Let's rephrase that: Republican mediocre president: Spend tons of money and lots of lives on vague possibilities, including going sideways from the original target. Democratic intellectual president: Give them enough rope to hang themselves, without doing anything rash.
I'll take the guy with the brain between the ears, thanks.
Besides, just TRY to see it from their side, poor and information-starved and paranoid and trapped in a historic backwater: "Everyone outside hates us, as of the last we heard". I'll bet it's closer to "everyone outside doesn't care about them, if they remember they exist at all", but they'll never hear enough unfiltered news to know that. I feel mildly sorry for the common folk there, much as I would for those with the bad luck to be born in the Dark Ages.
I believe I mentioned the "multiple competing interests". And my slight exaggeration includes the phrase "which misses.. the point". I stand by my core point, in general agreement with the masses of posters wondering why more people haven't voted with their feet and left EA completely.
For myself, I gave up on computer gaming when I realized that I would never get to 50% of the content I had paid for. I switched to emphasizing FTF tabletop gaming in my schedule instead.
all logic and reason goes out the window, . . . and capitalism falls apart.
No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't. Economists also fail to factor in the multiple competing interests involved, like "How much cash will I burn so I can play with my friends". If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.
Larry Niven, "All the Myriad Ways". Of course you change history. Since you're in the same history you started in, you don't know it. And the other history goes on through multidimensional spacetimewhatever and everyone in *that* one thinks that everything is the same too.
Or, for that matter, that all shares are directly owned by people.
OK, I'll grant you that it's not "demo"cracy, but I maintain my more general point that it IS an equal vote for an equal stake in the outcome, and as such is fair and open - perhaps fairer than the broken supposedly-democratic system in the US.
Your new point is also very important - the largest blocks of shares are *not* directly owned by people, but by mutual funds and retirement funds and things like that. Each individual person in that fund might have chosen to vote one way if they had control of their shares as personal holdings, but the fund managers may well vote the other way
because (a) they feel differently (which might be why they got into the financial industry) and (b) even if they may *personally* agree with everyone else, their professional calculations tell them "the greatest profit is to hold our noses and vote for the thing we don't like" (which is some people's feeling about mutual funds in the first place - they can feel that their own hands are clean because they didn't make the harsh decisions that produced their dividends).
Management just for profit means destroying companies in the long term.
Management for profit is a simple requirement for company survival . ..
Three posters missed the point - JUST for profit. Agreed, of course a company must profit to survive. Remember, though, the heyday of Japanese growth two or three decades ago, when people pointed out that Japanese companies would trade profit to get market share, and Japanese executives and politicians would all speak of the longer term position in their industries.
MBAs want to make more profit NOW. Not just this quarter, or this month, but NOW. And they don't care if it's only on paper, or only stealing sales figures from tomorrow. They will play a shell game to look better in the short run without producing anything.
Engineers want to make a better product that will make profit by being better and selling better and beating the competition. Then you make it more efficiently and save money at the same time as you beat the competition harder. That improves industries. Unfortunately we're not doing it as much in the US, and the MBAs are in charge.
One share one vote is democracy. In politics, each human counts, because each human has a stake; in business, each share counts, because you can have different stakes. (Of course, that doesn't count the electoral college etc.) It's the "default is you agree" instead of "no vote means no vote" that makes it autocratic.
Eternity is the time required for all possible things to happen at least once. The odds of any particular event happening at any particular time may be low; the odds of it happening over eternity are 100%
Kinesiology is not quackery. The name is sometimes used for some things that are quackery, but it's supposed to be the study of movement combining (or including) aspects of biomechanics, sports training, fitness, physical therapy, etc.
Right. There was darkness, and then light was created, and then the light was separated from the darkness into distinct lighted objects. Alternatively, what you are describing sounds to me like a generally high energy level all around, so any one spot might not be discernible as "light" relative to another. And we leave as an exercise for the reader whether "light" is the energy or the recognition thereof ("the rays are not coloured" - Newton).
