Bullshit. If you see demons/spirits/angels running around you're delusional and not suited for most work.
Unless you're working in a liquor store - lots of spirits there... in fact I "communed" with a glass of spirits last night - Appleton Rum - finally opened the bottle my daughter gave me for Christmas...
Of course, if you're a fundie, then those are also evil spirits.
If you answer "False" to this (like I would), then you would also be weeded out as a liar. Because well, most people lie most of the time, and according to the HR types, if you don't admit to lying then you are just a dishonest liar.
If you answer this one with "yes", then you are probably a liar. This is a trick question, asking in fact the opposite. Everyone lies sometime or another, no matter how small the lie. There is no question about that. So if you answer this one with "yes", you probably have something to hide.
Trick question? Maybe for a 5-year-old... Even the shrinks will admit that someone with enough intelligence and a bit of introspection can see through the test, including all the "catch the liars' questions", and hide a LOT of shit.
Where's Hiu?
Watt!
What?
Yes.
No, I asked, where's Hiu?
Watt!
What?
Exactly!
Where?
Watt!
What?
Now you've got it!
Just tell me what's with Hiu
No, you've got it backwards.
Who?
That's what I said.
Where?
Watt!
What?
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Let me guess... you trained with that crazy Depends-toting Lisa Maire Nowak?
Yeah, I heard that SO many times in Sunday School... but when you consider that the bible itself is so full of contradictions that it can (and has) been used to justify anything, and that when a "deadline" passes (like the 2nd coming which was expected by the original followers of Jesus within their own lifetimes...) - Christianity's just another cult.
No, the poster just forgot a hyphen. Try reading it as ". ..resurrected Jesus-like character. .." and it makes sense.
No, because Jesus never led anyone to the promised land - Moses did. If you're going to make biblical allusions to someone leading people to the "promised land", you've got to get the characters right. (gotta know who to blame:-)
Yeah, but after 5 years, I'd expect that thos who survive have more spunk in them than that... after fighting for 5 years, and spending their whole lives in a very tech/machine-oriented environment, to give it up would be a shock of the same magnitude.
As for the trolling charge, sure, I love exposing know-nothings, poseurs and bloviating gasbags. It gives me practice for doing the same thing at work, when someone suffering a brain-fart tries to push for something particularly destructive. BTW - we're STILL waiting for your alternate universe explanation of how multi-threading can reduce the cost and number of cpu cycles for massive simulation runs, especially when the intermediate calculations can't be shared between instances, so you can't stair-case the runs.
It's funny, but when it comes to the concepts, either you grok on a gut level, or you don't - and you don't. And it shows. Keep flailing about... you may yet get the hang of it. Or not. In the meantime, everyone's laughing at you - but that's not exactly a new experience for you, is it? (and no, don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question).
Anyone spot the the city missing from the list? Dublin?!
Not any more. Ireland is no longer the Celtic Tiger:
Historian Richard Aldous considers that the Celtic Tiger has now gone the way of the dodo. In early 2008 all the talk was of soft landings and money-making resilience. By January 2009, the only question was whether the country can avoid a depression.
...
In January 2009 UCD economist Morgan Kelly predicted that house prices would fall by 80 per cent from peak to trough in real terms
...
By 2009-01-30, Ireland's government debt had become the riskiest in the euro zone, surpassing Greece's sovereign bonds, according to credit-default swap prices.
In February 2009, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said that Ireland's economy appeared on course to contract by 6.5 percent in 2009.
That's a disaster, and much of it is related to high-tech jobs leaving Ireland for elsewhere.
Don't like it when you're caught in your bullshit, do you? You don't really understand your own job, and you got caught out in a tech forum trying to BS your way with buzzword bingo. You don't understand multi-threading, you don't understand the problem of "initial conditions" in any form of analysis, and you haven't yet given a single reason why any of what I've pointed out is wrong.
We, as a society, need people like you to teach XML, make our lattes, and mow the lawn. Work hard, go home, drink a domestic beer
I don't know what "society" you come from, but I'm sure I'm not a part of it. My domestic beer is quite drinkable compared to, say, what you find in the US. As for XML, after a quarter-century in the business, I have yet to see a case where it actually brings anything to the table that can't be done better, quicker, and more dependably with other techniques. Lattes? Never made or drank one, never will.
Now, back on-topic... instead of being a poseur, why not explain how, in your dimension, multi-threading somehow can be expected to reduce the number of clock cycles and expense by half when running a horde of simulations? Or just fuck off like a good little fraud. Stop trying to run with the big dogs and go back to your momma's basement.
I hear you. At some point, you just want to fix the darn thing any old way and move on, rather than continue to butt heads with those who don't want to learn from history (and are doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over and...)
Of course, at some point you end up saying "f**k it" and move on to somewhere else, where, hopefully, you get, if not fewer problems, at least a NEW set of problems. After all, sometimes a change is almost as good as a vaction.
