Re:It follows logically that drinkers would get mo
on
Socializing For The Win?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
However, I would like to point out that in the typical small office, when a salesperson fails the whole company suffers and engineers can get laid off right along with an underperforming salesperson.
We could have this argument all day.. an underperforming sales person doesn't have a good product to sell because of the engineer, etc. Also, the reason why sales people have quarterly quotas is to avoid situations like the one you described. If the company only has one sales person, and can't suffer a bad quota from that one sales person without laying off engineers, I'd say that company was already walking on eggshells to begin with (and I'd question anybody who took a job there with long-term employment in mind).
Re:It follows logically that drinkers would get mo
on
Socializing For The Win?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
So you, in your little basement office with the desk pushed all the way to the wall, get to churn out KLOCs until your fingers cramp up with CTS for a fixed salary. They, in their windowed corner offices with lovely assistants and fresh flowers, meet with customers and hammer out deals over a fifth of Wild Turkey and get paid a commission of their generated revenue. When you get to selling million dollar contracts, those margins add up really fast.
Bitter much? Remember, sales people lose their job when they don't meet quota. That's top-line revenue for the company -- they can snort cocaine off a hooker's ass while attending our quarterly earnings meeting for all I care.. they either deliver that revenue or get thrown out. Try planning around the fact that you may not have a job in less than three months, and repeat that every three months until you retire. I have a feeling your attitude towards their behavior will change dramatically.
I'm not an executive, so I don't know what everybody else makes. Additionally, most of the people who do have that information are not going to immediately know who is a social drinker and who isn't, unless it's at a small company.
To answer the other questions, regular drinker = someone who consumes alcohol regularly (once per day/week/month/etc). Social drinker = anybody who drinks with others, i.e., doesn't pickup a bottle of rum on the way home to get drunk by him/herself. Those two answers are just common sense, but you did ask.
The message headers posted above illustrate perfectly what's happening, if you'd read them before commenting then you wouldn't have made such a complete dick of yourself. Just because you are eager to jump to the wrong conclusion that doesn't give you the right to chastise those asking for more info.
That's the point - I didn't need to look anything else. Considering I didn't jump the wrong conclusion, I don't think I missed anything by skipping over those headers. I may have typo'd which site was doing the SMTP callbacks, but that was obviously not the focus of my original message.
Hint: Bounces (NDRs) are mostly presented in a standard format. The bounce "message" provides little useful content beyond the reason (error message) why it was bounced. Since that reason was included in the original post you replied to, there's nothing to gain by reviewing the headers of the bounce itself. This problem is obviously domain-specific as opposed to server-specific, so we know where the mail came from, and we know where it's going (two bits of information the Received headers would provide).
Although, if you have no clue what you're talking about, asking for headers can serve as a credible foundation for a future excuse as to why you can't solve the problem. Maybe you could prove me wrong by pointing out which headers you used to track this problem down..?
Yes, actually it does explain the problem. The envelope sending address that Sourceforge is using does not exist on their mail server. Gmail is actually checking that during the SMTP conversation and then rejecting the message with a 451 error when it figures out that the address is invalid.
It's OK to say, "I don't know". Asking for more information when you really don't need it is just wasting time.
You know how Spike Lee calls all his films "A Spike Lee Joint"? For some reason, when I read 80% of the stories posted by Zonk, I can't help but think how perfect this fits:
A Zonk Troll
It's like he picks stories relating to the little guy vs. the big guy, money hungry corporations, articles that are critical of Microsoft/Apple/Dell/etc... all with the intention of getting people riled up. Sadly, it usually works - but I guess that's what A Zonk Troll is all about. Holla!
Yum and apt are availible in RedHat/Fedora That can't be what all the portage fans are raving about.
I've used RedHat/Fedora, and it's never as easy as just running "yum". First, you have to figure out the source for the RPM you want (freshrpms, etc). Past that, it just never seems to work the way I want it to. Granted, that's probably user error; however, portage never gave me a single problem. It just worked (after the long and very educational system setup), and it's been working ever since.
USE flags are also a big one.. basically any option to 'configure' (i.e., --enable-whatever) can be turned on or off using "USE" flags. These are set globally or per-application, so you can keep things consistent between various applications. I've grown so accustomed to them that I forgot that every OS doesn't have them.
So, is there a comparison somewhere that explains the greatness of portage? Or can you clear things up for me?
