which attempt to give the beneift of the doubt to a cheater rather than an experienced player, only encourage and further enrage people that have been wronged. In other words, you're knowingly or unknowingly, part of the problem, as it would be so much easier to simply get the votes to kick the losers off.
And, BTW, comparing cheat detection and gameplay between two completely difference games is completely worthless. That's right, saying Tribes compares to AA, is completely wrong. Any time you have two games which use two different sets of net code, you're going to have completely different oddities and quirks.
The rest of your comments can be safely ignored as it does not reflect AA's gameplay, not one bit.
The answer is, no, it didn't just happen. It is, however, a sore spot. When I go to play the game, I do so to relax, unwind, and shoot some bad-guys. The frustration added by cheaters removes most of the enjoyment from the game.
Once I've determined that someone is cheating, it always leaves me wondering, what kind of sorry sack, they are in real life. Recently, I've started pointing this fact out...about the fact that their family life probably sucks, their parents probably dislike or resent them, and that they probably have no friends, etc... Seems, I too, have found a sore spot with several of these losers. Surprisingly, I've recently made two losers realize just how much of a loser they are. They left the server and game balance was restored. Which, seems to confirm that the personalities that do cheat, do so as a cry for help to escape their pathetic life. Seems online reminders of how pethetic they are is enough to force the more sorrowful to go elsewhere for their twisted enjoyment.
Well, the sad thing is, that's the way it is in the vast majority of business. If you can't see this, it means one of three things. One, you're part of the problem and can't see it. Two, you're one of the ignornant masses and are too ignorant to realize what's going on. Three, you have been sheltered your whole life by being so very, very lucky, that you haven't been out int he workplace enough to see it your self.
Regardless, trust me when I say, it's the majority of PHBs. People skills are what make the world go round! If you have doubts about that, you need to seriously question what you're doing in a place of business.
There are a ton of cheaters on AA!! I'm an avid AA player and cheaters are rather common. Some days, it's hard to find a server that doesn't have at least one cheater on it. Other days, people that are not using cheats, are in the minority.
AA makes use of Punk Buster. While PB is better than nothing, it's only as good as it's latest update. If I create a new cheat-hack for AA tomorrow, it may take a month of more for the PB guys to get it, probe it, and write a PB detection signature for it. At which time, I'm free to start the hack again.
Worse, there are some clans, where the whole clan cheats! If you complain about being headshot through a wall, where they couldn't even see you, expect to get booted, whereby, you may lose honor points. If you get an admin, expect the whole clan to lie about them cheating and claim that YOU were kicked for cheating. They will then nicely ask to have you banned. As such, many people just take cheating with a grin, and bare it.
In short, cheaters are a common annoyance on AA.
For the life of me, I honestly can't grasp the depths of loser-dom, that one has have, to be a cheater on a FPS game. But, there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of them. Seriously, how small does your ego have to be? How pathetic do you have to be in the real world where cheating in an imaginary world is your only escape. While they often get the last laugh in the game, I have no doubt that life gets the last laugh at them, all the time. What losers!
You missed the point. PHB's don't want to share the details with their people because soon, very soon, they will be making better, more informed decisions than the PHB. So, it's safer for their job to simply nod, feel good that they know more than you, and then completely ignore you.
Most PHB's may not know business or technology, however, they almost always know people. Which is usually how they got the job in the first place. By keeping their underlings ignorant, they can look better in the eyes of upper management. This works exctly as it did 200+ years ago. The kings prefer to have ignorant masses as they are much easier to manipulate and control.
It's not that I'm harsh because of their systems and their investments in them. More power to them. It's that a lot of these guys think they can tell the sex of a fly, by the bzzz of it's wings, 200m away. In otherwords, they are idiots because they imagine audio differences that, either don't exist in the first place, or would require something other than their ear, to hear in the first place.
If an audiophile wants to have a rock-n system with ultra crisp, clear sound, I have no problem in the world with that. Even better, when they invite me over. Just the same, let's use a little logic and common sense here. When is the last time you saw an audiophile install crappy wiring? Ya, that's right, chances are, their first whack is already pretty high-end, if not outright ultra. Then, they go and spend 10x the amount of money on a new wiring because it's the newest ultra-high-end. Fine with me. But when they suddenly say, "listen....that's sooo much better than what I had before", when chances are, even if there is an improvement, the human ear couldn't even register it in the first place.