I have always found it amusing to listen to Bible-thumping preachers "logically proving" something through "the word", or detailing the meaning of some particular passage, without considering which edition of which translation through however many languages their particular "word" went through. Aramaic, Hebrew, various levels of Greek, multiple levels of English - how can we argue about "the word" when we can't possibly be sure what the words are? Even the Hebrew Torah (five books of the Old Testament to you latecomers), copied letter for letter with extreme care, is always written by human hands and therefore a possibly fallible copy, even to the initial copy written by the hand of Moses - or the editorial committee that probably merged together multiple variants at some point.
Personally I believe there's a large grain of truth to the historical stuff (one-sided, of course, but valid as seen from that one side), some useful ethnographic information about animal husbandry and nomadic living, and - most important - the goal of having a literate, educated population even in a very-low-technology society. That's how you advance your family/tribe faster than your more numerous neighbors.
But without phones, and their wires, and the need to build out infrastructure, there wouldn't be as much precedence (or physical location!) for all of the IP cabling/fiber that's replacing it. And that includes the physical wires that transport the long-distance part of cellphone calls too. In other news, movable type didn't suck just because we have laser printers now.
When Skype connects users to *actual land-line phones,* they are using the same limited publicly-subsidized infrastructure as every other telco. This is the rationale for regulation, not Skype's internet-only telephony practices.
Not really; they're using the *other telco* itself. They are making an outbound local call from their local site, like any other call center business, using the local telco. If I sent an email to a friend in France asking him to call a French business for information, the call between my friend and the business would be all local, plus nobody would consider that I should pay a postage stamp price to France for my friend to have received the email. VOIPing to a local site in France is the same thing in real time.
I worked at a computer-telephony company on a super-secret new protocol called ADSI to combine voice and data simultaneously on a phone call. A little analog filtering, a bit of digital signal processing. Typical chicken-and-egg problem - we had a great pizza-ordering demo for the combined voice and data (much more fun than the financial demo Marketing originally thought of), but no store (or industry!) wanted to buy a server since no customers had the phones yet, and nobody was buying phones because there was no such service and the phones cost $200 to $300. Then the Internet and smarthphones made the whole concept ludicrously obsolete anyway.
False flag certainly seems possible. So does stupidity or accident, which is simpler. Occam's Razor. As others have pointed out, RC hobbyists know better than to fly near airports, while someone with a brand new toy probably thought it would be cool to get video of planes and didn't even realize he'd lose the thing once it went out of range, and - worse - never even thought about the danger. As for statistics, if the whole game was to get cool video of planes, OF COURSE it's directly in the flight path - not because of malevolent intent, but because of LACK of ANY forethought.
Camera drones are a nice toy. Every idiot in town being a high-tech peeping tom with zero effort is a pain in the ass. Somewhere in the middle is a sensible tradeoff.
Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually try to get one of those slow remote control quadrocopters to intersect with a jet airliner going a few hundred miles per hour.
Do you think it's any harder than getting one of those slow ducks to get sucked into jet airliner's engine and cause an emergency landing in a nearby river?
Just consider, for a moment, that accepting one's parent's foibles is a kindness. Karma-producing, even. Just like not getting upset about baby drool.
Then remember that the reason this is such an effective infection vector is because there are SO MANY PEOPLE like this. There are entire industries creating wreaths, and window stickers, and seasonal decorations.
Now go back and attempt to consider the original question with more compassion for the ignorant user, and less snark for the helper. You can count it as your good deed for the day.
A lot of IT people feel that way too. It works, sort of, they know how to keep most users happy most of the time, and it's reliable at what it does. It's like fast food, or maybe a fast-casual chain restaurant. Children might even prefer its predictability. It has its place in the world.
No. Because it's not local to my computer, and I can't take it with me or physically secure it, and I have to be connected. If I wanted a dumb terminal with a remote mainframe, I would have stayed in the 1960s where I started.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's rephrase that: Republican mediocre president: Spend tons of money and lots of lives on vague possibilities, including going sideways from the original target. Democratic intellectual president: Give them enough rope to hang themselves, without doing anything rash.
I'll take the guy with the brain between the ears, thanks.
