Given that he doesn't know what ironic means, I'm not so sure that he really knows that it's wrong. He might just have stumbled on it.
I don't know whether he understands the most widely accepted meaning of "ironic", and neither do you. What he actually said was;
"ironic" doesn't mean "odd or coincidental"...
And it doesn't. The heart of the meaning of incongruity is that "the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same" (I used Wikipedia, because this post is not a school research assignment or periodical article. I think it's correct.) This complaint is similar to a usage that annoys me, when young people use "random" to mean "strange, odd, or inappropriate". This is rampant.
In context, the poster obviously understood the intended phrase for "for all intensive purposes" was "for all intents and purposes".
I apologize for being a pedant about this, but language and meaning matter to me, and a thing is true, or it's not. It's obvious to me what the poster meant, and it pissed me off a little that someone sniped at him based on negligible reading comprehension.
The GP referred to "for all intensive purposes" because he sees that phrase, and HE knows the writer means "for all intents and purposes", but the writer does not.
You failed to think even for a moment about what the GP said, so you jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I believe that kind of shallow thinking drives most of the poorly written online communication.
I avoid grandiloquent phrasing whenever possible, because it doesn't add any value, and phrases like "for all intents and purposes" are usually worthless filler. If you use a phrase or word you don't understand, can't spell or construct correctly, you end up giving the impression to your audience that you're little dumber than is the case.
Type of thinking has put many smart people into avoiding academic methodology in their lives. As they are just a bunch of closed minded dipwads.
The first sentence above is flawed, and made me read it twice before I understood what you meant, because you left off "This" at the beginning of the sentence. That only took a fraction of a second, but it was still jarring. The awkward phrasing of the second sentence above, and the use of an ad hominem, non-descriptive slang pejorative gives the impression that either you are not well educated, or didn't care enough about what you were writing to use common grammar and descriptive words.
In this case, it's not hard to understand what you were trying to say, but I estimate 50% of communication I see online contains significant grammar and spelling mistakes, and around 10% is so poorly written that meaning is actually lost.
Because this is Slashdot, here's my car analogy; we need everyone to stop at stop signs, every time. Even though hardly any of the "rolling stops" will result in an accident, some will, and as more people ignore the law, their careless driving will cause more accidents.
It's also true that poor spelling and grammar make you seem dumber than you are, and yes, your views will not be taken as seriously. As long as the majority of educated people react this way, you will suffer mild discrimination for it. I think that's good.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer used the official state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao as an opportunity to complain that 90% of Microsoft software users in China didn't pay for the products.
... Then, be double-plus careful to note all changes and deviations...
Much as I'd like to think you wrote "double-plus careful" instead of, perhaps, "very careful," as an attempt at irony, I'm afraid you actually used Newspeak from "1984" as if you think it's standard English.
"Illiterate - what does that even mean?" - Charlie Kelly
Office and Windows day's won't be cash cows forever.
The genetically altered cows that produce cash are in the second round.
As a senior engagement manager at a consulting firm in the 90's, I once created an animated PowerPoint presentation that showed the customer literally as a cow, and the sales team as lions who came in to feast on its entrails after the technical staff knocked it over with dazzling technology. Money was pouring out of the cow as the sales people tore into it.
I got a standing ovation from the sales team. It occurred to no one that I was deliberately insulting them.
If anything needs to be done, it should take the form of TA's who approach distracting kids and ask them to at least sit in the back of the room when not fully engaged in classwork (or ask them to do things like switch to an unobtrusive screensaver if they're not actively using the laptop, etc). Students who have difficulty with being distracted can make it a point to try to sit in the front of the room so there's less opportunity for distraction in front of them.
Shit, TA's in the same lecture hall as the professor? That's UNPOSSIBLE! Jesus Christ, I was the TA for some classes at BU after I graduated, and they treated the professor and TA as matter/anti-matter - they MUST not both be present at the same time.
Goddammit, I was the sole presence at the final exam for those courses!