See the difference? They want to spend money and have fun with their toys? Great! Who doesn't? Just stop shoving crap at me about how much better an obviously undetectible change is. Simple fact is, my hearing is better than the vast majority of humans and even runs well beyond the average human in the upper ranges. You're talking to a guy that has heard supposedly "sonic" (of course, it's not) motion detectors at banks before. And yes, they hurt my ears. Thusly, people have referred to my hearing as "dog hearing". So yes, I appreciate good sound; perhaps more so than the next guy.
As soon as money comes into the equation for email, only an absolute idiot is going to thank that the government isn't going to start taxing it!
Supporting micro payments is simply going to be another form of tax revenue. Not only does this plan make zero sense, but I certainly don't want to have to pay to email AND pay taxes on it too! I already pay for my DSL connection. I pay for my hardware. I pay for my time. I don't want to have to pay again, for everything I've already paid for.
The short line of idiots is over there! No thanks...I'm going elsewhere.
...and the chances that you'll actually "hear" the difference. Zero.
If you increase the quality of the sound by 1%, via a cable, that 1% is easily lost in all of the other parts that actually produce the sound. Most audiophiles are idiots.
Get real. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Want enterprise storage? Get PostgreSQL for free or fork up the money for Oracle. But then again, neither of those are Java, now are they.
The real enterprise stuff is expensive.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stuff? What stuff? I thought we were talking about Java?
Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE
Many small to medium size businesses do not purchase Linux. They have their techie download and install it. Cost zero. Furthermore, since you can do more with less hardware, when you run Linux, many people recycle older boxes (cost zero) or buy smaller boxes with better raid or storage facilities. So, generally speaking, you either get more for your buck or outright save on hardware.
Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).
Last several studies I've seen show that Unix admins tend to be on par with Windows admins. In shops where it differs, on average, there is only a 10% difference. Seems more experienced Unix admins, on average, are either being under paid or, more often from my own experience, win admins are being over paid, far, far too much. I'm sorry, I've yet to meet a win admin that's worth 70-120K. Yet, some companies pay it.
MS selected specific scenerios to favor them. For example, File and Print have never been a strong spot for Unix -- Novell and MS have owned that segement for years and years. It will be interesting to see what Novell/SuSE puts on the market.
From a performance perspective, Samba is mopping the floor, last I heard. So, I not sure why anyone would pick windows here.
And as for J2EE -- some of the tools are ridiclously expensive, so that's a pretty easy cost study to rig.
Nonsense. Java is cheap. There are a ton of free, high quality tools to do Java development. For the most part, you have develope an entire java toolset, of commercial quality and highly regarded, for free.
In a nutshell, Linux is always going to be cheaper, faster, and more versitile.
Except the obvious problem with your statement is...hardware usually can not be retools, redesigned, and reimplemented to work around hardware problems; especially once they are in space. Software, on the other hand, can often be changed, fixed, improved, and revised, to address any number of issues which may occur. With hardware, you have to have *extra* redundant systems to allow for minor faults, which software may of been able to easily work around. In short, it adds hardware complexity (versus software complexity) and weight, while removing flexibility and robustness. A strong mix of robust hardware and the dynamic capibilities of software will make for the best solution.
I would say that it doesn't sound like you've thought this through very well.
People also seem to be forgetting that Hal-whatits, was charging way more than the commonly accepted price for fuel. Comming from an oil rich country, he was charging something like 4 or 5 bucks a gallon. On the news, they stated there was supposed to be talks to work something out. I never heard what happened. More than likely, Bush steped in and infomred them that he was a buddy of his and to leave the deal alone. It's war, after all.
Personally, I think what you guys are doing is great. As usual, there are many people that are either too ignorant to know a good thing or too clueless to realize that companies have to exist too.
What Real is doing, is good stuff. Keep up the effort!
I wish I had this in the first message...but oh well. I'm actually not sure when a simple AA missile wouldn't take care of it. Even with ECM onboard, I doubt it's as sophisticated as what is commonly used on modern fighters and I seriously doubt, it's going to be able to intelligently and actively avoid being hit. It's the combination of dodge, chaff, ecm, and flares, why fighters do as well as they do. When they fly in a straight line, or near to one, the odds of them being killed is *GREATLY* increased.
