I'm not so much arrogant as not stupid. The replies I've responded to have either been zero content or completely unresponsive to my posts. I wrote the post the way I wrote it because it was evident that the commenter I was replying to has reading comprehension problems and I felt an analogy in a completely different context may help. And given the apparent childishness of the poster the available contexts that might suffice to convey the requisite message were limited to those that resonate with the childish, teen-aged mind. Which means a penis reference or something scatalogical. I went with penis, sorry if you would have preferred something involving giardia or flung poo and perhaps next time I can cater to your peccadilloes.
As far as demonstrating my superiority, how could I not? On the subject of whether certain types of changes are bad for one's customers it is self-evident that I understand the question better. If you don't like the tone of my post, then perhaps you should read this comment sub-thread and see which poster it was that began the ad hominem attacks instead of challenging the point being made? I wasn't the one that used "you" or "your" nine times in three sentences. I didn't start making judgements about the commenter I was replying to. Ultimately when a fly is buzzing around annoying one, one swats it.
That's quite the little attack rant. It's so cute. Do you feel better now that you've got it out of your system?
No idea if you're the original AC that posted the content free "change is bad argument" bullshit. But that comment was total bullshit. Unless one provides additional context the post had zero meaning. Zero. It meant nothing. Why? Because change is bad. Change is also good. And it's also neutral. Throwing comments like that out there without the requisite rational are like whipping your penis out and wiggling it in the face of the gal you're trying to pick up. You might think it's convincing, witty and awesome, but it's just stupid and it's not going to get you laid or even a phone number.
If you'd even bothered to read and understand my comment you would not have written the tirade you did. Because I didn't say change was bad. I said changes with particular motivations are bad. I'm not the vendor's beta tester, I'm not running their software for the glory of being in the presence of their product. I'm using it because I determined that it fit my needs at a cost that made sense. The vendor making the wrong changes may well cost themselves right out of my data center.
If you're a software developer, consultant or even a sysadmin, you really, really need to understand exactly why your customer/business has an IT department. It's to support the business, full stop. If you have an idea that seems awesome but doesn't align with that, it's a bad idea.
So in the future, before you grab up your cardboard sword and shield and rush at the adults and squeaking a war cry at the top of your little lungs, you should actually comprehend what they are saying.
Change that makes my vendor's life easier (more profitable) at the expense of making my business' life harder (less profitable/incurs expense) is bad -- from my point of view.
Redhat's customers are not in the business of selling linux and linux services. That is redhat's business. The customers' business is web hosting, or ecommerce, or accounting, or HR, or communications. Change that is specifically about making it easier for redhat but doesn't give customers value is bad. This seems obvious to me.
It's not storing 6 bits in a data structure. It's running traces (if that's even what they're called in IC design) throughout the die connecting these things together. At that level adding two extra traces to carry those two bits is an expense you might want to forgo. However once you've got six wires/bits out there, the only reasons I can think of to not use 64 whatevers is the previously mentioned heat management and die yield issues.
Well, in fairness, on the memory side, you do that with some combination of memory modules which are addressable by powers of two. (eg. 2GB + 1GB, or 4GB + 4GB + 1GB), each of which is discrete from the others. I don't believe you can buy a 3GB or 9GB memory module.
Certain models of Xeon processor have three memory controllers. Which, when configuring for maximum memory bandwidth, leads to memory being measured in terms of three times powers of two (3 x 2^30.)
It's the mercury nuclear test site. Those craters are (mostly) not the result of bombs being dropped on the ground, but rather nuclear bombs being set off thousands of feet underground and usually the ground collapses some time after the bomb has gone off.
He doesn't belong in the government because he isn't willing to work with what he has. Wants to just throw everything out and start over. Sorry, we've invested billions and trillions of dollars into what we have. And, contrary to most declarations by people with an axe to grind or an idea to sell, it generally works. Anyone going in there to work needs to start where we are and improve it and do so in a fiscally responsible fashion. I realize that this means this guy won't be able to dish out lucrative contracts to his buddies and the lobbyists that get him laid, but tough shit. The party days are over and we need to get our shit together and the asshats in government (both elected, appointed, and hired) need to figure out that they are not kings or celebrities. They do not deserve and are not entitled to the high life.
Of course the question is being framed wrong... The real question is why do we put up with these assholes that have such a limited skill set that they can be replaced by a machine?
Imagine where we could be if the lazy 70% of the population were curious, intelligent, creative, educated and motivated.
You have a very fantasy rich view of this topic. The First Congress of the United States passed two militia acts in 1792. The second of which states:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
It says "shall provide himself" as in they will buy arms and maintain a certain amount of ammunition. I fail to see how anyone could have considered a state or city having the authority to bar the personal ownership of arms when the federal government required such ownership.
