How does 480Mbit/Sec translates to 5GB in 38 seconds? 480Mbits is 60MB/sec. It should take like 1 minute 25, no? and that's with no overhead, and assuming the devices read/write that fast and there is no disk queueing.
Or am I missing something?
While this may be true of beginning programmers, I don't think anyone with experience, either male or female has any misconceptions about the value of well documented code.
If these tendencies do exist in men and women, I'm sure they are quickly experienced out.
However, I bet there are other areas of coding aside from comments and clarity that men and women have different natural tendencies on. Like when to class something and when not to.
But I'm just guessing.
I try to be friendly and professional all the time, but it definitely is tough. What irks me the most is when users ask the same questions every few weeks without listening to the answer given.
They'll ask for detailed reasons why a server locks up, and make you explain it in simple laymen terms, but they don't want to hear the reason why a strong password is required.
Computers shouldn't be thought of as a magic box that does half your work for you. Its a tool in which you have to invest time and learning, so that you may be more effiecient at your job.
Most staff don't feel this way. They couldn't care less why something they are doing is hurting the computer or making my life hard. For some reason, they feel its not their fault or their problem.
Also, by the time someone calls or reaches IT, they are already frustrated and blaming the computer system for whatever troubles they are having. This means that we are always dealing with irate people, and it in turn gets very frustrating for me as well.
Furthermore, most problems I have seen could be easily combatted with a program or device that would undoubtedly save money right away, but management is wary to make any large-scale technological shifts regardless of how often we meet to discuss.
Then you have things like people getting error messages, clicking OK, and then calling IT. Obviously that error message was trying to tell you something. Even if you didn't understand it, maybe IT will, and be able to solve the problem faster.
I think that I forget sometimes that users don't know that much, and the actions they take aren't deliberate. Because to a technically-inclined person, the things they do can seem unecessarily cruel and baffling.
A Good Example
I once had 20 management-types decide in a meeting(unbeknownst to me) that they were getting to much spam and decided I should do something about it. So how did they tell me? They all forwarded me every piece of spam they got with prefaces like "Can you stop these?" I was getting hundrerds each day. If these people were computer-literate, I think my anger would have been justified, because that's just mean.
There is nothing wrong with signature-based virus protection. It is very difficult to design systems that can pre-emptively determine good code from bad. Heuristics has a place in security, but its not as accurdate, IMHO, and contending with flase positives would be more annoying to home users than paying the nominal fee. For corporations, you have IDS/IPS systems, and they are trying to develop this for the desktop (Host-base IPS or HIPS), but confuring them properly can be extremely difficult, and allows for more user error, which can negative the entire effect.
And striping drives won't help fight off malware, that's for redundancy and performance. And frequent ghosts aren't the answer either. I would recommend users backup data and not installations or partitions. You can be backing up an already corrupt/infected system.
It amazes me how little people are willing to pay for their computer. Its easily a gigantic part of many people's lives, however, they'd rather spend more on their dishware and drapes than they would on the thing that they use to do just about everything including personal banking.
Mcaffee and Symantec are important to the security industry, and help drive it. MS would be stupid to squeeze them out. Every computer should have a reputable company's security software installed or their ISP shouldn't allow them on the internet. Kinda like how cars need to be insured. The thing is, however, they should have the choice of what security company they trust.
I got it from an article put out by the Info-Tech Research Group called "Copyright & Ownership in the 21st Century" Its a subscription website
In addition, I have found other biographical accounts of Mozart's life that have similar mentions of him hearing the piece once and writing it from memory. The differences seem to be that other bios don't have him getting it perfectly the first time. He needed to listen to it a second time for minor corrections; and I do not seem to find any other bios online that support the idea he proved it in court by transcribing it again. Then again I did't look too well and I only found 2 distinct bios at all online.
From Wikipedia:
A highlight of the Italian journey, now an almost legendary tale, occurred when he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel then wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors; thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely-guarded property of the Vatican
another mention:
http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/archive/index. php/t-52.html
If the trial portion is wrong, then you're right, it is too bad... but I don't think it undermines the point.
You're right. I guess the point is that back then it wasn't a problem that he copied and performed it. It was the fact that they assumed he must have stolen it or gained illegal access to it, which is what he was on trial for. Its the labeling of this guy a hacker that I object to, considering they don't know how he got it. Depending on the judge, the word "hacker" can mean bad things in a court of law.
From an article I just started reading:...when Mozart was a boy he traveled to the Vatican with his father. Since they happened to be there at Easter, they were able to take in a performance of Allegri's Miserere. The Miserere is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever composed. It is so beautiful, in fact, that at the time the Pope allowed no copies of the score to be made, and it was only performed at Easter, and only at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Only the choir was permitted to see the score, which was otherwise kept under lock and key. Mozart, being the prodigy he was, heard the piece once and memorized it in its entirety. When he got home he wrote down the score without a single missed note. When Church authorities heard that Mozart had an unauthorized copy of the Miserere they took him to court, accusing him of stealing a copy of the score. The young boy was able to prove that he had not stolen the work only by writing down the piece again, perfectly, from memory in the presence of the court.
Obviously this probably isn't the case here, but isn't this a good example that you should not be allowed to sue somebody for copyright infringement unless you have some proof they obtained what they got thru illegal activity?