If you think of it as a small, fast jet, I have no idea why AA-missile wouldn't address it as they do any other intercepter. Many AA-missiles travel at mach-2 and even mach-3+. At the kind of range that one would think a cruise missile is right for (stand off munition), you would think the door is open for a successful interception....then then, this is all arm-chair whatif...;)
I'm actually not sure that's true. If you use modern radar, such as is common with Western Powers, and fire AA-missiles, I don't think the results are currently know. What about the two other AA/AM efforts which are deployed? Again, I'm not sure that the results are known.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not talking absolutes here. If you have credible information you want to point me at, please do so. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't be willing to make such a bold statement in such absolute terms.
Yes, that's all fine and dandy, however, it side steps the valid points which the grandparent post was making. First of all, the Tomahawk is a fairly old re-tooled missile. Second of all, it purposely yields speed for range. Which, by the way, is why the missile does NAP of the earth flying. It's unclear if India's missile does this too. Based on it's speed, I seriously doubt it. So, while they talk down how slow the Tomahawk is and great their fast missile is, is doesn't change the facts. Simple fact is, they are marketing this missile for resale. Fact is, with that in mind, it GREATLY limits the theaters, for which it can participate. Basically, unless your neighbor is the one being naughty, this cruise missile is going to be very fast indeed. If will very fastly be ignored as a usable weapon. That is, again, unless it just happens to be your neighbor that's being naughty.
I'm sure they'll sale. There are lots of borders with tension. Just the same, they imbarass themselves by comparing it with the Tomahawk.
Missiles compared: Tomahawk: Slow, but flies nap to avoid radar and has a very, very long range. Smarts are very smart. Missile purposely attempts to avoid radar, by design.
India's new missile: Fast and more than likely flies in high radar visibility paths. Thusly, attempts to use speed to negate this. Very limited range. Probably fairly simple smarts inside.
So, which would you use? Fast target seen on radar or slow target, rarely, if at all, seen on radar? Pick your poison.;)
1) A local contracting group would of ramped just as fast...if not faster. Especially in this market!
2) High powered programmers are readily available in the US, especially in this market! Probably would of actually been high-powered programmers, if they were higher locally rather than India's high-powered, "medioker" programmers.
3) In this market, there really isn't an excuse to not have A/A+ code, unless time to market completely prevents it. You took a serious support and long term maintenance ding here.
I would say, over all, you did a little worse to a lot worse by going offshore. Having said that, I must say I congradulate you! To date, I have never, ever, seen an Indian offshore project come in on time or on budget. Every project that I know of, directly or by second person, has been so far over budget, a US group would still have room to go far over budget. Worse, every Indian project that I know of directly or second hand, have all been late; thusly, *one* of the primary reasons for it being far over budget. In most cases, these projects were 3-6-months late. One I know, was two years late, and millions over budget. To date, I know of no first or second hand account where offshore software projects actually came in cheaper or on time. Worse, the code, seems to always match your experience. That is, the quality tends to range from F, all the way to B. Never seen A/A++ code, nor even heard of it ever being high quality. Worse, ongoing software support costs, in the long term, always have cause to make people dig, far, far, deeper into their wallet.
From my experience, going offshore is not only bad for the local economy, it's just plain bad business. I've never known anyone that wants to pay extra for an inferior product, delivered late, yet people seem to do it over and over again. To me, this is exactly what off shore programming means. Every time!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
Bad example. Does not apply. In no way, shape, or form can this be used as an example. One, UNIX is fairly stagnant. Catching it was only a question of time. Two, Linux did and does not require the use of someone else's patents to be implemented. Three, AT&T does not have a long history of purposely breaking compatibility with other UNIX vendors. Just imagine AT&T constantly breaking TCP/IP specifications and implementations to cause fragmentation.
Your comparision seems to highlight that you don't have enough facts and surrounding history to completely understand the situation.
Great quote! I love how it ignores basic facts of the players in question, not to mention the very, very long history of Microsoft's monopoly and abuse of the market.
Nope...sure wouldn't want basic facts known, for people to make a decision.
