It has always amused me how commonly businesses play fast and loose with the meaning of the word 'speed' when it comes to internet connections. Yes, higher bandwidth will result in a 'faster' internet experience, but the data is not actually getting to you any faster - you're simply getting more of it at a time, so the webpage/download whatever completes in s shorter space of time.
You can drive faster than a truck, but if you're delivering more than your vehicle can carry, that slow ass truck is still going to complete the delivery in less time.
Argh, pet peeve, bad car analogy and all, brought about by years of listening to online gamers brag about how they've got the fastest connection and then crying when it makes no difference to thier gaming experience.
Anyway, the article is a bit light on details - can't quite make out if they're talking about increased bandwidth or increasing routing efficiency.
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
A computer tech may come across information regarding the above, but they most definitely not 'in the business of, or employed to obtain or furnish' any of the above information.
I simply cannot think of a reasonable situation under which someone being paid to fix a computer problem would meet the criteria (a)(1)(B)...(b) that you fear would cast too wide a net. Care to think up a reasonable example?
That sounds very much like an end-user perspective of IT.
Yes it's a lot faster and more convenient when Bob the IT guy is willing to fix a problem when passing through, but when the PHB in charge of Bob starts asking PHB questions (Where were you 20 minutes ago? Oh, you were fixing Jane-in-accountings printer? Where's the incident report? There isn't one? Hmmm...)
Every end user I've ever dealt with (very few, fortunately) seems to think along the lines of "Well Bob helped me last time, and I have his direct extension, so I'll just give him a call to pop round and fix this". No regard for procedure, no regard for whether Bob is busy or not, or that there might be other more important issues for Bob to resolve first.
Every single time I've made the mistake of being helpful to an end user that decided to bypass our procedures, that user has decided that that was a green flag to do so in future. Being bombarded by requests for help, often with issues outside your expertise or responsibilities is a royal pain in the ass.
Things like, never point a gun where you wouldn't want it to go off Unfortunately in my admittedly limited experience there are far too many fools who ignore this particular rule-of-thumb. Heck, one of my best friends can't see why it's not funny to point a gun at someone even though he accidentally shot his sister.
Guns as such don't bother me. Guns in hand and pointed in my general direction bother me very, very much.
Sounds about right. Except I enjoyed it (and no, I rarely PK'd), and there are still many aspects of the game that I would love to see implemented again.
Having open ended stat/skill selections was by far the most appealing aspect of the game. Want to be a crafter? max out all 700 skill points in crafting. Want to be a tinkerer/swordsman? Great.
Balance? I honestly don't think that PvP balance was *ever* a consideration. Even so - I have 100 hp, you have 100 hp, let's see who dies first. Sounds balanced to me - unless you bring a knife to a gunfight (or a sword to a spellfest). Seriously - if I can roast you at 30 paces, why would you ever expect a fair fight?
Stupid enough to carry all your worldly possessions in your backpack? None of this "Ooh looky, everything I own is magically bound to me" coddling - you die you lose it *all*. Makes winning that pvp encounter so much more meaningful.
That was roleplaying - unless you define roleplaying purely as putting on a fake accent while seeing who can bring the most DPS/Tanking/healing to a fight.
When it starts subsuming fields that *require* more than just a easily searched for fact.
There are many fields where knowing the "how" and the "why" are vastly more important than knowing the answer to a specific question, and it can be very easy to take whatever answer Google decides to spit out on any given day as correct without knowing how it was arrived at.
Granted, it's all about context. If I wanted to know how thick a foundation to lay for a standalone garage in my back yard, I could google and hopefully come up with a reasonably good guess. If I'm erecting buildings for a living, I better damn well know how to calculate it myself.
Imagine having your contractor tell you "I Googled it!" when your foundation cracks the first time you park your SUV in your shiny new garage.
If he tells them where the body is, he's probably guilty. If he doesn't, it may be because he's innocent -or- it would make a serious dent in any appeal he thinks about lodging.
Not being cooperative isn't by default a sign of innocence.
Heck, depending on how (and if) the deed was done, he may simply be incapable of pointing out the body's location ("Now where'd that durn dumptruck get itself to?")
I don't know if they're listening like the OP says but if they are, I wouldn't rely on the "signal vs noise" theory. Generally the govt/defence is incompetent but all it takes is one smart person for it to actually work pretty well. Unfortunately, unless that one smart person is intimately involved with the design of the system, the odds of it working very well based on poorly designed systems is fairly remote.
1. Write software that requires the grunt of a desktop machine to run. 2. Discredit mobile computing (where you aren't doing so well) by blaming it for a medical condition. 3. Profit!
Seriously though, how is it news that performing more of a repetitive action that causes RSI causes (wait for it!) more incidents of RSI?
I'm more interested in the phenomenon whereby technology that is supposed to make our working lives easier and faster is actually making us work more. (I know, it's not *making* us work more, but why on Earth would anyone want to do more work in more time? Doing the same work in less time, or more work in the same time I can understand).
Slashdot Mirror
Throughput != Latency
It has always amused me how commonly businesses play fast and loose with the meaning of the word 'speed' when it comes to internet connections. Yes, higher bandwidth will result in a 'faster' internet experience, but the data is not actually getting to you any faster - you're simply getting more of it at a time, so the webpage/download whatever completes in s shorter space of time.
You can drive faster than a truck, but if you're delivering more than your vehicle can carry, that slow ass truck is still going to complete the delivery in less time.
Argh, pet peeve, bad car analogy and all, brought about by years of listening to online gamers brag about how they've got the fastest connection and then crying when it makes no difference to thier gaming experience.
Anyway, the article is a bit light on details - can't quite make out if they're talking about increased bandwidth or increasing routing efficiency.