Perhaps you are arguing some nuanced point about whether there was debate as tot he meaning of the second amendment. Given that the country has had an armed citizenry from day one no one argued the point because it was absurd on its face. Much as no one ever debated whether Congress writes the laws or the President is the head of the executive branch. It was only when irrational individuals used convoluted parsings of the plain text that they were able to reach a position completely opposed to the widely understood meaning of the constitutional protections guaranteed the people of the country.
I doubt that any of this means anything to you as you seem the sort who will insist on not only having your own opinion but your own "facts" regardless of the truth of the situation.
That's just wrong. There were multiple states that required individuals to have weapons at the time of the formation of the United States. Not only did private individuals own small arms, some owned cannons as well.
Are you saying I'm making stuff up because I didn't present a sixty page detailed report on the state of recent graduates? Sorry, I'm posting on slashdot not writing a fucking policy paper for a think tank. I provided links and evidence for my claims as to English Literature (sixth most common degree) and to the actual cost of a college education. If you are coming out with $50,000+ in debt you did something stupid. Perhaps it's not frat parties, perhaps it was thinking you could go to Columbia and live a nice urban Manhattan lifestyle -- all of course without having any income. Perhaps it is buying name brand clothing, high-end wine, and Apple computers -- again without an actual income.
As far as the rest of your cry-baby rant goes, if you don't want people to think you're a lazy, elitist prick, don't act like one. There are jobs out there, but of course you have to have the skill set required and be willing to go where the job is.
If you were in college thirty years ago, maybe you should try and act your age.
This attitude of "you screwed up so you deserve to suffer" is cruel and impractical.
Do you know what attitude is even more cruel? It's "I screwed up so you deserve to suffer." Regardless it's not suffering. It's just the consequences of their choices. Also keep in mind that the average student loan debt for 2011 grads is $23,000. Spread that over ten years of repayments and you're looking at less than $300/mo. Yeah, it's tough but not impossible. Over twenty years and you're looking at $175/mo. Someone with debt in excess of 2x-3x that amount made bad choices and I have a hard time understanding why my family should shoulder that burden. Particularly given the fact that undoubtedly those same people would be hoarding their earnings if they came out of college and whatever unrealistic expectations they had were actually met.
You're just bitter that I don't want to pay your college loans....
Let me give you a small bit of advice.
First, go to a community college for your first two years. Live with your parents. Work part time at any job. You won't be a CEO and it won't be glamorous, but college isn't about making you feel special.
Second, go to an instate college. Preferably go to a college in the city your family lives in.
Third, go into a field that you can legitimately say will improve your earning ability.
And as far as making shit up...
I live in Seattle, here are the facts for this area:
And there are lots of jobs out there, they're just jobs that you apparently think you are above. Stop being such an elitist asshole and recognize that any work is better than no work and that no one is above doing any type of job.
1) After you graduate high school, get a job. Live with your parents. Save money for 1 year. 2) After that year of working, go to a community college for two years. Get your associates degree. Take classes to figure out that you really know what you want in life. Keep working and pay as you go. 3) Move on to a state school for your final two years. Take out as little debt as possible.
Sure you're not going to have that chance to be away from your parents at 18 years old and living it up care-free, but that's not the point of college, is it?
But you will have a degree and there's going to be a slightly better chance that you'll have some fucking perspective after you've worked for a year and paid for what you have.
Wait. You were told to go to college on debt? And to live a life of luxury and parties while you were there? Wow. Dumb parents. In my family our parents wanted us all to go to college but they never suggested we accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in debt to do it. In fact they pretty much insisted that everyone have a job while they went to school.
Also, who the hell told you to major in English Literature?
Nice troll, but weak language use indicates a weak mind. Correctly writing complex sentences demonstrates a brain capable of complex thought. Additionally there is substantial value in using precision in word selection. Not everything is a vehicle, some are cars, some are trucks, some are buggies and some are airplanes. Using the most precise word in a sentence that conveys the most precise meaning improves the quality of the communication.
I weep for the world as language skills decrease because it's one of the visible signs of lowered intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Please not "how do i archive data long term?" That comes up several times a year.
I have no idea what your native language is, but it's "snot-nosed" not "snot noes."
Also speak for yourself when it comes to being committed to doing our jobs professionally.
I'm not so much arrogant as not stupid. The replies I've responded to have either been zero content or completely unresponsive to my posts. I wrote the post the way I wrote it because it was evident that the commenter I was replying to has reading comprehension problems and I felt an analogy in a completely different context may help. And given the apparent childishness of the poster the available contexts that might suffice to convey the requisite message were limited to those that resonate with the childish, teen-aged mind. Which means a penis reference or something scatalogical. I went with penis, sorry if you would have preferred something involving giardia or flung poo and perhaps next time I can cater to your peccadilloes.
