I seem to run across a fair number of places with AS/400 stuff. What's kind of interesting is the AS/400 stuff and people seem to run in this parallel universe IT department with their own staff somehow immune from the other pressures of the rest of the IT department.
Once in a blue moon I'll hear mention that some kind of AS/400 update or installation is happening, so it's not like they're strictly legacy systems. And at longer term clients with AS/400 I occasionally see something new/different in the "AS/400 rack".
I don't know what IBM's growth potential is or how at risk their active businesses like AS/400 are from being eaten by Wintel/Lintel systems are, but they sure seem to have carved out a niche that seems nearly immovable.
This is not a Democrat thing, it's an anyone with an education thing. It's why even senior Republicans are distancing themselves
"Trump will ruin the country" is *mostly* a Democratic thing as an article of actual belief. Among Republicans, I'd argue it's more like "Trump will destroy party" and a dislike for his influence on political standing, not necessarily a wholesale disagreement with policy with the exception of where policy overlaps with Republican economic policies, which are mostly rubber stamps of corporate interests.
and pretty much anyone outside the US that is aware of international diplomacy is fearful of the consequences he could bring. As you say you have Congress to protect your domestic policy, but a couple of stupid comments can ignite tensions globally that can start wars.
During the Cold War, when the US faced a military opponent of near parity and the chance of a nuclear war of near extinction, anti-communist and anti-Soviet rhetoric was extremely heated. The majority of US politicians vented relentlessly against communism and the Soviets without a war starting. And none of this takes into account the reality that we fight wars all the time anyway, without any attached rhetoric.
This is not a Democrat thing, it's an anyone with an education thing. [...]This not just FUD, there is a real risk that everyone can see except a minority percentage of redneck Americans.
This is my other problem with this meme, it's usually stated in the most derogatory of terms. People that don't believe in the most hyperbolic and extreme outcomes of a Trump presidency are uneducated rednecks.
I'm willing to go along with the idea that Trump would make a *bad* President -- clumsy diplomacy, domestic political gridlock, divisive leadership. But the rest of the doom and gloom prophesy seems vastly overblown and tied to a sales technique designed to make anyone who doesn't accept it feel as if they're somehow stupid or uneducated.
NNTP was pretty decentralized, one of the challenges with it in the later days of NNTP was the relative ease of newgroup injection and crapflooding.
IIRC, NNTP server software on the hardware of the early 2000s scaled poorly and the traffic volumes were growing fast so you started to see ISPs get much more control oriented when it came to retention periods and which newgroup messages they would honor and from whom.
It's the way the left has been since the 1920s. Usually it was confined to doctrinal infighting among Leninists, Trotskyites, and other socialist factions. Usually once one faction had established dominance they simply became authoritarians, rejecting any punishing all dissent.
One of the best party amusements has always been exposing conflicting elements among leftists. Years ago when AIDS was peaking, you'd find a leftist, usually a vegan, who favored animal rights, and then an AIDS activist and then introduce the topic of animal testing of AIDS drugs. If you got lucky, the animal rights advocate was straight and the AIDS advocate was not and you sat back and watched the fur fly, so to speak. I've seen vegans screamed at, accused of supporting anti-gay genocide, and pacifist gays accused of being bloodthirsty monsters who back the pharmaceutical-industrial complex.
I'm struggling to understand what "one large wifi network" actually is.
In enterprise gear this roughly translates into broadcasting the same SSID and some back channel communication of interference, channel selection, etc, to avoid stepping on each AP too much in addition to some of the newer "roaming" extensions that speed up the process of moving between radios.
You usually can fake this by just using the same SSID on multiple standalone APs and if their channel selection process is any good you generally end up with mostly the same thing.
The HBO Now service has a better selection of movies than Netflix does.
A persistent threat that can't be effectively eliminated in a cost effective manner and the easiest way to deal with it is to just make it sort of hard and pass the remaining costs onto consumers?
I used to think like this. However, I realized Executive Orders have a lot of affect.
So do articles of impeachment.
My point isn't that Donald Trump could be a low-quality President, but that the promoted level of doom and gloom and disaster is greatly overstated and fails to consider the balance of powers among the branches of government at a minimum and further fails to consider other potential problems associated with policy implementation.
Trump may throw a tantrum wanting some policy or other, but that doesn't make it so on the spot. There's a whole apparatus of bureaucracy that has to implement it, and truly loony ideas won't get implemented or at least not before they can be challenged in court.
I think the "disaster" argument also fails to consider Trump as even rational at all, as if he were really an irrational and unstable person. I also don't buy that, either. He may have a big mouth, but you don't get to where he is in life right now (fabulously wealthy, still in control of his company, and on the Republican ticket for President) if you are actually incapable of making rational decisions. Nor does it consider the persuasive ability of career people -- diplomats, advisers, military people, etc, who would counsel him against truly dangerous actions.
None of this is meant to advocate for him -- he's obviously a boorish loudmouth, but the notion that he can single-handedly "destroy America" is a bill of goods promoted by his opponents as a scare tactic because positive selling of Hillary is so difficult given her lack of likability and dissembling on so many issued.