Fuck me, the concept of both the professor and TA's taking an interest in the students at the SAME TIME might have provided me with a better education, leading to... no, I dare not think it.
I had to choose whether to reply or rate this post as Informative, rather than Funny. I decided to reply to say this was awesome. And Funny is fuck-all more powerful than Informative, because it's usually BOTH.
Disclaimer; I have met and hugged most of the TOS cast at conventions in the 70's. Except Shatner. I love him to death, but like with cops, I wouldn't like to get that close.
It's much worse than you think - Amazon's notice to the publisher said that this action may trigger a general review of ALL the publisher's works on Amazon. "Jack-booted thugs" now applies to Amazon's tactics.
Okay, fuck it. I'm jail-breaking the DRM'd books I bought at Amazon so I can read them in the future, and I'm moving on.
I'll either use my two (wonderful, fuzzy, awesome) Kindles with content from other sources, or I'll get a new e-reader. Maybe one of iPad killers (or, if I can hold my breath in the smugzone that is every Apple store, an actual iPad.)
Time to find out if I can get content from BN on my Kindles.
Is the Death Star really the technology to which you want to compare this data center? How well did that work out for the empire?
Personally, I think it's the computational center for Steve's worldwide reality distortion field. You need to really crunch the data to figure out how to bend people to your will.
You've wandered far off the reservation now. You really, actually, substantially just don't get it. At least you're backing off what you said, by claiming you meant something different.
The disconnect is you - feel free to respond yet again, but I'm done with this thread.
I'm really wondering about Apple's motivation in this. If I go by their business practices, I'd guess they're sore they didn't get a cut of the profits. The reported $2,500 apiece for those things on eBay seems about the price point they would favor, given what their PC's cost.
But Steve's such a media whore anyway, why didn't they just nod and smile?
Nope, you're still not getting it. Worse, now you're misrepresenting the issue. The juror used Wikipedia. And the point is that unmonitored, unmoderated information gained during the trial will taint the process, denying justice.
You don't have to like it, but it's our justice system, and I'm dismayed by the arrogance in the comments from people here who think they know better and should just ignore explicit instructions by a judge, especially when the system specifically provides the means to request information.
I understand it the sentence. I just don't understand the point. What could possibly be wrong about (for example) looking up a definition in the encyclopedia brittanica?
The point is that the judge must decide whether you should have the information, and from what source. To avoid miscarriages of justice because of unknown, and unregulated use of research material once the trial has started.
The people who have objected to our well established system in these posts seem to think, "well, certainly I know enough to do my own responsible research, there's no reason I should be constrained by this stupid rule."
In general, people cannot be trusted, because of personal biases, motivation, or simple ignorance. Therefore the judge must make these decisions, in all cases, for every juror.
Sure, you may think you're a good enough driver to only stop at stop signs when it's actually necessary, but since I value my life, I want you to follow the rules all the time.
A demonstration for you:
1) Purchase Kindle
2) Purchase and download 1000 ebooks to Kindle
3) Throw kindle into incinerator
4) Purchase new Kindle and click "Sync"
5) 1000 ebooks "magically" appear on new kindle and more remarkable show no signs of fire damage.
Dammit, I can't resist! Even though I have owned the Kindle 2 and DX for over a year and a half (my wife grabbed the Kindle 2), and we couldn't love them more, I have to point out that your step 5) should really be;
5) up to 1000 books "magically" appear on new Kindle
I was willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt when they had to recall "1984" because they accidentally sold an edition to which they did not have the rights. However, they are arbitrarily now removing multiple works from their store and from customers' online archives(!) by multiple authors in an inconsistent fashion, because the subject matter is incest. They didn't spell out that objection prior to publishing, and refuse to give any clarification of the policy now.
Still love my Kindle, Amazon not so much. Now my threshold for switching eReader in the future based on features/price/policies is a little bit lower.
Bezos you clown, if you aren't rampaging through Amazon terminating people with prejudice over this, you're an idiot.
