I think 'schemer' is a little too rough. For every sucessfull venture there has to be a good salesperson. Jobs is a good salesperson no doubt about it, but how do you justify schemer?
Jobs enlists his pal Woz to "help" him improve the Breakout board design (Woz did the all the work, really). Nolan Bushnell paid a bounty of $5000 to Jobs for reducing it to 30 ICs intead of 80. Jobs told Woz he got $700 and magnanimously split that with him, giving Woz $350. Jobs is more than a schemer, he's a prick. There is no reasonable defense for such behavior.
Engineering skill is great, but to say that that's the ONLY thing that makes a company successful is a ridiculous claim.
WTF with the strawman? Nobody claimed anything of the sort! The original claim implied that Jobs was a party to the engineering genius that built the early apple stuff, which is absurd because Jobs is and was always a salesman, not an enginner. Woz was the engineer.
Try reading and responding to what I actually wrote, rather than making shit up.
I own a duel tuner DirecTivo and I've been very happy with it. My only complaint is that generally the DirecTivo lags behind the regular TiVo in terms of updates, etc. A good example of this is that my DirecTivo has USB ports on the back but no support for a USB ethernet card.
And it never will. It's actually not an issue of the DirecTivo "lagging behind", but rather an issue of DirecTV saying "no way". DirecTV wants all access to their boxes locked down TIGHT. They're deathly afraid of hackers. That means not only no Tivo2Go, but not even a network connection. They've only barely tolerated the existence of Tivobecause of customer demand. For years they've been promising/threatening to develop their own DVR platform and dump Tivo-- of course it's taken them until very recently to deploy it, and early reports on it aren't so good, so DirecTivo will be around for a while; but at the same time Tivo's presence on DirecTV receivers is solely at DirecTV's sufferance.
Apple Macintoshes are only rarely seen in corporate environments
I wonder if that is starting to shift at all? I know from my own experience, our company is about 32 people or so, and I can count 10 or 11 Mac users.
You can't really judge based on one company. I maintain the landlord-provided network backbone in a large 10-story office building. Tenants range in size from one accountant with a secretary, to a large architectural firm with 200+ employees on site. Mac representation roughly reflects Mac marketshare/2. A couple ad agencies use nothing but Macs (they always have) and some of the smaller firms (5 people or less) are Mac-only, but other than a few onesies and twosies for technophobic CxO's and in-house graphics designers and such, the vast majority use cheap commodity PCs (mostly Dells-- blech). Macs showed an initial surge from near-zero representation (on NON-artists' destops) to the current levels right around the iMac/OSX time frame, but It's been relatively static since.
BTW, contrast this to Wozniak who is also decidely famous, but as the wizard who made it all work. It's too bad the two of them didn't collaborate on more things
Jobs is a marketer, a schemer, a salesman. Jobs didn't really "collaborate" on anything with Woz so much as he rode him like a skilled horse to success. Look at the early Apple stuff: every bit of technical genius you see is from Woz alone. Really, Jobs isn't fit to polish Woz's shoes. The Nolan Bushnell/Breakout story is the classic example.
Either of you can take the whiny, self-absorbed, prick teasing cow.
I just re-watched Robotech(Macross) and the original Macross over the xmas break. Man, I'd forgotten what an annoying child Minmei was. More so in the Robotech version, what with the god-awful songwriting and singing
I'd rather have that hot green-haired Zentraedi chick - Milia. Oh yeah baby. She knows how to pilot a Valkyrie.
Ah, Milia Fallyna... I watched all the scenes with her several times. Who doesn't want her? My girlfriend says she'd do Milia.
Of course, I'd have to kill Maximilian first.
I think I could take him in hand to hand. So long as I don't have to fight him in a Valkyrie. He'd kick my ass. He's the Wedge Antilles of Macross.
The mere fact that someone can get into trouble by ranting into cyberspace without naming someone, is a bit un-nerving. When did thought crimes start to become a reality?