# man emerge
Seriously, go use portage for a couple weeks. Then go use some RPM-based package manager. Portage requires very little effort.. I could teach my mother to use it, because it does everything for you. Brand new system, and you need to use firefox? "emerge mozilla-firefox" The rest is taken care of (X11, glib, GTK+, etc)
What are you going to do when the first major OS X vulenerability does get exploited? "Sorry guys, our IT department is incompetent, so we're going to have to let you all go"?
I'll either click "Install" when the patch window pops up, or initiate the process myself (and then click "Install") when I see an email from our IT department asking me to do so. You're assuming that a large group of people can't/won't do that for some reason - I'm not sure if you own a Mac, or if you've ever seen how patches are installed within OS X, but it's really that simple. There's absolutely no excuse for not doing it, especially when not doing it means ignoring instructions that everyone previously agreed to follow (signing off on the company handbook).
"Sorry guys, our IT department is incompetent, so we're going to have to let you all go"?
More along the lines of "you're incompetent, get the hell out." Even though it wouldn't happen, let's pretend it was everyone. What would you do if everyone started stealing from your company? Or just general unethical behavior that would normally be grounds for termination? Let them off with a slap on the wrist, knowing full well you now have a company full of thieves?
At one point no vulnerabilities in Windows had been exploited either, and we all know how that turned out.
Right, but the vulnerabilities had been there all along. That's the difference.:)
I don't see why you're mentioning that. Being the best at something else doesn't say anything about how often they'll run updates on their computer.
The updates are run automatically - all the user has to do is click "Install" when the screen pops up. If one of my co-workers is incapable of pushing a button when a screen pops up once every week or two, we made a mistake in hiring him/her.
You can argue "what-ifs" all day long, but so far there hasn't ever been a vulnerability within OS X that has been exploited on a large scale (e.g., Melissa, Code Red, Blaster, etc), and I doubt there ever will be (unless they make major changes in later versions). There's simply no business case for spending money and inconveniencing people so you can be 100% sure they're not brain-dead and neglected to press the "Install" button when it popped up in front of their face.
Ahh, but we do! See, my employer has one of the strictest hiring/interview processes known to man. We will never hire someone just for the sake of filling the position - the person must be the best at whatever it is they do. 300 employees later, we've never had an issue with the patch process I described in my original post, and we never will.
Unlike Windows, Mac updates generally give users new features, or other desirable things.. so most users stay on top of that stuff.
Our IT department does absolutely nothing unless a patch addressing a _major_ security hole is released, in which case they're supposed to send out an email. So far, no patch has been important enough to warrant an email. You might claim that's irresponsible, but we are talking about OS X here. If a co-worker of mine is incapable of clicking the "Install" button once every couple weeks when the auto-updater runs, I don't really want that person working with me anymore.
If anything, I'd be more worried about people running XP in Parallels and then forgetting to patch it - that's something that can cause a legitimate problem.
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
Glad someone here knows what they're talking about. This thread was seriously starting to resemble the dialog between a group of construction workers playing a game of "Which one of these is a Hard Drive?".
Yes, I'm full of it, my monitor is a Yakumo 996n, only capable of 1792 x 1344. I was mistaken.
Aha! I knew you were pulling my leg..! Now, as I was saying...
Seriously, I think you understood my original point (and just wanted to give me a bit of a hard time), and I certainly understand yours (regardless of your CRT monitor resolution). So I'll just leave it at that.
Oh, and please forgive the "basement" joke - you laid it on pretty thick in the original post, so I was determined to do the same.. regardless of "facts", or "reality".:)
I have a TV tuner in my computer and a CRT monitor capable of that resolution. Therefore I have a CRT television capable of that resolution. Therefore, you are wrong. Thanks for playing, here's your copy of Slashdot: the Home Game.
So.. any word on those model numbers? Theoretically, you should just be able to glance down (and possibly a little to the right or left) to get the make/model of your monitor - and the TV tuner should be fresh in your mind, since it's a one-of-a-kind prototype that you somehow obtained even before the vendors who make TV tuners. Hmm - still no luck?
Yeah... so, I'm going to have to go ahead and say that you're.. wrong. There is some good news, though - three words: Slashdot Home Game! Turns out I won't be needing my copy after all.. hey, perhaps you could even invite your parents down to the basement for a game or two..?
I have a TV tuner in my computer and a CRT monitor capable of that resolution. Therefore I have a CRT television capable of that resolution. Therefore, you are wrong. Thanks for playing, here's your copy of Slashdot: the Home Game.