It does pay to get a degree in the U.S. because increasingly, you simply cannot get a job without a degree. And as we go through each recession, employers use the leverage they get from enormous, desperate pools of applicants to jack up the educational requirements. You needed a Ba./Bs. for that job before? Well, now an Ms. is strongly preferred. (In my field, it's the bullshit MBA that's becoming mandatory.)
After the recession, this higher educational requirement is not relaxed, which is why it's harder or impossible to get a secretarial/administrative job in an office without good training or a bachelor's, and a master's degree for jobs above that.
It's possible to make up for the lack of a master's with other training - I find I'm still employable with a lowly Ba. in computer science, because I have an ITIL v3 certification, Scrum training, project management professional (PMP), and Lean Six Sigma certification, but only because I have a portfolio of successful work using that training.
So yeah, to quote a 70's era PSA where Lincoln is trying to get a job, "you ain't going nowhere without that sheepskin, fella".
It would have been possible to buy a Wikipedia DVD and look it up there, i.e. not using the internet. I wonder if that would have been acceptable. What about a copy of the encyclopedia brittanica, the printed versions of any of the laws that may apply or published precedents?
None of the things you mentioned is allowable. Not one. To do ANY of them is to violate the explicit and repeated instructions from the judge in this case.
Do they not teach people anything in high school civics classes any more? As a juror, you are called into service to use your knowledge and judgment in a trial of one of your (supposed) peers. You must not taint the process for your judgment or that of the other jurors by pursuing information you did not have in your head when you started.
Really, what's so difficult to understand about, "if you need additional information, tell the bailiff, and he will ask the judge about it."
Meh, if employees are violating the terms under which the employer gives them time off (for being sick), then the employer has an interest in identifying that, and taking action. I don't have any sympathy for people who sneak off under the guise of illness when they should just honestly talk with their manager about needing the time.
And for people who feel they can't do that in their company, well, they're just working in the wrong place, and should leave.
This is not an issue in any of the companies I've worked at in the past 10 years, because they lump a few extra days in with vacation, and call it personal time. Their attitude is, "Enjoy your time off - go on vacation, be sick, whatever. Just don't take more time than this if you expect to remain employed." Yep, it's a great time to be a corporate worker in the U.S.!
It sounds like the projects you describe as failures didn't have competent project managers on the teams, or those project managers were not supported by the sponsor.
I can't decide which is worse, technical people who are promoted into PM roles because they've been around a while, and management is "just common sense", or PM's who have the training but no technical background.
Most of the failures I've seen were caused by lack of discipline by the business stakeholders, the technical crew, or both. Most of the projects I've seen that were just ideas + technologists made some short-term progress, and were strategic disasters.
A good PM can provide structure, make sure objectives are defined, provide mentoring to the entire team on achieving their objectives, and truthfully reporting the state of the project. No other role can do that.
If someone says that, "they just need a programmer", they haven't vetted the idea. If they really knew what they wanted, they wouldn't need a programmer - they'd need a contract fulfilled for a specific task. If you say that crap, you're just a bullshit marketing guy.
I've seen idea people say they just need a programmer, but then they try to tell that programmer what they want, and they get something, MUCH later, that doesn't particularly look like what they need. If you're doing much more than a wireframe to demonstrate the idea, you need these roles (not people, roles): Business Analyst - to document the requirements Architect - this role could vet/select the technology, define the architecture type, and also design the software and data sources Programmer - okay, they could also be the DBA in a pinch Implementation Engineer - someone has to verify the release is complete and accurate Project Manager - schedule/budget/quality, requirements traceability; if you think they manage themselves, you must be a programmer
The real problem, that causes so many projects to fail, is that people who are good at some of these roles think they can do all of the others. Nope.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that he doesn't know what ironic means, I'm not so sure that he really knows that it's wrong. He might just have stumbled on it.
I don't know whether he understands the most widely accepted meaning of "ironic", and neither do you. What he actually said was;
"ironic" doesn't mean "odd or coincidental"...