I think Scott Adams had it right with his OB5 (Out By 5) plan. If the business is run properly, everyone should be able to leave promptly at 5PM, every day. If people have to work extra to fix bugs, or to meet unreasonable deadlines, it's a sign that management is out to lunch. The funny thing is, the serious work by people like Charles Deming backs Adams up pretty much 100%, so I think Adams wasn't proposing it "tongue-in-cheek."
And how do you know the Galactica alone didn't have enough provision to go for 4+ years? It's a freaking massive huge military space vessel. How many months of MRE's would you put on that thing? The answer is: as many as it will hold.
I agree. The human race went from tens of billions to tens of thousands overnight. That's trauma on a scale beyond what we can naturally process. That's 99.9998% of all human life gone in the time it takes to get a movie from Netflix. That's the entire US population fitting into a high school gym with room to set up cots. They were ready to send every last bit of technology into the nearest star
I disagree. It's much more traumatic to lose one person you know than a million you don't. That's why the holocaust happened - people don't (unfortunately) empathize with unknown, faceless strangers.
Think of it - how many people die every day in car accidents, and they don't get as much mention as one actress on a ski slope - because, for many people, she's not faceless. How many people die of lung cancer or smoking-induced hear disease? And yet we still don't ban cigarettes. It's only when it's someone near and dear to us, or that we can put a face and a voice to, that it really kicks in.
Maybe that magic was just a technology that you can't explain.
Maybe that technology was just magic that was too advanced for you to explain.
Either way, it's a cop-out of major proportions.
One of the allures of sci-fi is it explores and exploits the human condition. Yes, you can invoke a characters' belief in god in such cases, and explore how that motivates people - but to actually INVOKE god (or a god-like entity) as the final rationale, gives up. It's the ultimate lamer. It's like "the entire last season was a dream." It's... well, lets just say that it is a failure of imagination, an unwillingness to continue to explore or push the edges, or offend at the critical moment. Coitus interruptus. Finding out that really hot-looking person is your cousin. Lunch-bag letdown.
Kara was the resurrected Jesus like character who brought humanity and the cylons to their promise land.
Holy Moses! So, it's like 1,500 years before Jesus was born, he was pre-incarnated as Moses to lead "his" people to the promised land... you trying to start YAC (Yet Another Cult) or something?
(The worst part is, you'd probably get a following. People will believe anything if you wrap it up in religious mumbo-jumbo. Look at how many are arguing in favour of the ending, and how it was foreshadowed throught the series, even though the writers admit they were winging it:-)
I prefer to reach a "low bug" state ASAP. Gives me more time waste on Slashdot and other silliness:).
I'd love to do that, but the powers that be always decree that we don't have time to do it the proper way - so we end up wasting multiple times doing it the wrong way and trying to recover...
Whoever said "good, fast, cheap - pick two" was a bloody optimist.
So far most (all?) of the stuff going into the logs are due to bugs in other people's code (libs, modules etc).
You're lucky - I'm finding other people's bugs that I've patched months ago being re-introduced on a regular basis from sloppy committers. "What do you mean, svn doesn't automatically merge changes?" So rather than locking them out, or trying to explain again the need for manually resolving differences, I just keep a private fork of the affected files and upload those instead. PITA.
I've had discussions were I tell the sales/trading team a single sale is going to cost them $100K/year in compute power just to track risk. If I could say $50K/year through multi-threading, they would get much happier.
Multi-threading doesn't reduce the cost of a computer run - it's like hiring 10 painters for 1 day instead of 1 painter for 10 days - the cost is the same (actually, the "multi-threaded" painting costs more, because now you have to coordinate activities, and you need more drop-clothes and paitbrushes and rollers, instead of just moving them from room to room - there's more overhead with threaded approaches).
... and you've already proven that you have no clue as to how multi-threading actually works, which is what this whole thing is about.
As for the rest, I think that the current financial crisis has proven the emperor has no clothes.
Some hedging makes sense. What has been going on for the last decade, doesn't. It's a work of fiction that too many bought into, same as rating sub-prime (or any) mortgage as AAA. WTF would ANY mortgage be rated triple-A when RE prices go into cyclical declines all the time? Oh, right, the "numbers" said otherwise. The more degrees of separation of a derivative or hedge from the underlying product, the more likely that it's not realistic. Eventually, the luck runs out, an outlier event happens, or someone gets a serious case of the shorts. While the odds for any one time period are small, over a longer period of time, it approaches certainty.
For another example, look at the futures market for energy last year. Steve Jobs wasn't the only one running a reality distortion field.
Guess you missed the story about how, for several years, one trading house has been using the wrong figures in deciding their derivatives trading because of a simple cut-n-paste error... and how, when they found out, their reaction was "oh well."
