@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.

Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?

What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?

Which part are you questioning specifically?

@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:

@DustinB3403 I dont lie.

Google doesn't do anything wrong. Did that just solve the problem?

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

Plus there are so many other parts of companies like Cisco. They sell little 8 port unmanaged switches. So because you've seen advertisements for products even like that you should be wary?

That does make it a little more complicated. Cisco is kind of unique there and it is a pretty recent thing. Although I think we all know that they took a loss there to do exactly what we are talking about, but it back fired because technical people saw them as a consumer joke. So they sold that off.

Do they still sell that consumer stuff, though? I thought that that ended long ago.

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement

How did you get this from anything I said?

Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.

Right. Which in no way leads you to what you said. You are making an illogical leap. That the buyer should be wary of advice says literally nothing about the company.

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

Mary Tyler Moore

Man... 2017 is really just more of the same.

Yup, even worse than 2016.

One person dies and it's worse?

It's a big one and early.

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.

That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?

That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.

It's not. This whole thread is you expecting people to listen to you. You just said "this is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it."

It is, I'm literally unclear why it is being questioned? I'm uncertain of what the counterargument is.

@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.

That's not true. I've worked in the film industry and have credits in several films. Sure some people add blur but shotting in 24p and with fast motion alone will cause blur. The fact that you can take a still image and have it not be blurry is in no way related.

It's absolutely related. Still footage is just a really slow framerate and there can be zero blur. Take still images and move them to 1fps, still no blur. 2fps, still no blur. Blur only comes from other things, never framerate.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

And almost everyone I know does the above. They call their pharmacist or another doctor and double check prescription advice because there is such a high likelihood of mistakes or outright scams.

Wow, I know of NO one who does this, but I say that with the understanding that I don't talk to anyone about the medical needs with the exception of my wife. And I know the best she's going to do when prescribed a new drug is ask the pharmacist if there are any interactions to worry about, but she would never question if it's the right thing.

Right, most people are not good at business decision making or getting advice. And the average advisor takes advantage of this. Hence why I am so adamant about teaching how to get good advice.

@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

If you know what the frame is, you'd understand why no frame rate can create blur, it's just impossible.

That's not true. Frequencies of the TVs to not create blur but frame rates indeed can. The standard cinematic cadence is using 24p and indeed 24p has motion blur compared to the 60i of broadcast which is smooth motion.

No, even that does not. The blur you are seeing there is in the image, not from the TV. If each frame of 24p was crisp, it would look crisp to the eye. It is not the framerate creating the blur but the standard long exposure of the camera. If you moved the aperture time on the camera to reduce the blur, it would go away.

Here is the proof: still images are the lowest possible frame rate... 1/infinity. And you can make a still image that is crisp or blurry. So with a still image we can easily demonstrate that the blur from low framerate always comes from the image, not the framerate.

What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

But every company advertises. If someone came in and recommended Ubiquiti, I should question it because I've seen their ads?

If you are seeing non-IT ads, definitely.

@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:

There is a reason that television, youtube and such doesn't make anything over 30Hz, because it just isn't very important.

Content is not made in Hz. It's frame rates. the only affect it has on that is that it has to be divisable by it hence why their is PAL and NTSC for 50hz and 60hz broadcast systems respectively.

Framerates are measured in cycles of frames per second, though. So 30 frames per second, for example.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.

I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?

For some reason, his site demands that I run Java...

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

Of course the reality of any suggestions should be - Please tell me why you choose this vendor/product line and the next one or two alternatives, and why this one was the one you picked to recommend to me.

Obviously if you question absolutely everything, you don't skip questioning the most likely bad case. BUT it's unreasonable to question every single thing, that's a good way to push people over the edge and to raise costs. THat's why we take the time to highlight cases where we should be more questioning, rather than less or even keel. What does the pattern for being taken advantage of look like?

@MattSpeller said in Non-IT News Thread:

)(&@#^!%(!&#)(%@&_!)(@%)!(%@(#&%&^#@$

http://globalnews.ca/news/2793748/mail-disruptions-loom-as-canada-post-turns-down-unions-request-for-extension/

Time to shut down the post and fire 50,000 slackers who can't do their jobs.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.

That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?

That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.

@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Jason said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Seriously why should you work?

That is the problem with America. That attitude right there..

While it's hard to disagree with you, at the same time I ask - are we suppose to work? as creatures of this earth, are we meant to deal with the troubles that we have? I don't think so. No other creature on this planet does, at least not in the same way. Instead they spend the majority of their time just looking for food, shelter and procreation. But if our technology can give us all those things, do we as a species still really need to work? There will always be those who want to explore and go forth, and that's great, but do the rest really need to? and if you think so, why?

You trade hours of your time for credits (currency) to purchase the things you need first and the things you want second. If we lived in a world where mankind banded together to solve all of the worlds major problems then maybe but it's still a hard maybe. If you didn't do this you'd have to worry about your survival in the same way animals do.

But if we had technology that made it so you could be self sufficient - thinking replicators here, and power was free, again because out technology makes it so, why would you need to work?

I'm not going for Scott's model where 20% or less of the earth works, and the rest of just just live off them.

I think that we will eventually get there but I wonder who would be motivated to learn anything at all at that point. Who would be left to maintain everything that makes it all possible?

Anyone who is valuable will be motivated to learn. Allowing people to not work in no way stops people from working. Tons of smart and hard working people find joy and satisfaction from working. And as it only takes a small percentage of people working to make everything happen AND the fewer people who work the fewer resources are needed to keep things going the system is actually highly efficient.

Given that something like 30% of all work done today can be linked to welfare (fake welfare... jobs created only to keep people busy to make it feel like they are workers when really they are just living off of the system) pretty directly and that the inefficiency of that is insane... that alone shows that it works.

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. You could make the exact same argument about Chevy. Cisco markets because they want people to buy their stuff.

Chevy advertises to its buyers. Cisco advertises to the people that oversee the buyers.

One is trying to influence the "expert". The other is trying to undermine the "expert". Very different.

No, a lot of SMBs, the IT person does the buying. It's not their money, but they are the ones doing the purchasing.

I've never seen SMB focused advertising for these products. Only general. Or very little to the point of being less than the general case (I see less Cisco on ML or SW than in general advertising.)

But the same deal applies, if they are trying to influence your acceptance with ads, you should be automatically more wary, rather than less. Selling based on marketing rather than on merits. Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.

But that doesn't matter, they ALSO advertise to "everyone" and that is what matters. That they also advertise to the SMB IT guy, maybe, is additional and does not remove the need to be diligent.

@Dashrender you are right, so much wasted potential ad space!! Calling @Minion-Queen