As far as demonstrating my superiority, how could I not? On the subject of whether certain types of changes are bad for one's customers it is self-evident that I understand the question better. If you don't like the tone of my post, then perhaps you should read this comment sub-thread and see which poster it was that began the ad hominem attacks instead of challenging the point being made? I wasn't the one that used "you" or "your" nine times in three sentences. I didn't start making judgements about the commenter I was replying to. Ultimately when a fly is buzzing around annoying one, one swats it.
That's quite the little attack rant. It's so cute. Do you feel better now that you've got it out of your system?
No idea if you're the original AC that posted the content free "change is bad argument" bullshit. But that comment was total bullshit. Unless one provides additional context the post had zero meaning. Zero. It meant nothing. Why? Because change is bad. Change is also good. And it's also neutral. Throwing comments like that out there without the requisite rational are like whipping your penis out and wiggling it in the face of the gal you're trying to pick up. You might think it's convincing, witty and awesome, but it's just stupid and it's not going to get you laid or even a phone number.
If you'd even bothered to read and understand my comment you would not have written the tirade you did. Because I didn't say change was bad. I said changes with particular motivations are bad. I'm not the vendor's beta tester, I'm not running their software for the glory of being in the presence of their product. I'm using it because I determined that it fit my needs at a cost that made sense. The vendor making the wrong changes may well cost themselves right out of my data center.
If you're a software developer, consultant or even a sysadmin, you really, really need to understand exactly why your customer/business has an IT department. It's to support the business, full stop. If you have an idea that seems awesome but doesn't align with that, it's a bad idea.
So in the future, before you grab up your cardboard sword and shield and rush at the adults and squeaking a war cry at the top of your little lungs, you should actually comprehend what they are saying.
Change that makes my vendor's life easier (more profitable) at the expense of making my business' life harder (less profitable/incurs expense) is bad -- from my point of view.
Redhat's customers are not in the business of selling linux and linux services. That is redhat's business. The customers' business is web hosting, or ecommerce, or accounting, or HR, or communications. Change that is specifically about making it easier for redhat but doesn't give customers value is bad. This seems obvious to me.
Which is exactly what browsers should do. But that doesn't solve the problem of CAs that can't keep their root keys secure.
It's not storing 6 bits in a data structure. It's running traces (if that's even what they're called in IC design) throughout the die connecting these things together. At that level adding two extra traces to carry those two bits is an expense you might want to forgo. However once you've got six wires/bits out there, the only reasons I can think of to not use 64 whatevers is the previously mentioned heat management and die yield issues.
Certain models of Xeon processor have three memory controllers. Which, when configuring for maximum memory bandwidth, leads to memory being measured in terms of three times powers of two (3 x 2^30.)
It's the mercury nuclear test site. Those craters are (mostly) not the result of bombs being dropped on the ground, but rather nuclear bombs being set off thousands of feet underground and usually the ground collapses some time after the bomb has gone off.
And this mess:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&aq=&sll=37.128297,-116.044807&sspn=0.110312,0.234833&vpsrc=0&ie=UTF8&ll=37.128297,-116.044807&spn=0.110312,0.234833&t=h&z=12
Partisan is not the same as politician.
Shaft? No, wait. That's wrong. The right answer was Sun. The community totally shit on them in return.
He doesn't belong in the government because he isn't willing to work with what he has. Wants to just throw everything out and start over. Sorry, we've invested billions and trillions of dollars into what we have. And, contrary to most declarations by people with an axe to grind or an idea to sell, it generally works. Anyone going in there to work needs to start where we are and improve it and do so in a fiscally responsible fashion. I realize that this means this guy won't be able to dish out lucrative contracts to his buddies and the lobbyists that get him laid, but tough shit. The party days are over and we need to get our shit together and the asshats in government (both elected, appointed, and hired) need to figure out that they are not kings or celebrities. They do not deserve and are not entitled to the high life.
Of course the question is being framed wrong... The real question is why do we put up with these assholes that have such a limited skill set that they can be replaced by a machine?
Imagine where we could be if the lazy 70% of the population were curious, intelligent, creative, educated and motivated.
J/k.
Maybe.
No, install Kimberly Kato or failing that Jessica Biel.
You have a very fantasy rich view of this topic. The First Congress of the United States passed two militia acts in 1792. The second of which states:
It says "shall provide himself" as in they will buy arms and maintain a certain amount of ammunition. I fail to see how anyone could have considered a state or city having the authority to bar the personal ownership of arms when the federal government required such ownership.