I've had discussions were I tell the sales/trading team a single sale is going to cost them $100K/year in compute power just to track risk. If I could say $50K/year through multi-threading, they would get much happier.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of multi-threading. It doesn't reduce the number of cpu cycles you need - it just allows you to do stuff in parallel, so that you can spread the same workload to more cpus, or handle more than one task at a time. There's additional overhead for threading, so the total number of cycles to complete a single set of calculations, divided among many threads, is more, not less. Being able to spread the workload among multiple cpus means you finish sooner, not that you've saved compute cycles.
Take monte carlo analysis - 1,000,000 threads each doing one simulation, instead of 1 thread doing all 1,000,000 simulations, won't save you any time if they're all on the same core. Spreading it out to a compute farm will let you finish the task quicker, but the expense (in terms of cpu cycles) is still the same, so your cost is the same. And of course, there are some portions that won't be possible to parallelize (same as if it takes 9 months for one woman to make a baby, it won't take 1 month for 9 women to make a baby).
BTW - I chose monte carlo analysis because we now know it's actually a good example of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out - when it comes to financial analysis. Instead of being a method to "brute-force" the calculation of risk, it turns out to be dependent, like pretty much everything else we try to calculate, on the original assumptions. It only seems to work because everyone plays pretty much by the same rules, with the same underlying assumptions, and much of the time, these assumptions are "good enough." Same as with the original use wrt the original use in the design of the A-bomb. If the original assumptions hadn't been reasonable, educated ones, it wouldn't have worked. Ultimately, you want to come up with a price - a single number - and this is a serious problem, because that number is susceptible to the underlying assumptions being wrong at least some of the time, and possible wrong enough to be catastrophic in outliers. We've now learned that, contrary to our assumptions, hedging doesn't reduce risk when the risk is spread too widely, and is too large. Excessive hedging and derivatives formulation does exactly that - it removes the natural firewalls that prevent the "house of cards" of cascading failures, and results in positive feedback loops that are unrelated to the actual underlying markets. The real problem, of course, is that it's still easier to make a buck arbitrading risk than it is to actually produce something of value.
Slashdot Mirror
That, plus the leak to slashdot and the ensuing Streissand Effect, is more than sufficient.
Bullshit. I'm not a lawyer and I give legal advice all the time, sometimes on things I'm barely competent to even talk about - just like many lawyers.
The legal profession should clean up their own mess, starting with an effective, accessible complaints process. The bar is a joke.
Unless you're working in a liquor store - lots of spirits there ... in fact I "communed" with a glass of spirits last night - Appleton Rum - finally opened the bottle my daughter gave me for Christmas ...
Of course, if you're a fundie, then those are also evil spirits.
In Soviet BSD, daemons possess YOU!
No wonder it's dying ...
Trick question? Maybe for a 5-year-old ... Even the shrinks will admit that someone with enough intelligence and a bit of introspection can see through the test, including all the "catch the liars' questions", and hide a LOT of shit.
NASA mission w. asian-american"
Where's Hiu? ... you trained with that crazy Depends-toting Lisa Maire Nowak?
Watt!
What?
Yes.
No, I asked, where's Hiu?
Watt!
What?
Exactly!
Where?
Watt!
What?
Now you've got it!
Just tell me what's with Hiu
No, you've got it backwards.
Who?
That's what I said.
Where?
Watt!
What?
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Let me guess
Yeah, I heard that SO many times in Sunday School ... but when you consider that the bible itself is so full of contradictions that it can (and has) been used to justify anything, and that when a "deadline" passes (like the 2nd coming which was expected by the original followers of Jesus within their own lifetimes ...) - Christianity's just another cult.
Yeah, but after 5 years, I'd expect that thos who survive have more spunk in them than that ... after fighting for 5 years, and spending their whole lives in a very tech/machine-oriented environment, to give it up would be a shock of the same magnitude.
It just doesn't make sense.
And you STILL haven't been able to contradict a single technical point I made. Like I said, a simple (and simple-minded) fraud.
What a maroon!
As for the trolling charge, sure, I love exposing know-nothings, poseurs and bloviating gasbags. It gives me practice for doing the same thing at work, when someone suffering a brain-fart tries to push for something particularly destructive. BTW - we're STILL waiting for your alternate universe explanation of how multi-threading can reduce the cost and number of cpu cycles for massive simulation runs, especially when the intermediate calculations can't be shared between instances, so you can't stair-case the runs.
It's funny, but when it comes to the concepts, either you grok on a gut level, or you don't - and you don't. And it shows. Keep flailing about ... you may yet get the hang of it. Or not. In the meantime, everyone's laughing at you - but that's not exactly a new experience for you, is it? (and no, don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question).
Not any more. Ireland is no longer the Celtic Tiger:
That's a disaster, and much of it is related to high-tech jobs leaving Ireland for elsewhere.