And it doesn't. The heart of the meaning of incongruity is that "the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same" (I used Wikipedia, because this post is not a school research assignment or periodical article. I think it's correct.) This complaint is similar to a usage that annoys me, when young people use "random" to mean "strange, odd, or inappropriate". This is rampant.
In context, the poster obviously understood the intended phrase for "for all intensive purposes" was "for all intents and purposes".
I apologize for being a pedant about this, but language and meaning matter to me, and a thing is true, or it's not. It's obvious to me what the poster meant, and it pissed me off a little that someone sniped at him based on negligible reading comprehension.
Whoosh!
The GP referred to "for all intensive purposes" because he sees that phrase, and HE knows the writer means "for all intents and purposes", but the writer does not.
You failed to think even for a moment about what the GP said, so you jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I believe that kind of shallow thinking drives most of the poorly written online communication.
I avoid grandiloquent phrasing whenever possible, because it doesn't add any value, and phrases like "for all intents and purposes" are usually worthless filler. If you use a phrase or word you don't understand, can't spell or construct correctly, you end up giving the impression to your audience that you're little dumber than is the case.
Type of thinking has put many smart people into avoiding academic methodology in their lives. As they are just a bunch of closed minded dipwads.
The first sentence above is flawed, and made me read it twice before I understood what you meant, because you left off "This" at the beginning of the sentence. That only took a fraction of a second, but it was still jarring. The awkward phrasing of the second sentence above, and the use of an ad hominem, non-descriptive slang pejorative gives the impression that either you are not well educated, or didn't care enough about what you were writing to use common grammar and descriptive words.
In this case, it's not hard to understand what you were trying to say, but I estimate 50% of communication I see online contains significant grammar and spelling mistakes, and around 10% is so poorly written that meaning is actually lost.
Because this is Slashdot, here's my car analogy; we need everyone to stop at stop signs, every time. Even though hardly any of the "rolling stops" will result in an accident, some will, and as more people ignore the law, their careless driving will cause more accidents.
It's also true that poor spelling and grammar make you seem dumber than you are, and yes, your views will not be taken as seriously. As long as the majority of educated people react this way, you will suffer mild discrimination for it. I think that's good.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer used the official state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao as an opportunity to complain that 90% of Microsoft software users in China didn't pay for the products.
/. community?
So, about the same ratio as the
... Then, be double-plus careful to note all changes and deviations...
Much as I'd like to think you wrote "double-plus careful" instead of, perhaps, "very careful," as an attempt at irony, I'm afraid you actually used Newspeak from "1984" as if you think it's standard English.
"Illiterate - what does that even mean?" - Charlie Kelly
Office and Windows day's won't be cash cows forever.
The genetically altered cows that produce cash are in the second round.
As a senior engagement manager at a consulting firm in the 90's, I once created an animated PowerPoint presentation that showed the customer literally as a cow, and the sales team as lions who came in to feast on its entrails after the technical staff knocked it over with dazzling technology. Money was pouring out of the cow as the sales people tore into it.
I got a standing ovation from the sales team. It occurred to no one that I was deliberately insulting them.
Damn, I just used all my mod points! Nice burn.
If anything needs to be done, it should take the form of TA's who approach distracting kids and ask them to at least sit in the back of the room when not fully engaged in classwork (or ask them to do things like switch to an unobtrusive screensaver if they're not actively using the laptop, etc). Students who have difficulty with being distracted can make it a point to try to sit in the front of the room so there's less opportunity for distraction in front of them.
Shit, TA's in the same lecture hall as the professor? That's UNPOSSIBLE! Jesus Christ, I was the TA for some classes at BU after I graduated, and they treated the professor and TA as matter/anti-matter - they MUST not both be present at the same time.
Goddammit, I was the sole presence at the final exam for those courses!
Fuck me, the concept of both the professor and TA's taking an interest in the students at the SAME TIME might have provided me with a better education, leading to... no, I dare not think it.
Um, this is not extraordinary. It just sounds like a normal Saturday night in West Virginia.