Slashdot Mirror
How does 480Mbit/Sec translates to 5GB in 38 seconds? 480Mbits is 60MB/sec. It should take like 1 minute 25, no? and that's with no overhead, and assuming the devices read/write that fast and there is no disk queueing. Or am I missing something?
While this may be true of beginning programmers, I don't think anyone with experience, either male or female has any misconceptions about the value of well documented code. If these tendencies do exist in men and women, I'm sure they are quickly experienced out. However, I bet there are other areas of coding aside from comments and clarity that men and women have different natural tendencies on. Like when to class something and when not to. But I'm just guessing.
I try to be friendly and professional all the time, but it definitely is tough. What irks me the most is when users ask the same questions every few weeks without listening to the answer given. They'll ask for detailed reasons why a server locks up, and make you explain it in simple laymen terms, but they don't want to hear the reason why a strong password is required. Computers shouldn't be thought of as a magic box that does half your work for you. Its a tool in which you have to invest time and learning, so that you may be more effiecient at your job. Most staff don't feel this way. They couldn't care less why something they are doing is hurting the computer or making my life hard. For some reason, they feel its not their fault or their problem. Also, by the time someone calls or reaches IT, they are already frustrated and blaming the computer system for whatever troubles they are having. This means that we are always dealing with irate people, and it in turn gets very frustrating for me as well. Furthermore, most problems I have seen could be easily combatted with a program or device that would undoubtedly save money right away, but management is wary to make any large-scale technological shifts regardless of how often we meet to discuss. Then you have things like people getting error messages, clicking OK, and then calling IT. Obviously that error message was trying to tell you something. Even if you didn't understand it, maybe IT will, and be able to solve the problem faster. I think that I forget sometimes that users don't know that much, and the actions they take aren't deliberate. Because to a technically-inclined person, the things they do can seem unecessarily cruel and baffling. A Good Example I once had 20 management-types decide in a meeting(unbeknownst to me) that they were getting to much spam and decided I should do something about it. So how did they tell me? They all forwarded me every piece of spam they got with prefaces like "Can you stop these?" I was getting hundrerds each day. If these people were computer-literate, I think my anger would have been justified, because that's just mean.
There is nothing wrong with signature-based virus protection. It is very difficult to design systems that can pre-emptively determine good code from bad. Heuristics has a place in security, but its not as accurdate, IMHO, and contending with flase positives would be more annoying to home users than paying the nominal fee. For corporations, you have IDS/IPS systems, and they are trying to develop this for the desktop (Host-base IPS or HIPS), but confuring them properly can be extremely difficult, and allows for more user error, which can negative the entire effect.
And striping drives won't help fight off malware, that's for redundancy and performance. And frequent ghosts aren't the answer either. I would recommend users backup data and not installations or partitions. You can be backing up an already corrupt/infected system.
It amazes me how little people are willing to pay for their computer. Its easily a gigantic part of many people's lives, however, they'd rather spend more on their dishware and drapes than they would on the thing that they use to do just about everything including personal banking.
Mcaffee and Symantec are important to the security industry, and help drive it. MS would be stupid to squeeze them out. Every computer should have a reputable company's security software installed or their ISP shouldn't allow them on the internet. Kinda like how cars need to be insured. The thing is, however, they should have the choice of what security company they trust.
I got it from an article put out by the Info-Tech Research Group called "Copyright & Ownership in the 21st Century" Its a subscription website In addition, I have found other biographical accounts of Mozart's life that have similar mentions of him hearing the piece once and writing it from memory. The differences seem to be that other bios don't have him getting it perfectly the first time. He needed to listen to it a second time for minor corrections; and I do not seem to find any other bios online that support the idea he proved it in court by transcribing it again. Then again I did't look too well and I only found 2 distinct bios at all online. From Wikipedia: A highlight of the Italian journey, now an almost legendary tale, occurred when he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel then wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors; thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely-guarded property of the Vatican another mention: http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/archive/index. php/t-52.html
If the trial portion is wrong, then you're right, it is too bad... but I don't think it undermines the point.
You're right. I guess the point is that back then it wasn't a problem that he copied and performed it. It was the fact that they assumed he must have stolen it or gained illegal access to it, which is what he was on trial for. Its the labeling of this guy a hacker that I object to, considering they don't know how he got it. Depending on the judge, the word "hacker" can mean bad things in a court of law.
From an article I just started reading: ...when Mozart was a boy he traveled to the Vatican with his father. Since they happened to be there at Easter, they were able to take in a performance of Allegri's Miserere. The Miserere is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever composed. It is so beautiful, in fact, that at the time the Pope allowed no copies of the score to be made, and it was only performed at Easter, and only at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Only the choir was permitted to see the score, which was otherwise kept under lock and key.
Mozart, being the prodigy he was, heard the piece once and memorized it in its entirety. When he got home he wrote down the score without a single missed note. When Church authorities heard that Mozart had an unauthorized copy of the Miserere they took him to court, accusing him of stealing a copy of the score. The young boy was able to prove that he had not stolen the work only by writing down the piece again, perfectly, from memory in the presence of the court.
Obviously this probably isn't the case here, but isn't this a good example that you should not be allowed to sue somebody for copyright infringement unless you have some proof they obtained what they got thru illegal activity?