"Thought crime"? The government was never involved. Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged with a crime. Marquette can throw all its students out on the street tomorrow (tuition refunded, of course) just for having a wise-ass look on their collective face. What is with you people that you equate all forms of authority with government? When your boss tells you to shut up and get back to work, is he infringing your right of free expression? Get a clue.
What an odd idea. What is freedom of expression then, other than not having undue punishments for your speech? By your logic no government has ever restricted speech. People are still free to say whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect to avoid the punishment of being arrested.
The only restraint that cannot lawfully be resisted is (naturally) the law. This is why "freedom of speech" applies to laws and the governments that enforce them. Marquette University is not government. Nobody was arrested. No one's freedom of speech was restricted. It's a private institution. They are essentially free to restrict the speech of students as they see fit... with the obvious caveat that they had better be ready to accept the consequences (e.g. public outrage, condemnation) for their draconian punishment. See, it works both ways. In this case, both sides are probably unhappy with the outcome-- which is about the best you can reasonably wish for.
8 Gallons? You gotta be kidding. Where did you get that number? 8 gallons of ethanol per capita per year is FIVE SHOTS of 86 proof spirits PER DAY, average. Highly unlikely.
Really, the only reliable numbers available are largely based on legal alcohol sales-- note how they show ZERO consumption during prohibition. It's only rational to assume that illegal sales occurred during prohibition, and that bootlegging continued even afterward. The numbers show "legit" consumption of alcohol normalizing to the same 2.0-2.5oz/per capita range within ten years, after which they float up and down whithin that range. That is, until about the mid 70's when the "war on drugs" had its beginnings, which saw people move to alcohol from other drugs. Likewise, prohibition drove some away from alcohol entirely and into other drugs like marijuana, opiates, and cocaine. For this reason, looking at only alcohol (much less "legal alcohol sales") doesn't give you an accurate picture of all drug demand. Demand for drugs remains relatively static.
I actually think rulings like this is going to make the problem worse. It's like the war on drugs - when they make something like this illegal and prosecute people, which both knocks competitors out of the market and heightens the risk level for those that continue to do it, it drives up the value for those willing to assume the risk.
Flawed comparison. The problem with the war on drugs is that the demand is essentially static-- and quite high. No amount of punishment directed at either end of the pipe will have any measurable effect on people's desire to get high. Reduced supply simply results in prices being driven up. There is no corresponding fixed level of demand for spamming. It's only real attraction as an advertising strategy is that it's cheap and easy. The harder and more expensive it gets, the fewer people will use it.
Then what motivated the millions of followers in the USSR and Germany? I would argue it was not simply naked fear of the dictator, because in that case there would have been no need for any ideology
You're mistakenly assuming they had to start with one message and forever adhere to it. In the case of Germany and the USSR, they initially got people on board with a lot of "work, bread, pride" hot air, promising to get them out of the depression (Germany) or out from under the thumb of the Tsar (Russia). Once they got the ball rolling and had enough fervent adherents, the appearance of dissenters pointing out that the initial promises either weren't being fulfilled or came at to high a price could be easily controlled-- essentially at gunpoint. Stalin was famous for his "do it my way, or be buried by the highway" philosophy.
In linguistics, prescription is the laying down or prescribing of normative rules for a language.
If what you're doing doesn't qualify as such, then I don't know what does.
I'm not saying that usage of the word "literally" is wrong because the dictionary says it is. I'm saying it's wrong because it's opposite of the common usage. Point is, the entire value of language is its commonality. Traditional prescriptivism is railing against uses of "ain't" not in place of "am not", or the splitting of infinitives. "Incorrect" usages like that do not cause ambiguity, they're simply nitpicks by absolutists.
Using the word "literally" to add emphasis is common usage,
Hogwash. It's a common error, but common usage is still primarily the correct way.
and given that you understood clearly the intent of the author, it seems that it was an adequate choice of words.