I had to choose whether to reply or rate this post as Informative, rather than Funny. I decided to reply to say this was awesome. And Funny is fuck-all more powerful than Informative, because it's usually BOTH.
Disclaimer; I have met and hugged most of the TOS cast at conventions in the 70's. Except Shatner. I love him to death, but like with cops, I wouldn't like to get that close.
It's much worse than you think - Amazon's notice to the publisher said that this action may trigger a general review of ALL the publisher's works on Amazon. "Jack-booted thugs" now applies to Amazon's tactics.
Okay, fuck it. I'm jail-breaking the DRM'd books I bought at Amazon so I can read them in the future, and I'm moving on.
I'll either use my two (wonderful, fuzzy, awesome) Kindles with content from other sources, or I'll get a new e-reader. Maybe one of iPad killers (or, if I can hold my breath in the smugzone that is every Apple store, an actual iPad.)
Time to find out if I can get content from BN on my Kindles.
Is the Death Star really the technology to which you want to compare this data center? How well did that work out for the empire?
Personally, I think it's the computational center for Steve's worldwide reality distortion field. You need to really crunch the data to figure out how to bend people to your will.
You've wandered far off the reservation now. You really, actually, substantially just don't get it. At least you're backing off what you said, by claiming you meant something different.
The disconnect is you - feel free to respond yet again, but I'm done with this thread.
I'm really wondering about Apple's motivation in this. If I go by their business practices, I'd guess they're sore they didn't get a cut of the profits. The reported $2,500 apiece for those things on eBay seems about the price point they would favor, given what their PC's cost.
But Steve's such a media whore anyway, why didn't they just nod and smile?
Nope, you're still not getting it. Worse, now you're misrepresenting the issue. The juror used Wikipedia. And the point is that unmonitored, unmoderated information gained during the trial will taint the process, denying justice.
You don't have to like it, but it's our justice system, and I'm dismayed by the arrogance in the comments from people here who think they know better and should just ignore explicit instructions by a judge, especially when the system specifically provides the means to request information.
I understand it the sentence. I just don't understand the point. What could possibly be wrong about (for example) looking up a definition in the encyclopedia brittanica?
The point is that the judge must decide whether you should have the information, and from what source. To avoid miscarriages of justice because of unknown, and unregulated use of research material once the trial has started.
The people who have objected to our well established system in these posts seem to think, "well, certainly I know enough to do my own responsible research, there's no reason I should be constrained by this stupid rule."
In general, people cannot be trusted, because of personal biases, motivation, or simple ignorance. Therefore the judge must make these decisions, in all cases, for every juror.
Sure, you may think you're a good enough driver to only stop at stop signs when it's actually necessary, but since I value my life, I want you to follow the rules all the time.
Not true, you can ask for definitions and such, but it has to be an approved source.
Ask, yes. That's what I said, jurors have to ask. What I said you cannot do is go off on your own to get any of that information.
I think that was clear from my post.
How exactly do you fry an ebook?
A demonstration for you: 1) Purchase Kindle 2) Purchase and download 1000 ebooks to Kindle 3) Throw kindle into incinerator 4) Purchase new Kindle and click "Sync" 5) 1000 ebooks "magically" appear on new kindle and more remarkable show no signs of fire damage.
Dammit, I can't resist! Even though I have owned the Kindle 2 and DX for over a year and a half (my wife grabbed the Kindle 2), and we couldn't love them more, I have to point out that your step 5) should really be;
5) up to 1000 books "magically" appear on new Kindle
I was willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt when they had to recall "1984" because they accidentally sold an edition to which they did not have the rights. However, they are arbitrarily now removing multiple works from their store and from customers' online archives(!) by multiple authors in an inconsistent fashion, because the subject matter is incest. They didn't spell out that objection prior to publishing, and refuse to give any clarification of the policy now.
Still love my Kindle, Amazon not so much. Now my threshold for switching eReader in the future based on features/price/policies is a little bit lower.
Bezos you clown, if you aren't rampaging through Amazon terminating people with prejudice over this, you're an idiot.