You can either look at history and nod knowingly, this is going to be bad for everyone except for Microsoft, or you can be a sucker and get kicked in the nuts, some time down the road, for the 1000th-time, and try your best to act suprised. While everyone around is laughing and pointing at the sheer stupidity of it all, I might add. Meanwhile, +10 points for Microsoft. Good thing you were there to help them. They sure needed help with their monopoly!
I agree. Supporting MONO is very, very, very short sighted, closed minded, and selfish to boot. It is only helpful to Microsoft. The majority of the world doesn't care about .NET, at least not currently. This only adds fuel to the fire to speed migration to .NET and potential lock-in and legal action down the road.
.GNU project has slightly different goals, so I'm not nearly as harsh on the project. Just the same, MONO is a huge waste of dollars and man-hours. Just think what could be done if they chased after making Python bigger, faster, more robust. Python with a native JIT compiler, plus wxPython, would rock. Would be crossplatform, and would be wicked fast. What about helping boost Java? I'm no Java fan, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense to support Java than it does .NET.
The
I think you nailed it completely. The writing is on the wall for anyone that cares to look and read. You've even spelled it out. History is clear. Sadly, there will be many, many idiots that refuse to see what's clubbing them on the head. I guess once a fool, always a fool.
Take a look at the MONO project folks. Look whos leading it. Now, look at all of the problems, misdirection, false starts, and bad implementations that came from that project. Gnome still suffers today from all of the bad decisions.
Who of you are going to read the writing on the wall? Who of you are going to remain the fool?
No idea why this was rated, "insightful". I suggest you go read the article again. Or, prehaps you're missing a very basic set of commonly accepted facts. Microsoft doesn't own patents on C++ technology. In fact, C++ does not originate from Microsoft. Microsoft is also not using C++ to leverage their monopoly. Microsoft would be unable to leverage C++ to leverage their monopoly because C++ isn't their technology base.
/dev/null. It adds no value to the discussion.
Now that you know even the most basic of facts, perhaps now you'll understand why your posting belongs in
They are called wxWindows, ACE and TAO. Did I miss anything?
No, I didn't miss your point at all. It's just the I'm tired of hearing exactly your comment from people that clearly don't have any idea what they are talking about.
I am, by no means, an awesome AA player. I get spanked on a regular basis. I have no problem playing or finding players with skills that far exceed my own. Likewise, I certainly don't have the fastest net connection in the world. Not to mention, my system certainly isn't the fastest either. Put those all together, I get my arse handed to me on a regular basis. No complaints here. That's part of the game. That's life. As such, it's VERY easy to decern cheaters from skilled players. No matter how skilled you are, you are not going to single-shot headshot me through a wall where you have zero visibility...let alone, round after round...and half the team, at that, while still being half way across the map.
How about the run cheats? Hmmm...two players are running 10x faster than everyone else. I guess they are just more skilled too. What about hte guy that can point his gun at the ground, with his back to you, and headshot you, first shot? He must be really skilled! Impossibly so. What about the guys that can shoot their 203's, from within a building, having zero visibility on anything outside that room, and rain them down directly on your head, everytime, no matter where you are at...nope, no radar and/or aim bot there....it's just skill. How abou they guys that can headshot your with a 203 round everytime. Even though they normally won't blow, with a luck shot, those "skilled" players, somehow, pull it off.
I could go on and on. This has nothing to do with skill. You can observe skill. You can learn from skill. But what you can't do is, constantly, every round, break the statistical odds and call every headshot a luckshot. Headshot once, fine. Headshot twice, maybe. Three times? Somthing fishy? Maybe? Everytime? That is one cheating SOB and people like you are keeping them on the server.
I'm constantly amazed at how stupid people can be when playing these games when it's so obvious. And the ignorance shared here, is a major contributor to why so many cheaters get by, not being held accountable.
Be part of the solution...not part of the problem.
Sometimes they are just really good/lucky and not a cheater.
You're right. I have no problem with luck shots. Sometimes they happen. They just don't happen, every round, through walls, taking out the majority of the team, round after round. Either you've never played AA, or you're just very, very, very naive.
