Comment Re:Customer service? (Score 4, Funny) 928
I say, throw a knife into a group of waiting passengers and let the first one to emerge alive board first.
In other words, let the invisible hand of the free market decide.
I say, throw a knife into a group of waiting passengers and let the first one to emerge alive board first.
In other words, let the invisible hand of the free market decide.
No, you wouldn't have. You cannot win an argument with a flight crew; if they say "get off", you're getting off. There's absolutely no way to appeal that decision in the moment.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. You don't fix disgruntled paying customers by humiliating them in front of a crowd. He tweeted about his initial experience; you think he'll meekly shut up about the follow on treatment?
He might've been acting like a pompous, entitled ass. If your job is serving the public, you have to get used to dealing with pompous, entitled asses in ways that don't make your entire organization look bad.
Can you call them "bugs" when they were specific design specifications?
The F-35 is a $300billion dollar abomination. Earlier today, there was a story about a $300million dollar IT mess in federal government and there were howls of outrage.
This useless plane is 1000 times more expensive and unlike the IT mess, the plane's "bugs" are there by design.
What exactly is "free for the taking"? Water? How much may I have? All of it? Half? Or only as much as I need? Do I get more if I want to take a bath, or bathe my dog, or add chemicals and pump it into the earth at high pressure to extract oil?
There's a problem with seeing anything as "free for the taking". There's always a cost. Always a value. To me, to you, to everyone.
Best to ask your neighbors, "Hey, there's water running under my land, you wanna see if we can put in a well and use it? If we pitch in, we can all use the water. That's more useful than putting up a fence, sucking up all the water and then selling it for $1/gallon. Because eventually, your neighbors will cut your throat unless you can hire some of them to protect you from the others, and that will eat into your profits.
Ain't nothing free for the taking. Think of it as free for the sharing. Even, to some extent, yourself. Do you really "own" yourself?
Former CIA spy and writer Robert David Steele talks about a very interesting concept: "true cost accounting". It means that you have to figure in externalities when you derive price. When you go down that road, capitalism starts to look very different. It's like seeing it for the first time. I recommend his books, especially "Open Source Everything". Not so much because I agree with everything he says, but because he forces you to see things differently.
I got your weasel meat right here.
Sure. Here's a transcript of the earnings call. (You may need to register to read it.)
Nadella does say, early on in his prepared comments, that, "We will streamline the next version of Windows from three operating systems into one single converged operating system for screens of all sizes."
Later during the Q&A session, however, he was asked about how this "one version for all devices" would change the number of Windows SKUs that are available, and he said this:
Yes. My statement Heather was more to do with just even the engineering approach. The reality is that we actually did not have one Windows; we had multiple Windows operating systems inside of Microsoft. We had one for phone, one for tablets and PCs, one for Xbox, one for even embedded. So we had many, many of these efforts. So now we have one team with the layered architecture that enables us to in fact one for developers bring that collective opportunity with one store, one commerce system, one discoverability mechanism. It also allows us to scale the UI across all screen sizes; it allows us to create this notion of universal Windows apps and being coherent there.
So that’s what more I was referencing and our SKU strategy will remain by segment, we will have multiple SKUs for enterprises, we will have for OEM, we will have for end-users. And so we will – be disclosing and talking about our SKUs as we get further along, but this my statement was more to do with how we are bringing teams together to approach Windows as one ecosystem very differently than we ourselves have done in the past.
Lots of hedging in there. You don't need a single, converged OS to give developers "one store, one commerce system, one discoverability system." Those are all ancillary functions. A "team with the layered architecture" doesn't sound like every version of Windows is going to share the same layers. And clearly nothing about Windows is going to be simplified from the customer's perspective; there will still be six or eight SKUs, with each offering different benefits.
Rather, I take Nadella's comments to mean he's streamlining the OS engineering group so that the people working on each Windows platform work in tandem with the others and they all have similar goals, milestones, etc (good).