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;
A computer tech may come across information regarding the above, but they most definitely not 'in the business of, or employed to obtain or furnish' any of the above information.
I simply cannot think of a reasonable situation under which someone being paid to fix a computer problem would meet the criteria (a)(1)(B)...(b) that you fear would cast too wide a net. Care to think up a reasonable example?
Well then, thanks for showing you narrow mindedness and your inability to grasp that IT covers a lot more than just your choice of operating system.
Get of my lawn!
It's interesting to observer how the mere mention of the word 'geek' on /. is automatically assumed to mean someone who has at least an interest in IT.
Geeks were around before computers. Not all geeks are IT savvy, not all IT savvy people are geeks.
That sounds very much like an end-user perspective of IT.
Yes it's a lot faster and more convenient when Bob the IT guy is willing to fix a problem when passing through, but when the PHB in charge of Bob starts asking PHB questions (Where were you 20 minutes ago? Oh, you were fixing Jane-in-accountings printer? Where's the incident report? There isn't one? Hmmm...)
Every end user I've ever dealt with (very few, fortunately) seems to think along the lines of "Well Bob helped me last time, and I have his direct extension, so I'll just give him a call to pop round and fix this". No regard for procedure, no regard for whether Bob is busy or not, or that there might be other more important issues for Bob to resolve first.
Every single time I've made the mistake of being helpful to an end user that decided to bypass our procedures, that user has decided that that was a green flag to do so in future. Being bombarded by requests for help, often with issues outside your expertise or responsibilities is a royal pain in the ass.
No incident report, no help.
Oblig. Wargames misquote: "The only way to win is not to play".
The cringeworthyness of that attempt at humour outweighed any actual humour.
Anyone who uses the words 'prove' and 'how/why/when/where/how' alongside each other needs to be shot.
Eh? Windows is an OS. Linux is an OS. The moment one needs to go through the other to access hardware, it's no longer an OS.
If it's running 'on top of' anything other than hardware, it's no longer an OS.
What's sad is that I write Point-of-Sales systems for a living and even so I still automatically assume that POS means Piece-of-Shit :/
I hate it when stories like these refer to thier products as "intelligent". Unless they're claiming to have developed AI, it's just plain inaccurate.
Shooting themselves in the foot won't kill them. But if they put thier foot in thier mouth first?
Whee, love mixed metaphors on a slow work day.
Well, in business bigger numbers are better, right?
Guns as such don't bother me. Guns in hand and pointed in my general direction bother me very, very much.
Silly me. I should have hit 'preview' before hitting 'submit'. Now I have that typo staring me in the face... and it's not a happy face.
No, if you're going to have a rmonatic dinner with your GF and wife, it had better be expensive.
What's so divine about a Mexican on the I50?
Sounds about right. Except I enjoyed it (and no, I rarely PK'd), and there are still many aspects of the game that I would love to see implemented again.
Having open ended stat/skill selections was by far the most appealing aspect of the game. Want to be a crafter? max out all 700 skill points in crafting. Want to be a tinkerer/swordsman? Great.
Balance? I honestly don't think that PvP balance was *ever* a consideration. Even so - I have 100 hp, you have 100 hp, let's see who dies first. Sounds balanced to me - unless you bring a knife to a gunfight (or a sword to a spellfest). Seriously - if I can roast you at 30 paces, why would you ever expect a fair fight?
Stupid enough to carry all your worldly possessions in your backpack? None of this "Ooh looky, everything I own is magically bound to me" coddling - you die you lose it *all*. Makes winning that pvp encounter so much more meaningful.
That was roleplaying - unless you define roleplaying purely as putting on a fake accent while seeing who can bring the most DPS/Tanking/healing to a fight.
Don't be an ass.
When it starts subsuming fields that *require* more than just a easily searched for fact.
There are many fields where knowing the "how" and the "why" are vastly more important than knowing the answer to a specific question, and it can be very easy to take whatever answer Google decides to spit out on any given day as correct without knowing how it was arrived at.
Granted, it's all about context. If I wanted to know how thick a foundation to lay for a standalone garage in my back yard, I could google and hopefully come up with a reasonably good guess. If I'm erecting buildings for a living, I better damn well know how to calculate it myself.
Imagine having your contractor tell you "I Googled it!" when your foundation cracks the first time you park your SUV in your shiny new garage.
Why are there only 2 conclusions?
If he tells them where the body is, he's probably guilty.
If he doesn't, it may be because he's innocent -or- it would make a serious dent in any appeal he thinks about lodging.
Not being cooperative isn't by default a sign of innocence.
Heck, depending on how (and if) the deed was done, he may simply be incapable of pointing out the body's location ("Now where'd that durn dumptruck get itself to?")
largest market = fattest people? /ducks
Someone advocating better hardware over more efficient code? Heresy I say!
I don't know if they're listening like the OP says but if they are, I wouldn't rely on the "signal vs noise" theory. Generally the govt/defence is incompetent but all it takes is one smart person for it to actually work pretty well. Unfortunately, unless that one smart person is intimately involved with the design of the system, the odds of it working very well based on poorly designed systems is fairly remote.
1. Write software that requires the grunt of a desktop machine to run.
2. Discredit mobile computing (where you aren't doing so well) by blaming it for a medical condition.
3. Profit!
Seriously though, how is it news that performing more of a repetitive action that causes RSI causes (wait for it!) more incidents of RSI?
I'm more interested in the phenomenon whereby technology that is supposed to make our working lives easier and faster is actually making us work more. (I know, it's not *making* us work more, but why on Earth would anyone want to do more work in more time? Doing the same work in less time, or more work in the same time I can understand).
I hate not knowing if a poster's first language is English. Makes it difficult to weed out the easy targets.:/