So tired of hearing this. In AA, after you die, you almost always get a dead camera view of your body. Being headshot, while the enemy had zero visibility, in no way, shape, or form, can be confused with a lucky shot. Specially when one guy is taking out 1/2 or more of the team by him self in something like 2 or three minutes, all single shot headshots. Total BS. Naive opinions like yours are part of the cheating problem.
Put it this way. Almost everytime I've had to call an admin, someone has been kick or banned. Only once have I ever been kicked by an admin, and it was because of the situation I outlined above. People like you, which attempt to give the beneift of the doubt to a cheater rather than an experienced player, only encourage and further enrage people that have been wronged. In other words, you're knowingly or unknowingly, part of the problem, as it would be so much easier to simply get the votes to kick the losers off.
And, BTW, comparing cheat detection and gameplay between two completely difference games is completely worthless. That's right, saying Tribes compares to AA, is completely wrong. Any time you have two games which use two different sets of net code, you're going to have completely different oddities and quirks.
The rest of your comments can be safely ignored as it does not reflect AA's gameplay, not one bit.
Hehe. Thanks for the reply.
;)
The answer is, no, it didn't just happen. It is, however, a sore spot. When I go to play the game, I do so to relax, unwind, and shoot some bad-guys. The frustration added by cheaters removes most of the enjoyment from the game.
Once I've determined that someone is cheating, it always leaves me wondering, what kind of sorry sack, they are in real life. Recently, I've started pointing this fact out...about the fact that their family life probably sucks, their parents probably dislike or resent them, and that they probably have no friends, etc... Seems, I too, have found a sore spot with several of these losers. Surprisingly, I've recently made two losers realize just how much of a loser they are. They left the server and game balance was restored. Which, seems to confirm that the personalities that do cheat, do so as a cry for help to escape their pathetic life. Seems online reminders of how pethetic they are is enough to force the more sorrowful to go elsewhere for their twisted enjoyment.
That's two points for me!
Cheers!
Well, the sad thing is, that's the way it is in the vast majority of business. If you can't see this, it means one of three things. One, you're part of the problem and can't see it. Two, you're one of the ignornant masses and are too ignorant to realize what's going on. Three, you have been sheltered your whole life by being so very, very lucky, that you haven't been out int he workplace enough to see it your self.
Regardless, trust me when I say, it's the majority of PHBs. People skills are what make the world go round! If you have doubts about that, you need to seriously question what you're doing in a place of business.
There are a ton of cheaters on AA!! I'm an avid AA player and cheaters are rather common. Some days, it's hard to find a server that doesn't have at least one cheater on it. Other days, people that are not using cheats, are in the minority.
AA makes use of Punk Buster. While PB is better than nothing, it's only as good as it's latest update. If I create a new cheat-hack for AA tomorrow, it may take a month of more for the PB guys to get it, probe it, and write a PB detection signature for it. At which time, I'm free to start the hack again.
Worse, there are some clans, where the whole clan cheats! If you complain about being headshot through a wall, where they couldn't even see you, expect to get booted, whereby, you may lose honor points. If you get an admin, expect the whole clan to lie about them cheating and claim that YOU were kicked for cheating. They will then nicely ask to have you banned. As such, many people just take cheating with a grin, and bare it.
In short, cheaters are a common annoyance on AA.
For the life of me, I honestly can't grasp the depths of loser-dom, that one has have, to be a cheater on a FPS game. But, there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of them. Seriously, how small does your ego have to be? How pathetic do you have to be in the real world where cheating in an imaginary world is your only escape. While they often get the last laugh in the game, I have no doubt that life gets the last laugh at them, all the time. What losers!
You missed the point. PHB's don't want to share the details with their people because soon, very soon, they will be making better, more informed decisions than the PHB. So, it's safer for their job to simply nod, feel good that they know more than you, and then completely ignore you.
Most PHB's may not know business or technology, however, they almost always know people. Which is usually how they got the job in the first place. By keeping their underlings ignorant, they can look better in the eyes of upper management. This works exctly as it did 200+ years ago. The kings prefer to have ignorant masses as they are much easier to manipulate and control.
It's not that I'm harsh because of their systems and their investments in them. More power to them. It's that a lot of these guys think they can tell the sex of a fly, by the bzzz of it's wings, 200m away. In otherwords, they are idiots because they imagine audio differences that, either don't exist in the first place, or would require something other than their ear, to hear in the first place.