Besides, just TRY to see it from their side, poor and information-starved and paranoid and trapped in a historic backwater: "Everyone outside hates us, as of the last we heard". I'll bet it's closer to "everyone outside doesn't care about them, if they remember they exist at all", but they'll never hear enough unfiltered news to know that. I feel mildly sorry for the common folk there, much as I would for those with the bad luck to be born in the Dark Ages.
I believe I mentioned the "multiple competing interests". And my slight exaggeration includes the phrase "which misses.. the point". I stand by my core point, in general agreement with the masses of posters wondering why more people haven't voted with their feet and left EA completely.
For myself, I gave up on computer gaming when I realized that I would never get to 50% of the content I had paid for. I switched to emphasizing FTF tabletop gaming in my schedule instead.
all logic and reason goes out the window, . . . and capitalism falls apart.
No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't. Economists also fail to factor in the multiple competing interests involved, like "How much cash will I burn so I can play with my friends". If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.
Larry Niven, "All the Myriad Ways". Of course you change history. Since you're in the same history you started in, you don't know it. And the other history goes on through multidimensional spacetimewhatever and everyone in *that* one thinks that everything is the same too.
Or, for that matter, that all shares are directly owned by people.
OK, I'll grant you that it's not "demo"cracy, but I maintain my more general point that it IS an equal vote for an equal stake in the outcome, and as such is fair and open - perhaps fairer than the broken supposedly-democratic system in the US.
Your new point is also very important - the largest blocks of shares are *not* directly owned by people, but by mutual funds and retirement funds and things like that. Each individual person in that fund might have chosen to vote one way if they had control of their shares as personal holdings, but the fund managers may well vote the other way because (a) they feel differently (which might be why they got into the financial industry) and (b) even if they may *personally* agree with everyone else, their professional calculations tell them "the greatest profit is to hold our noses and vote for the thing we don't like" (which is some people's feeling about mutual funds in the first place - they can feel that their own hands are clean because they didn't make the harsh decisions that produced their dividends).
Management just for profit means destroying companies in the long term.
Management for profit is a simple requirement for company survival . . .
Three posters missed the point - JUST for profit. Agreed, of course a company must profit to survive. Remember, though, the heyday of Japanese growth two or three decades ago, when people pointed out that Japanese companies would trade profit to get market share, and Japanese executives and politicians would all speak of the longer term position in their industries.
MBAs want to make more profit NOW. Not just this quarter, or this month, but NOW. And they don't care if it's only on paper, or only stealing sales figures from tomorrow. They will play a shell game to look better in the short run without producing anything.
Engineers want to make a better product that will make profit by being better and selling better and beating the competition. Then you make it more efficiently and save money at the same time as you beat the competition harder. That improves industries. Unfortunately we're not doing it as much in the US, and the MBAs are in charge.
One share one vote is democracy. In politics, each human counts, because each human has a stake; in business, each share counts, because you can have different stakes. (Of course, that doesn't count the electoral college etc.) It's the "default is you agree" instead of "no vote means no vote" that makes it autocratic.
No, you can't trust those wandering minstrels, you never know where they've been.
. . . which you can pass around and/or borrow at the library for free?
Eternity is the time required for all possible things to happen at least once. The odds of any particular event happening at any particular time may be low; the odds of it happening over eternity are 100%
Kinesiology is not quackery. The name is sometimes used for some things that are quackery, but it's supposed to be the study of movement combining (or including) aspects of biomechanics, sports training, fitness, physical therapy, etc.
Right. There was darkness, and then light was created, and then the light was separated from the darkness into distinct lighted objects. Alternatively, what you are describing sounds to me like a generally high energy level all around, so any one spot might not be discernible as "light" relative to another. And we leave as an exercise for the reader whether "light" is the energy or the recognition thereof ("the rays are not coloured" - Newton).