Just because an error is common doesn't make it not an error. My recognition of the error doesn't make it not an error. There is a descriptive definition of the word as we, the english speaking public, use it, and it isn't for emphasis. See, "descriptivists" can be as bad as prescriptivists when they defend every illiterate dumbfuck's utter misuse of a word. "Literally knock your socks off" is an easy one to spot as wrong because there does not exist anything that literally knocks off socks. But what if they said "literally burning down the house", intending it as emphasis? Pretty fucking ambiguous. It's fucking wrong because "literally" has a specific common usage that doesn't just vanish because some crackhead with a web site doesn't know how the rest of us use it.
And if I'm not mistaken, we use the American punctuation rules on slashdot, so put those commas back behind those quotation marks.
I use "programming" punctuation rules, i.e. if the fragment quoted didn't have punctuation originally, then the period at the end of my sentence has no business weaseling its way into that character string as it's part of MY words, not THEIRS. It doesn't matter, though. The important thing is that no meaning is lost.
I probably haven't convinced you, but at least I hope you see that prescription is ultimately a waste of time.
Oh, indeed I accept that trying to stem the tide of illiteracy is pointless.
I just don't agree that I'm being prescriptive.
Begone you prescriptionist! and your prescriptionist dictionary too!
Prescriptionist? WTF are you talking about? When you preface a figure of speech with "literally", what you're saying is "(figure of speech) occurred, and I don't mean that as a figure of speech". Nobody's fucking socks got knocked off, so "literally" is the wrong fucking word.
...using "they" with a singular antecedent
They: the writer, editor, webmaster, etc.; essentially the collective group of people who had the opportunity-- nay, the responsibility of proofreading the material. But they are clearly not entirely literate.
we have put together a water cooling solution that will handle anything the Xbox 360 can throw at it and literally knock your socks off.
I fail to see how a water cooling system would do any sock-knocking. I guess they don't actually know what the word literally means (hint: it isn't a superlative nor does it simply add emphasis).
Taken at face value the term "free market" is an oxymoron, because a market is a place where things are bought and sold and so cannot be free in that sense.
Cripes, man, you do know that when they say "free market" they mean "free as in freedom" rather than "free as in beer", don't you? A free market is (theoretically) an unregulated market. It's only an oxymoron if you're not particularly literate, or being intentionally obtuse in order to make a snide comment.
I think the end result would be almost a total abandonment of a large part of the spectrum by commercial companies... you'd see radio being used mostly by hobbyists and individuals...
Yeah, because radio-based features are just minor, superfluous add-ons to most commercial products and services that use them, like cell phones, pagers, commercial 2-way radio dispatch, etc.
I know there are a lot more than 13 things that don't make sense, such as free markets, but, oxymorons aside, this is an interesting list, nevertheless."
All right! Always room for a little mindless, irrelevant editorializing, right?
Yeah... that holds true of just about every little thing reported when I've had personal experiences with the event. Not only do they get the general topic completely off base, but you'll find some places inventing little interesting details that just aren't there.
USGS Geologist:...so what we're seeing with the continued eruption without the typical earth movement and outgassing is a bit of a mystery. We're unsure where the pressure is coming from.
AP Reporter: so what you're saying is that the pressure will either form diamonds, like Superman, or spray lava all over Washington state?
USGS: Huh? No. No diamonds. And while inevitably the volcano probably WILL explode someday in the future, there's no sign of it coming any time soon.
AP reporter: so what you're saying is that it could explode without warning and set off "The Big One", causing California to fall into the ocean?
USGS: Not at all! The pressures involved presently are low because the lava flow is continuous.
AP: so what you're saying is that soon the lava will flow continuously like a river of fiery death, all the way to the sea, destroying Portland along the way?
USGS: Errr...no, I think it's safe to say there will be no river of lava. The worst thing we have to worry about is the silicates in the smoke plume damaging aircraft engines.