If an audiophile wants to have a rock-n system with ultra crisp, clear sound, I have no problem in the world with that. Even better, when they invite me over. Just the same, let's use a little logic and common sense here. When is the last time you saw an audiophile install crappy wiring? Ya, that's right, chances are, their first whack is already pretty high-end, if not outright ultra. Then, they go and spend 10x the amount of money on a new wiring because it's the newest ultra-high-end. Fine with me. But when they suddenly say, "listen....that's sooo much better than what I had before", when chances are, even if there is an improvement, the human ear couldn't even register it in the first place.
See the difference? They want to spend money and have fun with their toys? Great! Who doesn't? Just stop shoving crap at me about how much better an obviously undetectible change is. Simple fact is, my hearing is better than the vast majority of humans and even runs well beyond the average human in the upper ranges. You're talking to a guy that has heard supposedly "sonic" (of course, it's not) motion detectors at banks before. And yes, they hurt my ears. Thusly, people have referred to my hearing as "dog hearing". So yes, I appreciate good sound; perhaps more so than the next guy.
As soon as money comes into the equation for email, only an absolute idiot is going to thank that the government isn't going to start taxing it!
Supporting micro payments is simply going to be another form of tax revenue. Not only does this plan make zero sense, but I certainly don't want to have to pay to email AND pay taxes on it too! I already pay for my DSL connection. I pay for my hardware. I pay for my time. I don't want to have to pay again, for everything I've already paid for.
The short line of idiots is over there! No thanks...I'm going elsewhere.
This guy is riding high on the clue train!
:)
Toooot! Tooooot!
Welcome aboard!
...and the chances that you'll actually "hear" the difference. Zero.
If you increase the quality of the sound by 1%, via a cable, that 1% is easily lost in all of the other parts that actually produce the sound. Most audiophiles are idiots.
Get real. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Want enterprise storage? Get PostgreSQL for free or fork up the money for Oracle. But then again, neither of those are Java, now are they.
The real enterprise stuff is expensive.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stuff? What stuff? I thought we were talking about Java?
I have to cry BS here.
Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE
Many small to medium size businesses do not purchase Linux. They have their techie download and install it. Cost zero. Furthermore, since you can do more with less hardware, when you run Linux, many people recycle older boxes (cost zero) or buy smaller boxes with better raid or storage facilities. So, generally speaking, you either get more for your buck or outright save on hardware.
Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).
Last several studies I've seen show that Unix admins tend to be on par with Windows admins. In shops where it differs, on average, there is only a 10% difference. Seems more experienced Unix admins, on average, are either being under paid or, more often from my own experience, win admins are being over paid, far, far too much. I'm sorry, I've yet to meet a win admin that's worth 70-120K. Yet, some companies pay it.
MS selected specific scenerios to favor them. For example, File and Print have never been a strong spot for Unix -- Novell and MS have owned that segement for years and years. It will be interesting to see what Novell/SuSE puts on the market.
From a performance perspective, Samba is mopping the floor, last I heard. So, I not sure why anyone would pick windows here.
And as for J2EE -- some of the tools are ridiclously expensive, so that's a pretty easy cost study to rig.
Nonsense. Java is cheap. There are a ton of free, high quality tools to do Java development. For the most part, you have develope an entire java toolset, of commercial quality and highly regarded, for free.
In a nutshell, Linux is always going to be cheaper, faster, and more versitile.
Except the obvious problem with your statement is...hardware usually can not be retools, redesigned, and reimplemented to work around hardware problems; especially once they are in space. Software, on the other hand, can often be changed, fixed, improved, and revised, to address any number of issues which may occur. With hardware, you have to have *extra* redundant systems to allow for minor faults, which software may of been able to easily work around. In short, it adds hardware complexity (versus software complexity) and weight, while removing flexibility and robustness. A strong mix of robust hardware and the dynamic capibilities of software will make for the best solution.
I would say that it doesn't sound like you've thought this through very well.
People also seem to be forgetting that Hal-whatits, was charging way more than the commonly accepted price for fuel. Comming from an oil rich country, he was charging something like 4 or 5 bucks a gallon. On the news, they stated there was supposed to be talks to work something out. I never heard what happened. More than likely, Bush steped in and infomred them that he was a buddy of his and to leave the deal alone. It's war, after all.