What's the make & model of your monitor that is capable of displaying 1920x1080? Also, considering the fact that 1080p television doesn't exist right now, which TV tuner are you using that will output in 1080p? Most are limited to 1280x1024, IIRC. I certainly don't mind being wrong - but considering your makeshift "television" is a stretch to begin with, I'd like to know the model numbers.
Your UID shows me you are new here. Let me give you a little tip. Try not to sound like an arrogant know it all unless you are absolutely sure you are correct and you are directly responding to another arrogant know it all. Otherwise you will most likely be modded down.
I am an arrogant know-it-all, you insensitive clod.
A well-calibrated quality CRT showing inredible contrast and deep dark blacks in 720p or 1080i will blow away any 1080p LCD or DLP/LCoS you can find. [...] But regardless, 1080p on a CRT is perfectly doable. Production models don't exist because no one would buy them due to size/calibration/etc. Engineering on them basically stopped years ago.
I'm sure it's doable - anything is doable. My point was, for whatever reason - they don't exist outside of someone's basement.
Regarding 720p/CRT vs. 1080p, I guess that's a matter of opinion. From personal experience, given the choice between 720p plasma and a 1080p LCD, I took the 720p plasma. Part of the decision was based on quality (plasma > LCD), but also because 1080p content is about as common as 1080p CRT projectors right now. By the time 1080p content is readily available, 1080p plasmas will be affordable, so there really was no reason to rush.
Seriously, if you haven't checked out the latest plasmas lately (specifically from Pioneer), I'd highly recommend doing so. The newest models (released about 1.5 months ago) are the first ones on-par with CRT quality, both in contrast and black levels. Top of the line CRTs may have a very slight edge, but the largest "top of the line" CRT you're going to find is 34". A handful of mediocre RP CRTs are still available (RCA, Zenith, etc), but the inherent CRT advantage is not enough to give those displays an edge over a top of the line plasma (it's barely enough to make them watchable).
You don't see production models because no one wants to buy a big CRT projector, despite its technical superiority.
Since I can't keep track of every projector someone creates in their basement, I base my information off production models. If you read that thread, it's obviously not practical to use CRTs for outputting in 1080p. Sounds like there is a grand total of one computer monitor they can use to do it.
HD CRT sets do not max out at 24 inches. There are plenty of big screen rear projection HD CRT's that arguably have better picture quality than any other HD set out there when properly calibrated.
I said 34", not 24", and I was referring to direct-view CRT televisions. Either way - there aren't any 1080p RP CRT televisions, either. It's very hard to argue that a properly calibrated 720p picture looks better than a properly calibrated 1080p picture, regardless of the underlying technology.
... but they consume too much power and suffer from burn-in.
Do you know what "burn-in" really is? It occurs when an image on the screen causes certain pixels to "age" faster than others do, resulting in image retention. CRTs are just as susceptible to burn-in as a plasma is, considering they're both designed to last around the same number of hours. Plasma televisions lose the first 5% of their brightness pretty quickly - within the first 100 hours. If you "break in" a plasma for that first 100 hours with an even image across the entire screen, it will take just as much effort to burn an image into that plasma as it would a CRT monitor/television. I've heard 72 hours will burn something into a monitor, but I've never actually done it.
Regarding your other comments, re-read my original message. Hint: CRT televisions. Regardless, I refuse to believe you bought a 3860x2160 CRT monitor for $250, mainly because they don't exist.
So what, specifically, is the technical obstacle that makes 1920x1080 impossible for a CRT display, yet allows 1920x1440?
I have no idea, ask Philips - it's their monitor that won't display that particular resolution (and you're the one that linked to it). I would assume it has something to do with the 4:3 aspect ratio not lending well to the pixel density (or lack thereof) needed to display 1920x1080.
There is no reason in principle that they cannot, although I doubt if we'll be seeing 1080p consumer CRT TVs
Right, and that's exactly what I stated - there are no 1080p CRT televisions. No more, no less.
To my eye, every plasma display that I've seen looks terrible compared to my 1080i CRT, which is hardly the best available.