AP: so what you're saying is that the massive column of smoke will send all the world's airliners plummeting to the ground, killing thousands?
USGS: Wha? No, The airplanes will be fine! Look, this is just an interesting puzzle, really. We simply can't explain the lack of gasses in the outflow.
AP: Well OK then, I got it now. Thanks!
-AP wire, next day-
SCIENTISTS BAFFLED BY GAS SHORTAGES, PREDICT CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSION
Don't assume incompetance on their part because of some AP writer didn't get that point across.
Errr....he assumed no such thing. In fact, his point was identical to yours. Note how he says nothing about the scientists, and the line at the end where he says "Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries" (emphasis mine). The story is from the AP writer.
In the UK we went one better. The Post Office was renamed to Consignia and it hasn't even been privatised. And then the name was dropped because it was stupid and the clown in charge (one of those captains of industry that supposedly can make public services better) has gone to spend more time with his stock options.
HAH! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What, was "Royal Mail" too dignified and prestigious a name? Was 350+ years of history just too much to live up to? Clown indeed!
When you 'open up the sides of the case' you entirely undermine the designed airflow of the case, and it's easy to make critical parts of the system hotter. Perhaps you have your cables routed poorly and are blocking airflow.
Or perhaps he, like most of use, has the usual chinese $10 stamped sheet metal computer case that is engineered more for ease of manufacture than performance, and on hot days the heat output of a P4 is too much for those tiny fans. If you aim a box fan at the exposed motherboard, the "designed airflow" is essentially moot because you're pushing 10x the CFM. You see, carefully planned airflow is only necessary when the fans moving the air are small.
Re:Computer from scratch...
on
Makers
·
· Score: 1
As for the OS, i suspect by the time you have made your own computer it will be no problem to write the OS.
From what I've seen (friend built a Z80 based system from scratch 20 years ago) usually by the time they get the hardware working, the most they've managed is a crude command line for loading, saving, and running their hand-hacked code. Real hardware nuts seem to then go on to hack in even more sophisticated hardware, with greater capabilities-- that still only has a crude command line. Hardware guys are funny that way. As my friend said (paraphrasing the old coding saying) "If it was hard to build, it should be hard to use!"
I never got trough philosophy, i got stuck at Zenos paradox
wouldn't that be "stuck halfway through Zeno's paradox?"... Hmmm...that's not quite right either I guess...
Re:I like working with Power Tools...
on
Makers
·
· Score: 1
I knew a plumber who has a Poli-Sci major from an excellent university but he decided to become a plumber since the Poli-Sci degree certainly wasnt bringing in six figures. These jobs area also fairly secure from being outsourced as they require physical presense and licensing/local knowledge.
Indeed. I was an intelligence analyst and russian linguist in the Army and have an engineering degree, but currently I'm a self-employed electrician/telecom tech. My former boss, from whom I purchased the business, had a masters degree in chemistry. I can't imagine being a wage slave at this point. A college friend of mine with a mech engr degree works for the Navy. He's stuck overseeing CIWS testing on the USS Eisenhower (aka "Ike-a-traz") for weeks at a time for a measly $60K. I work maybe 30 hours a week and make three times what he does. Abandoning my college education is the smartest thing I've ever done!
Why? Your comment was a rather bland observation of fact.
I'll never understand why people consistently preface their comments with this caveat when their comments are almost invariably either repetitions of typical slashdot groupthink or simply entirely non-controversial. I used to think maybe the ones that said it appropriately were actually getting modded down, but in years of browsing at -1 while modding, I haven't seen it.
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs enlists his pal Woz to "help" him improve the Breakout board design (Woz did the all the work, really). Nolan Bushnell paid a bounty of $5000 to Jobs for reducing it to 30 ICs intead of 80. Jobs told Woz he got $700 and magnanimously split that with him, giving Woz $350. Jobs is more than a schemer, he's a prick. There is no reasonable defense for such behavior.