Personally, I think what you guys are doing is great. As usual, there are many people that are either too ignorant to know a good thing or too clueless to realize that companies have to exist too.
What Real is doing, is good stuff. Keep up the effort!
Don't take this the wrong way, but I meant something OTHER than the article in question.
I wish I had this in the first message...but oh well. I'm actually not sure when a simple AA missile wouldn't take care of it. Even with ECM onboard, I doubt it's as sophisticated as what is commonly used on modern fighters and I seriously doubt, it's going to be able to intelligently and actively avoid being hit. It's the combination of dodge, chaff, ecm, and flares, why fighters do as well as they do. When they fly in a straight line, or near to one, the odds of them being killed is *GREATLY* increased.
...then then, this is all arm-chair whatif... ;)
If you think of it as a small, fast jet, I have no idea why AA-missile wouldn't address it as they do any other intercepter. Many AA-missiles travel at mach-2 and even mach-3+. At the kind of range that one would think a cruise missile is right for (stand off munition), you would think the door is open for a successful interception.
I'm actually not sure that's true. If you use modern radar, such as is common with Western Powers, and fire AA-missiles, I don't think the results are currently know. What about the two other AA/AM efforts which are deployed? Again, I'm not sure that the results are known.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not talking absolutes here. If you have credible information you want to point me at, please do so. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't be willing to make such a bold statement in such absolute terms.
Yes, that's all fine and dandy, however, it side steps the valid points which the grandparent post was making. First of all, the Tomahawk is a fairly old re-tooled missile. Second of all, it purposely yields speed for range. Which, by the way, is why the missile does NAP of the earth flying. It's unclear if India's missile does this too. Based on it's speed, I seriously doubt it. So, while they talk down how slow the Tomahawk is and great their fast missile is, is doesn't change the facts. Simple fact is, they are marketing this missile for resale. Fact is, with that in mind, it GREATLY limits the theaters, for which it can participate. Basically, unless your neighbor is the one being naughty, this cruise missile is going to be very fast indeed. If will very fastly be ignored as a usable weapon. That is, again, unless it just happens to be your neighbor that's being naughty.
;)
I'm sure they'll sale. There are lots of borders with tension. Just the same, they imbarass themselves by comparing it with the Tomahawk.
Missiles compared:
Tomahawk: Slow, but flies nap to avoid radar and has a very, very long range. Smarts are very smart. Missile purposely attempts to avoid radar, by design.
India's new missile: Fast and more than likely flies in high radar visibility paths. Thusly, attempts to use speed to negate this. Very limited range. Probably fairly simple smarts inside.
So, which would you use? Fast target seen on radar or slow target, rarely, if at all, seen on radar? Pick your poison.
1) A local contracting group would of ramped just as fast...if not faster. Especially in this market!
2) High powered programmers are readily available in the US, especially in this market! Probably would of actually been high-powered programmers, if they were higher locally rather than India's high-powered, "medioker" programmers.
3) In this market, there really isn't an excuse to not have A/A+ code, unless time to market completely prevents it. You took a serious support and long term maintenance ding here.
I would say, over all, you did a little worse to a lot worse by going offshore. Having said that, I must say I congradulate you! To date, I have never, ever, seen an Indian offshore project come in on time or on budget. Every project that I know of, directly or by second person, has been so far over budget, a US group would still have room to go far over budget. Worse, every Indian project that I know of directly or second hand, have all been late; thusly, *one* of the primary reasons for it being far over budget. In most cases, these projects were 3-6-months late. One I know, was two years late, and millions over budget. To date, I know of no first or second hand account where offshore software projects actually came in cheaper or on time. Worse, the code, seems to always match your experience. That is, the quality tends to range from F, all the way to B. Never seen A/A++ code, nor even heard of it ever being high quality. Worse, ongoing software support costs, in the long term, always have cause to make people dig, far, far, deeper into their wallet.
From my experience, going offshore is not only bad for the local economy, it's just plain bad business. I've never known anyone that wants to pay extra for an inferior product, delivered late, yet people seem to do it over and over again. To me, this is exactly what off shore programming means. Every time!