It does pay to get a degree in the U.S. because increasingly, you simply cannot get a job without a degree. And as we go through each recession, employers use the leverage they get from enormous, desperate pools of applicants to jack up the educational requirements. You needed a Ba./Bs. for that job before? Well, now an Ms. is strongly preferred. (In my field, it's the bullshit MBA that's becoming mandatory.)
After the recession, this higher educational requirement is not relaxed, which is why it's harder or impossible to get a secretarial/administrative job in an office without good training or a bachelor's, and a master's degree for jobs above that.
It's possible to make up for the lack of a master's with other training - I find I'm still employable with a lowly Ba. in computer science, because I have an ITIL v3 certification, Scrum training, project management professional (PMP), and Lean Six Sigma certification, but only because I have a portfolio of successful work using that training.
So yeah, to quote a 70's era PSA where Lincoln is trying to get a job, "you ain't going nowhere without that sheepskin, fella".
It would have been possible to buy a Wikipedia DVD and look it up there, i.e. not using the internet. I wonder if that would have been acceptable. What about a copy of the encyclopedia brittanica, the printed versions of any of the laws that may apply or published precedents?
None of the things you mentioned is allowable. Not one. To do ANY of them is to violate the explicit and repeated instructions from the judge in this case.
Do they not teach people anything in high school civics classes any more? As a juror, you are called into service to use your knowledge and judgment in a trial of one of your (supposed) peers. You must not taint the process for your judgment or that of the other jurors by pursuing information you did not have in your head when you started.
Really, what's so difficult to understand about, "if you need additional information, tell the bailiff, and he will ask the judge about it."
Meh, if employees are violating the terms under which the employer gives them time off (for being sick), then the employer has an interest in identifying that, and taking action. I don't have any sympathy for people who sneak off under the guise of illness when they should just honestly talk with their manager about needing the time.
And for people who feel they can't do that in their company, well, they're just working in the wrong place, and should leave.
This is not an issue in any of the companies I've worked at in the past 10 years, because they lump a few extra days in with vacation, and call it personal time. Their attitude is, "Enjoy your time off - go on vacation, be sick, whatever. Just don't take more time than this if you expect to remain employed." Yep, it's a great time to be a corporate worker in the U.S.!
It sounds like the projects you describe as failures didn't have competent project managers on the teams, or those project managers were not supported by the sponsor.
I can't decide which is worse, technical people who are promoted into PM roles because they've been around a while, and management is "just common sense", or PM's who have the training but no technical background.
Most of the failures I've seen were caused by lack of discipline by the business stakeholders, the technical crew, or both. Most of the projects I've seen that were just ideas + technologists made some short-term progress, and were strategic disasters.
A good PM can provide structure, make sure objectives are defined, provide mentoring to the entire team on achieving their objectives, and truthfully reporting the state of the project. No other role can do that.
If someone says that, "they just need a programmer", they haven't vetted the idea. If they really knew what they wanted, they wouldn't need a programmer - they'd need a contract fulfilled for a specific task. If you say that crap, you're just a bullshit marketing guy.
I've seen idea people say they just need a programmer, but then they try to tell that programmer what they want, and they get something, MUCH later, that doesn't particularly look like what they need.
If you're doing much more than a wireframe to demonstrate the idea, you need these roles (not people, roles):
Business Analyst - to document the requirements
Architect - this role could vet/select the technology, define the architecture type, and also design the software and data sources
Programmer - okay, they could also be the DBA in a pinch
Implementation Engineer - someone has to verify the release is complete and accurate
Project Manager - schedule/budget/quality, requirements traceability; if you think they manage themselves, you must be a programmer
The real problem, that causes so many projects to fail, is that people who are good at some of these roles think they can do all of the others.
Nope.
Ooh! Ooh! If it's a GCU I hope it's Gray Area (aka Meatfucker).
It's probably about the thin oxygen atmosphere they found on Rhea.
Meh. Nothing earth-shattering.