WTF with the strawman? Nobody claimed anything of the sort! The original claim implied that Jobs was a party to the engineering genius that built the early apple stuff, which is absurd because Jobs is and was always a salesman, not an enginner. Woz was the engineer.
Try reading and responding to what I actually wrote, rather than making shit up.
And it never will. It's actually not an issue of the DirecTivo "lagging behind", but rather an issue of DirecTV saying "no way". DirecTV wants all access to their boxes locked down TIGHT. They're deathly afraid of hackers. That means not only no Tivo2Go, but not even a network connection. They've only barely tolerated the existence of Tivobecause of customer demand. For years they've been promising/threatening to develop their own DVR platform and dump Tivo-- of course it's taken them until very recently to deploy it, and early reports on it aren't so good, so DirecTivo will be around for a while; but at the same time Tivo's presence on DirecTV receivers is solely at DirecTV's sufferance.
I wonder if that is starting to shift at all? I know from my own experience, our company is about 32 people or so, and I can count 10 or 11 Mac users.
You can't really judge based on one company. I maintain the landlord-provided network backbone in a large 10-story office building. Tenants range in size from one accountant with a secretary, to a large architectural firm with 200+ employees on site. Mac representation roughly reflects Mac marketshare/2. A couple ad agencies use nothing but Macs (they always have) and some of the smaller firms (5 people or less) are Mac-only, but other than a few onesies and twosies for technophobic CxO's and in-house graphics designers and such, the vast majority use cheap commodity PCs (mostly Dells-- blech). Macs showed an initial surge from near-zero representation (on NON-artists' destops) to the current levels right around the iMac/OSX time frame, but It's been relatively static since.
Jobs is a marketer, a schemer, a salesman. Jobs didn't really "collaborate" on anything with Woz so much as he rode him like a skilled horse to success. Look at the early Apple stuff: every bit of technical genius you see is from Woz alone. Really, Jobs isn't fit to polish Woz's shoes. The Nolan Bushnell/Breakout story is the classic example.
I just re-watched Robotech(Macross) and the original Macross over the xmas break. Man, I'd forgotten what an annoying child Minmei was. More so in the Robotech version, what with the god-awful songwriting and singing
I'd rather have that hot green-haired Zentraedi chick - Milia. Oh yeah baby. She knows how to pilot a Valkyrie.
Ah, Milia Fallyna... I watched all the scenes with her several times. Who doesn't want her? My girlfriend says she'd do Milia.
Of course, I'd have to kill Maximilian first.
I think I could take him in hand to hand. So long as I don't have to fight him in a Valkyrie. He'd kick my ass. He's the Wedge Antilles of Macross.
"Thought crime"? The government was never involved. Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged with a crime. Marquette can throw all its students out on the street tomorrow (tuition refunded, of course) just for having a wise-ass look on their collective face. What is with you people that you equate all forms of authority with government? When your boss tells you to shut up and get back to work, is he infringing your right of free expression? Get a clue.
The only restraint that cannot lawfully be resisted is (naturally) the law. This is why "freedom of speech" applies to laws and the governments that enforce them. Marquette University is not government. Nobody was arrested. No one's freedom of speech was restricted. It's a private institution. They are essentially free to restrict the speech of students as they see fit... with the obvious caveat that they had better be ready to accept the consequences (e.g. public outrage, condemnation) for their draconian punishment. See, it works both ways. In this case, both sides are probably unhappy with the outcome-- which is about the best you can reasonably wish for.
8 Gallons? You gotta be kidding. Where did you get that number? 8 gallons of ethanol per capita per year is FIVE SHOTS of 86 proof spirits PER DAY, average. Highly unlikely.