I have always found it amusing to listen to Bible-thumping preachers "logically proving" something through "the word", or detailing the meaning of some particular passage, without considering which edition of which translation through however many languages their particular "word" went through. Aramaic, Hebrew, various levels of Greek, multiple levels of English - how can we argue about "the word" when we can't possibly be sure what the words are? Even the Hebrew Torah (five books of the Old Testament to you latecomers), copied letter for letter with extreme care, is always written by human hands and therefore a possibly fallible copy, even to the initial copy written by the hand of Moses - or the editorial committee that probably merged together multiple variants at some point.
Personally I believe there's a large grain of truth to the historical stuff (one-sided, of course, but valid as seen from that one side), some useful ethnographic information about animal husbandry and nomadic living, and - most important - the goal of having a literate, educated population even in a very-low-technology society. That's how you advance your family/tribe faster than your more numerous neighbors.
. . . . oh, wait, that was outdoors from a hotel balcony with a telescope. My mistake.
You tie into the Telco, you need to play by the regulations for Telco.
Reductio ad absurdum: When you pick up the phone, you tie into the Telco. So YOU should be considered a Telco? I think not.
Phones are bad,clunky and OLD!
But without phones, and their wires, and the need to build out infrastructure, there wouldn't be as much precedence (or physical location!) for all of the IP cabling/fiber that's replacing it. And that includes the physical wires that transport the long-distance part of cellphone calls too. In other news, movable type didn't suck just because we have laser printers now.
When Skype connects users to *actual land-line phones,* they are using the same limited publicly-subsidized infrastructure as every other telco. This is the rationale for regulation, not Skype's internet-only telephony practices.
Not really; they're using the *other telco* itself. They are making an outbound local call from their local site, like any other call center business, using the local telco. If I sent an email to a friend in France asking him to call a French business for information, the call between my friend and the business would be all local, plus nobody would consider that I should pay a postage stamp price to France for my friend to have received the email. VOIPing to a local site in France is the same thing in real time.
I worked at a computer-telephony company on a super-secret new protocol called ADSI to combine voice and data simultaneously on a phone call. A little analog filtering, a bit of digital signal processing. Typical chicken-and-egg problem - we had a great pizza-ordering demo for the combined voice and data (much more fun than the financial demo Marketing originally thought of), but no store (or industry!) wanted to buy a server since no customers had the phones yet, and nobody was buying phones because there was no such service and the phones cost $200 to $300. Then the Internet and smarthphones made the whole concept ludicrously obsolete anyway.
False flag certainly seems possible. So does stupidity or accident, which is simpler. Occam's Razor. As others have pointed out, RC hobbyists know better than to fly near airports, while someone with a brand new toy probably thought it would be cool to get video of planes and didn't even realize he'd lose the thing once it went out of range, and - worse - never even thought about the danger. As for statistics, if the whole game was to get cool video of planes, OF COURSE it's directly in the flight path - not because of malevolent intent, but because of LACK of ANY forethought.
Camera drones are a nice toy. Every idiot in town being a high-tech peeping tom with zero effort is a pain in the ass. Somewhere in the middle is a sensible tradeoff.
Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to actually try to get one of those slow remote control quadrocopters to intersect with a jet airliner going a few hundred miles per hour.
Do you think it's any harder than getting one of those slow ducks to get sucked into jet airliner's engine and cause an emergency landing in a nearby river?
What's the difference?
Just consider, for a moment, that accepting one's parent's foibles is a kindness. Karma-producing, even. Just like not getting upset about baby drool.
Then remember that the reason this is such an effective infection vector is because there are SO MANY PEOPLE like this. There are entire industries creating wreaths, and window stickers, and seasonal decorations.
Now go back and attempt to consider the original question with more compassion for the ignorant user, and less snark for the helper. You can count it as your good deed for the day.
And that their page actually has some content on it instead of cross-referencing some other MSDN document that I can't get to.
A lot of IT people feel that way too. It works, sort of, they know how to keep most users happy most of the time, and it's reliable at what it does. It's like fast food, or maybe a fast-casual chain restaurant. Children might even prefer its predictability. It has its place in the world.
Might I suggest NAS?
No. Because it's not local to my computer, and I can't take it with me or physically secure it, and I have to be connected. If I wanted a dumb terminal with a remote mainframe, I would have stayed in the 1960s where I started.