Perhaps you are arguing some nuanced point about whether there was debate as tot he meaning of the second amendment. Given that the country has had an armed citizenry from day one no one argued the point because it was absurd on its face. Much as no one ever debated whether Congress writes the laws or the President is the head of the executive branch. It was only when irrational individuals used convoluted parsings of the plain text that they were able to reach a position completely opposed to the widely understood meaning of the constitutional protections guaranteed the people of the country.
I doubt that any of this means anything to you as you seem the sort who will insist on not only having your own opinion but your own "facts" regardless of the truth of the situation.
That's just wrong. There were multiple states that required individuals to have weapons at the time of the formation of the United States. Not only did private individuals own small arms, some owned cannons as well.
Blah blah blah. Whatever. Grow up.
Are you saying I'm making stuff up because I didn't present a sixty page detailed report on the state of recent graduates? Sorry, I'm posting on slashdot not writing a fucking policy paper for a think tank. I provided links and evidence for my claims as to English Literature (sixth most common degree) and to the actual cost of a college education. If you are coming out with $50,000+ in debt you did something stupid. Perhaps it's not frat parties, perhaps it was thinking you could go to Columbia and live a nice urban Manhattan lifestyle -- all of course without having any income. Perhaps it is buying name brand clothing, high-end wine, and Apple computers -- again without an actual income.
As far as the rest of your cry-baby rant goes, if you don't want people to think you're a lazy, elitist prick, don't act like one. There are jobs out there, but of course you have to have the skill set required and be willing to go where the job is.
If you were in college thirty years ago, maybe you should try and act your age.
Do you know what attitude is even more cruel? It's "I screwed up so you deserve to suffer." Regardless it's not suffering. It's just the consequences of their choices. Also keep in mind that the average student loan debt for 2011 grads is $23,000. Spread that over ten years of repayments and you're looking at less than $300/mo. Yeah, it's tough but not impossible. Over twenty years and you're looking at $175/mo. Someone with debt in excess of 2x-3x that amount made bad choices and I have a hard time understanding why my family should shoulder that burden. Particularly given the fact that undoubtedly those same people would be hoarding their earnings if they came out of college and whatever unrealistic expectations they had were actually met.
Or, perhaps $22,900.
You're just bitter that I don't want to pay your college loans....
Let me give you a small bit of advice.
First, go to a community college for your first two years. Live with your parents. Work part time at any job. You won't be a CEO and it won't be glamorous, but college isn't about making you feel special.
Second, go to an instate college. Preferably go to a college in the city your family lives in.
Third, go into a field that you can legitimately say will improve your earning ability.
And as far as making shit up...
I live in Seattle, here are the facts for this area:
Seattle Central Community College, quarterly tuition for in state student with 16 credits: $1224.00. (From here: http://seattlecentral.edu/registration/tuition.php)
University of Washington, total annual tuition for transfer students: $11,340. (From: http://admit.washington.edu/Paying/Cost#freshmen-transfer)
Top ten college majors: (From: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx)
6) English Language and Literature
8) Communications Studies/Speech Communication and Rhetoric
9) Political Science and Government
Sorry, but the demand for English Language and Literature does not justify even $10,000/yr in debt, let alone $20,000+/yr. Compare the list of top majors with this list of top earning majors http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2073703,00.html and tell me again that I'm making shit up.
And there are lots of jobs out there, they're just jobs that you apparently think you are above. Stop being such an elitist asshole and recognize that any work is better than no work and that no one is above doing any type of job.
1) After you graduate high school, get a job. Live with your parents. Save money for 1 year.
2) After that year of working, go to a community college for two years. Get your associates degree. Take classes to figure out that you really know what you want in life. Keep working and pay as you go.
3) Move on to a state school for your final two years. Take out as little debt as possible.
Sure you're not going to have that chance to be away from your parents at 18 years old and living it up care-free, but that's not the point of college, is it?
But you will have a degree and there's going to be a slightly better chance that you'll have some fucking perspective after you've worked for a year and paid for what you have.
Wait. You were told to go to college on debt? And to live a life of luxury and parties while you were there? Wow. Dumb parents. In my family our parents wanted us all to go to college but they never suggested we accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in debt to do it. In fact they pretty much insisted that everyone have a job while they went to school.
Also, who the hell told you to major in English Literature?
Nice troll, but weak language use indicates a weak mind. Correctly writing complex sentences demonstrates a brain capable of complex thought. Additionally there is substantial value in using precision in word selection. Not everything is a vehicle, some are cars, some are trucks, some are buggies and some are airplanes. Using the most precise word in a sentence that conveys the most precise meaning improves the quality of the communication.
I weep for the world as language skills decrease because it's one of the visible signs of lowered intelligence.