Really, the only reliable numbers available are largely based on legal alcohol sales-- note how they show ZERO consumption during prohibition. It's only rational to assume that illegal sales occurred during prohibition, and that bootlegging continued even afterward. The numbers show "legit" consumption of alcohol normalizing to the same 2.0-2.5oz/per capita range within ten years, after which they float up and down whithin that range. That is, until about the mid 70's when the "war on drugs" had its beginnings, which saw people move to alcohol from other drugs. Likewise, prohibition drove some away from alcohol entirely and into other drugs like marijuana, opiates, and cocaine. For this reason, looking at only alcohol (much less "legal alcohol sales") doesn't give you an accurate picture of all drug demand. Demand for drugs remains relatively static.
Flawed comparison. The problem with the war on drugs is that the demand is essentially static-- and quite high. No amount of punishment directed at either end of the pipe will have any measurable effect on people's desire to get high. Reduced supply simply results in prices being driven up. There is no corresponding fixed level of demand for spamming. It's only real attraction as an advertising strategy is that it's cheap and easy. The harder and more expensive it gets, the fewer people will use it.
Whereas your post was a model of brilliance, wit and insight.
News flash: his post was not intended to be a model of brilliance, wit, or insight.
You're mistakenly assuming they had to start with one message and forever adhere to it. In the case of Germany and the USSR, they initially got people on board with a lot of "work, bread, pride" hot air, promising to get them out of the depression (Germany) or out from under the thumb of the Tsar (Russia). Once they got the ball rolling and had enough fervent adherents, the appearance of dissenters pointing out that the initial promises either weren't being fulfilled or came at to high a price could be easily controlled-- essentially at gunpoint. Stalin was famous for his "do it my way, or be buried by the highway" philosophy.
If what you're doing doesn't qualify as such, then I don't know what does.
I'm not saying that usage of the word "literally" is wrong because the dictionary says it is. I'm saying it's wrong because it's opposite of the common usage. Point is, the entire value of language is its commonality. Traditional prescriptivism is railing against uses of "ain't" not in place of "am not", or the splitting of infinitives. "Incorrect" usages like that do not cause ambiguity, they're simply nitpicks by absolutists.
Using the word "literally" to add emphasis is common usage,
Hogwash. It's a common error, but common usage is still primarily the correct way.
and given that you understood clearly the intent of the author, it seems that it was an adequate choice of words.
Just because an error is common doesn't make it not an error. My recognition of the error doesn't make it not an error. There is a descriptive definition of the word as we, the english speaking public, use it, and it isn't for emphasis. See, "descriptivists" can be as bad as prescriptivists when they defend every illiterate dumbfuck's utter misuse of a word. "Literally knock your socks off" is an easy one to spot as wrong because there does not exist anything that literally knocks off socks. But what if they said "literally burning down the house", intending it as emphasis? Pretty fucking ambiguous. It's fucking wrong because "literally" has a specific common usage that doesn't just vanish because some crackhead with a web site doesn't know how the rest of us use it.
And if I'm not mistaken, we use the American punctuation rules on slashdot, so put those commas back behind those quotation marks.
I use "programming" punctuation rules, i.e. if the fragment quoted didn't have punctuation originally, then the period at the end of my sentence has no business weaseling its way into that character string as it's part of MY words, not THEIRS. It doesn't matter, though. The important thing is that no meaning is lost.
I probably haven't convinced you, but at least I hope you see that prescription is ultimately a waste of time.
Oh, indeed I accept that trying to stem the tide of illiteracy is pointless.
I just don't agree that I'm being prescriptive.
Prescriptionist? WTF are you talking about? When you preface a figure of speech with "literally", what you're saying is "(figure of speech) occurred, and I don't mean that as a figure of speech". Nobody's fucking socks got knocked off, so "literally" is the wrong fucking word.
They: the writer, editor, webmaster, etc.; essentially the collective group of people who had the opportunity-- nay, the responsibility of proofreading the material. But they are clearly not entirely literate.
I fail to see how a water cooling system would do any sock-knocking. I guess they don't actually know what the word literally means (hint: it isn't a superlative nor does it simply add emphasis).