I also take it to mean that Microsoft will offer developers who are building so-called Modern apps a common set of APIs that will be available on the various form factors, so they eventually should only have to write their apps once and they will run on every kind of device. That sounds OK, but it's only going to be true for Windows Store apps -- and to achieve that, you don't need every device to be running an identical OS.
In other words, no Holy Grail here, but Microsoft is streamlining and rationalizing its OS engineering efforts, which makes good sense at this juncture.
They're not talking about the interface. They're talking about the underlying nuts-and-bolts stuff.
No, they're really more talking about the interface. The underlying nuts and bolts are already pretty much the same, in that Windows, Windows RT, and Windows Phone all share the same NT kernel. But above that there is plenty that's different from platform to platform. What Nadella wants to do is unify the development model and allow developers to create apps with UIs that react and readjust depending on the screen size of the device they're running on, much like how modern websites can support multiple screen sizes. All this talk about "one version of Windows" stems from a single, oversimplified comment Nadella made on the earnings call. When asked about it later, he completely backtracked and said there would not be any such thing.
I would hope this unification means that there will be suffice emulation built into windows that it will pick the kernel/libs/drivers required by the CPU arch, and userland apps can run in emulation (even if slowly) if they are compiled for the wrong proc. This would be a unified windows, that allows x86 and 64 bit apps run on ARM and vice versa (although the other direction is likely not as useful).
Unfortunately for you, the actual article says the exact opposite of the summary (so what else is new on
The thing is that as horrible as it may sound, cancer is part of evolution. When there is a genetic mutation, there is high change it turns out into just cancer but it can also turn out into another eye color, or immunity against a virus. If you put a CRC into our genome, then we could never evolve genetically anymore. But then, well, some say our natural process of genetic evolution stopped the moment we learned to change the genome.
There's no shortage of people who are literally insane in politics.
Indeed. 1 out of 4 people has a diagnosable mental illness.
An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older â" about one in four adults â" suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.
--NIMH
Consider what happens if the "Caliphate" gets their hands on some samples.
You mean the theocrats that are always talking about bringing the US back to its "christian" roots?
spit
--
BMO
It's dumb to trust any technology 100 percent.
This was discussed here earlier after a poll showing that people with low knowledge of the Internet don't trust it, implying by omission that those that have more trust the Internet more, which is far from the case. The people with the most knowledge know what the flaws are.
Blind trust in any kind of technology is dumb.
Blind distrust of anything is also just as dumb.
Distrust of TOR because it was a US Navy project is practicing a type of ad-hominem. I'd rather distrust it based on either reading the code or the opinions and arguments of people better able than me at reading its code.
I've said it before about other things - there are plenty of reasons to dislike something without having to invent them. I use this when discussing GMO, because the "frankenfood" argument is specious - the real problem is the IP angle, for example.
--
BMO
Where is your proof of so called "Terrorism" by the founders of Israel?
Um, it's pretty well documented by the British and at the UN, in their reports of the Stern Gang terrorism. Avram "Yair" Stern - who is pretty unequivocally one of the founders of modern Israel - blew up British military vehicles and bases, sabotaged rail lines, shot at trains, blew up a mine, destroyed international telegraph lines, attacked police stations, and robbed banks. His Lehi fanatics were completely unconcerned about civilian casualties (including any Jews who did not support them) and willing to ally with any military power that would send them weapons, including the Nazis.
This is all a matter of record and the state of Israel does not contest any of it; so why are you claiming otherwise?
The USA has terrorists among our founders, too. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys come to mind... although I guess they weren't in the same league as Stern.
And what about managers who steer the development effort in a direction highly likely to produce buggy code, those won't get measured?
Of course they get measured. In the long term if they deliver too many screwed up projects, their superiors stop giving them projects.
Ultimately it is the developer's responsibility to push back against stupid managers and give them honest feedback about what can and cannot be done.
I would like to know where the entrance is located to this magically meritocratic land you speak of, It is obviously not Earth.
You'll need an invisible hand to turn the invisible doorknob.
HOLY MACRO!