As a matter of opinion, I also felt this way for quite a long time. I wanted a larger, but couldn't find one that met my quality requirements. Within the past two years or so, plasma displays have improved a great deal, "fixing" many of the problems that made them impractical for so many years before. They're still not under $1K (not too far off), but the quality has definitely improved a great deal. SD content on a decent plasma (Pioneer/Panasonic) looks better than SD content on a decent CRT. I attribute this mainly to the scaler, since it's basically just doing a better job of hiding the standard-definition imperfections on the higher resolution display. HD content is obviously marvelous - plasma will get you 720p or 1080p, which I urge you to evaluate at someplace other than the local Best Buy, since they almost exclusively use suboptimal HD signals to feed their displays.
This CRT [philipschannel.com] will do 1080p with plenty of room left over.
Ignoring, for a moment, that I specifically referred to "CRT televisions" as opposed to "CRT technology" - your example does not support 1920x1080. The closest it will get is 1920x1440, and on top of that it's not the right aspect ratio.
CRT's are perfectly capable of 1080p, and higher, but no one wants to buy 1080p CRTs.
Right, and the lack of demand is probably why there aren't any 1080p CRT televisions.
I'm not arguing that CRT technology is incapable of achieving resolutions as high as 1920x1080, because there are a handful of CRT monitors that do go that high - at less-than-optimal refresh rates. Considering that plasma televisions (minimum 42 in.) and high-definition CRT televisions (max 34 in.) don't have any overlapping sizes, it's pretty obvious that the smaller of the two is going to have higher pixel density. The 2.5" handheld B&W TV I had when I was a kid had a higher pixel density than most TVs on the market today - that's doesn't make it superior.
There are 1080p CRT projectors.
Really? Who makes a 1080p CRT projector? I was under the impression that all 1080p projectors were either LCoS (SXRD), DLP, or a very small handful of other non-CRT (mostly rebranded) technologies. I must have missed a press release this morning before I woke up.. because you sound pretty sure of yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an executive, so I don't know what everybody else makes. Additionally, most of the people who do have that information are not going to immediately know who is a social drinker and who isn't, unless it's at a small company.
To answer the other questions, regular drinker = someone who consumes alcohol regularly (once per day/week/month/etc). Social drinker = anybody who drinks with others, i.e., doesn't pickup a bottle of rum on the way home to get drunk by him/herself. Those two answers are just common sense, but you did ask.
Hint: Bounces (NDRs) are mostly presented in a standard format. The bounce "message" provides little useful content beyond the reason (error message) why it was bounced. Since that reason was included in the original post you replied to, there's nothing to gain by reviewing the headers of the bounce itself. This problem is obviously domain-specific as opposed to server-specific, so we know where the mail came from, and we know where it's going (two bits of information the Received headers would provide).
Although, if you have no clue what you're talking about, asking for headers can serve as a credible foundation for a future excuse as to why you can't solve the problem. Maybe you could prove me wrong by pointing out which headers you used to track this problem down..?
Yes, actually it does explain the problem. The envelope sending address that Sourceforge is using does not exist on their mail server. Gmail is actually checking that during the SMTP conversation and then rejecting the message with a 451 error when it figures out that the address is invalid.
It's OK to say, "I don't know". Asking for more information when you really don't need it is just wasting time.
We all knew Zonk doesn't actually read the articles he links to, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous..!
You know how Spike Lee calls all his films "A Spike Lee Joint"? For some reason, when I read 80% of the stories posted by Zonk, I can't help but think how perfect this fits:
.. all with the intention of getting people riled up. Sadly, it usually works - but I guess that's what A Zonk Troll is all about. Holla!
A Zonk Troll
It's like he picks stories relating to the little guy vs. the big guy, money hungry corporations, articles that are critical of Microsoft/Apple/Dell/etc.
USE flags are also a big one.. basically any option to 'configure' (i.e., --enable-whatever) can be turned on or off using "USE" flags. These are set globally or per-application, so you can keep things consistent between various applications. I've grown so accustomed to them that I forgot that every OS doesn't have them.
Seriously, go use portage for a couple weeks. Then go use some RPM-based package manager. Portage requires very little effort.. I could teach my mother to use it, because it does everything for you. Brand new system, and you need to use firefox? "emerge mozilla-firefox" The rest is taken care of (X11, glib, GTK+, etc)
More along the lines of "you're incompetent, get the hell out." Even though it wouldn't happen, let's pretend it was everyone. What would you do if everyone started stealing from your company? Or just general unethical behavior that would normally be grounds for termination? Let them off with a slap on the wrist, knowing full well you now have a company full of thieves?
Right, but the vulnerabilities had been there all along. That's the difference.