Cripes, man, you do know that when they say "free market" they mean "free as in freedom" rather than "free as in beer", don't you? A free market is (theoretically) an unregulated market. It's only an oxymoron if you're not particularly literate, or being intentionally obtuse in order to make a snide comment.
Yeah, because radio-based features are just minor, superfluous add-ons to most commercial products and services that use them, like cell phones, pagers, commercial 2-way radio dispatch, etc.
Man, you must be on crack.
All right! Always room for a little mindless, irrelevant editorializing, right?
USGS Geologist: ...so what we're seeing with the continued eruption without the typical earth movement and outgassing is a bit of a mystery. We're unsure where the pressure is coming from.
AP Reporter: so what you're saying is that the pressure will either form diamonds, like Superman, or spray lava all over Washington state?
USGS: Huh? No. No diamonds. And while inevitably the volcano probably WILL explode someday in the future, there's no sign of it coming any time soon.
AP reporter: so what you're saying is that it could explode without warning and set off "The Big One", causing California to fall into the ocean?
USGS: Not at all! The pressures involved presently are low because the lava flow is continuous.
AP: so what you're saying is that soon the lava will flow continuously like a river of fiery death, all the way to the sea, destroying Portland along the way?
USGS: Errr...no, I think it's safe to say there will be no river of lava. The worst thing we have to worry about is the silicates in the smoke plume damaging aircraft engines.
AP: so what you're saying is that the massive column of smoke will send all the world's airliners plummeting to the ground, killing thousands?
USGS: Wha? No, The airplanes will be fine! Look, this is just an interesting puzzle, really. We simply can't explain the lack of gasses in the outflow.
AP: Well OK then, I got it now. Thanks!
-AP wire, next day-
SCIENTISTS BAFFLED BY GAS SHORTAGES, PREDICT CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSION
USGS: &#%@*!
Errr....he assumed no such thing. In fact, his point was identical to yours. Note how he says nothing about the scientists, and the line at the end where he says "Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries" (emphasis mine). The story is from the AP writer.
HAH! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What, was "Royal Mail" too dignified and prestigious a name? Was 350+ years of history just too much to live up to? Clown indeed!
Or perhaps he, like most of use, has the usual chinese $10 stamped sheet metal computer case that is engineered more for ease of manufacture than performance, and on hot days the heat output of a P4 is too much for those tiny fans. If you aim a box fan at the exposed motherboard, the "designed airflow" is essentially moot because you're pushing 10x the CFM. You see, carefully planned airflow is only necessary when the fans moving the air are small.
From what I've seen (friend built a Z80 based system from scratch 20 years ago) usually by the time they get the hardware working, the most they've managed is a crude command line for loading, saving, and running their hand-hacked code. Real hardware nuts seem to then go on to hack in even more sophisticated hardware, with greater capabilities-- that still only has a crude command line. Hardware guys are funny that way. As my friend said (paraphrasing the old coding saying) "If it was hard to build, it should be hard to use!"
I never got trough philosophy, i got stuck at Zenos paradox
wouldn't that be "stuck halfway through Zeno's paradox?"... Hmmm...that's not quite right either I guess...
Indeed. I was an intelligence analyst and russian linguist in the Army and have an engineering degree, but currently I'm a self-employed electrician/telecom tech. My former boss, from whom I purchased the business, had a masters degree in chemistry. I can't imagine being a wage slave at this point. A college friend of mine with a mech engr degree works for the Navy. He's stuck overseeing CIWS testing on the USS Eisenhower (aka "Ike-a-traz") for weeks at a time for a measly $60K. I work maybe 30 hours a week and make three times what he does. Abandoning my college education is the smartest thing I've ever done!
Why? Your comment was a rather bland observation of fact.
I'll never understand why people consistently preface their comments with this caveat when their comments are almost invariably either repetitions of typical slashdot groupthink or simply entirely non-controversial. I used to think maybe the ones that said it appropriately were actually getting modded down, but in years of browsing at -1 while modding, I haven't seen it.