You can argue "what-ifs" all day long, but so far there hasn't ever been a vulnerability within OS X that has been exploited on a large scale (e.g., Melissa, Code Red, Blaster, etc), and I doubt there ever will be (unless they make major changes in later versions). There's simply no business case for spending money and inconveniencing people so you can be 100% sure they're not brain-dead and neglected to press the "Install" button when it popped up in front of their face.
Unlike Windows, Mac updates generally give users new features, or other desirable things.. so most users stay on top of that stuff.
Our IT department does absolutely nothing unless a patch addressing a _major_ security hole is released, in which case they're supposed to send out an email. So far, no patch has been important enough to warrant an email. You might claim that's irresponsible, but we are talking about OS X here. If a co-worker of mine is incapable of clicking the "Install" button once every couple weeks when the auto-updater runs, I don't really want that person working with me anymore.
If anything, I'd be more worried about people running XP in Parallels and then forgetting to patch it - that's something that can cause a legitimate problem.
Seriously, I think you understood my original point (and just wanted to give me a bit of a hard time), and I certainly understand yours (regardless of your CRT monitor resolution). So I'll just leave it at that.
Oh, and please forgive the "basement" joke - you laid it on pretty thick in the original post, so I was determined to do the same.. regardless of "facts", or "reality".
Yeah... so, I'm going to have to go ahead and say that you're.. wrong. There is some good news, though - three words: Slashdot Home Game! Turns out I won't be needing my copy after all.. hey, perhaps you could even invite your parents down to the basement for a game or two..?
How about...
* Filed lawsuit against former employer due to wrongful termination.
I am an arrogant know-it-all, you insensitive clod.
Regarding 720p/CRT vs. 1080p, I guess that's a matter of opinion. From personal experience, given the choice between 720p plasma and a 1080p LCD, I took the 720p plasma. Part of the decision was based on quality (plasma > LCD), but also because 1080p content is about as common as 1080p CRT projectors right now. By the time 1080p content is readily available, 1080p plasmas will be affordable, so there really was no reason to rush.
Seriously, if you haven't checked out the latest plasmas lately (specifically from Pioneer), I'd highly recommend doing so. The newest models (released about 1.5 months ago) are the first ones on-par with CRT quality, both in contrast and black levels. Top of the line CRTs may have a very slight edge, but the largest "top of the line" CRT you're going to find is 34". A handful of mediocre RP CRTs are still available (RCA, Zenith, etc), but the inherent CRT advantage is not enough to give those displays an edge over a top of the line plasma (it's barely enough to make them watchable).
I said 34", not 24", and I was referring to direct-view CRT televisions. Either way - there aren't any 1080p RP CRT televisions, either. It's very hard to argue that a properly calibrated 720p picture looks better than a properly calibrated 1080p picture, regardless of the underlying technology.
Regarding your other comments, re-read my original message. Hint: CRT televisions. Regardless, I refuse to believe you bought a 3860x2160 CRT monitor for $250, mainly because they don't exist.
As a matter of opinion, I also felt this way for quite a long time. I wanted a larger, but couldn't find one that met my quality requirements. Within the past two years or so, plasma displays have improved a great deal, "fixing" many of the problems that made them impractical for so many years before. They're still not under $1K (not too far off), but the quality has definitely improved a great deal. SD content on a decent plasma (Pioneer/Panasonic) looks better than SD content on a decent CRT. I attribute this mainly to the scaler, since it's basically just doing a better job of hiding the standard-definition imperfections on the higher resolution display. HD content is obviously marvelous - plasma will get you 720p or 1080p, which I urge you to evaluate at someplace other than the local Best Buy, since they almost exclusively use suboptimal HD signals to feed their displays.
I'm not arguing that CRT technology is incapable of achieving resolutions as high as 1920x1080, because there are a handful of CRT monitors that do go that high - at less-than-optimal refresh rates. Considering that plasma televisions (minimum 42 in.) and high-definition CRT televisions (max 34 in.) don't have any overlapping sizes, it's pretty obvious that the smaller of the two is going to have higher pixel density. The 2.5" handheld B&W TV I had when I was a kid had a higher pixel density than most TVs on the market today - that's doesn't make it superior.
Really? Who makes a 1080p CRT projector? I was under the impression that all 1080p projectors were either LCoS (SXRD), DLP, or a very small handful of other non-CRT (mostly rebranded) technologies. I must have missed a press release this morning before I woke up.. because you sound pretty sure of yourself.