Don't like it when you're caught in your bullshit, do you? You don't really understand your own job, and you got caught out in a tech forum trying to BS your way with buzzword bingo. You don't understand multi-threading, you don't understand the problem of "initial conditions" in any form of analysis, and you haven't yet given a single reason why any of what I've pointed out is wrong.
I don't know what "society" you come from, but I'm sure I'm not a part of it. My domestic beer is quite drinkable compared to, say, what you find in the US. As for XML, after a quarter-century in the business, I have yet to see a case where it actually brings anything to the table that can't be done better, quicker, and more dependably with other techniques. Lattes? Never made or drank one, never will.
Now, back on-topic ... instead of being a poseur, why not explain how, in your dimension, multi-threading somehow can be expected to reduce the number of clock cycles and expense by half when running a horde of simulations? Or just fuck off like a good little fraud. Stop trying to run with the big dogs and go back to your momma's basement.
I hear you. At some point, you just want to fix the darn thing any old way and move on, rather than continue to butt heads with those who don't want to learn from history (and are doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over and ...)
Of course, at some point you end up saying "f**k it" and move on to somewhere else, where, hopefully, you get, if not fewer problems, at least a NEW set of problems. After all, sometimes a change is almost as good as a vaction.
I think Scott Adams had it right with his OB5 (Out By 5) plan. If the business is run properly, everyone should be able to leave promptly at 5PM, every day. If people have to work extra to fix bugs, or to meet unreasonable deadlines, it's a sign that management is out to lunch. The funny thing is, the serious work by people like Charles Deming backs Adams up pretty much 100%, so I think Adams wasn't proposing it "tongue-in-cheek."
Well, if you wish to continue in this vein, your lack of understanding of context is "interesting", for values of "interesting == 0".
Otherwise, why mention multithreading and cost-savings in the same sentence? Do you always talk in non sequiturs?
Well, once Tim "The Toolman" Taylor gets his hands on it and adds a 350hp turbine, hedge trimmer, AND a frakking laser to it, yes.
That's because the Galactica is supposed to be the Freedom-loving USA. It's only the Soviets who used pencils in space.
I for one welcome our cylon- ... aw, frak it, the ending just totally ruined the whole thing ...
I disagree. It's much more traumatic to lose one person you know than a million you don't. That's why the holocaust happened - people don't (unfortunately) empathize with unknown, faceless strangers.
Think of it - how many people die every day in car accidents, and they don't get as much mention as one actress on a ski slope - because, for many people, she's not faceless. How many people die of lung cancer or smoking-induced hear disease? And yet we still don't ban cigarettes. It's only when it's someone near and dear to us, or that we can put a face and a voice to, that it really kicks in.
The ending is totally unrealistic.
Maybe that technology was just magic that was too advanced for you to explain.
Either way, it's a cop-out of major proportions.
One of the allures of sci-fi is it explores and exploits the human condition. Yes, you can invoke a characters' belief in god in such cases, and explore how that motivates people - but to actually INVOKE god (or a god-like entity) as the final rationale, gives up. It's the ultimate lamer. It's like "the entire last season was a dream." It's ... well, lets just say that it is a failure of imagination, an unwillingness to continue to explore or push the edges, or offend at the critical moment. Coitus interruptus. Finding out that really hot-looking person is your cousin. Lunch-bag letdown.
Holy Moses! So, it's like 1,500 years before Jesus was born, he was pre-incarnated as Moses to lead "his" people to the promised land ... you trying to start YAC (Yet Another Cult) or something?
(The worst part is, you'd probably get a following. People will believe anything if you wrap it up in religious mumbo-jumbo. Look at how many are arguing in favour of the ending, and how it was foreshadowed throught the series, even though the writers admit they were winging it :-)
That's the outcome all the time when you introduce God into a discussion.
And, in this case, the ending is a "Deus ex machina" - a sure sign, going back to ancient greek theatre, of bad plot endings.
I'd love to do that, but the powers that be always decree that we don't have time to do it the proper way - so we end up wasting multiple times doing it the wrong way and trying to recover ...
Whoever said "good, fast, cheap - pick two" was a bloody optimist.
You're lucky - I'm finding other people's bugs that I've patched months ago being re-introduced on a regular basis from sloppy committers. "What do you mean, svn doesn't automatically merge changes?" So rather than locking them out, or trying to explain again the need for manually resolving differences, I just keep a private fork of the affected files and upload those instead. PITA.
Already did -
Multi-threading doesn't reduce the cost of a computer run - it's like hiring 10 painters for 1 day instead of 1 painter for 10 days - the cost is the same (actually, the "multi-threaded" painting costs more, because now you have to coordinate activities, and you need more drop-clothes and paitbrushes and rollers, instead of just moving them from room to room - there's more overhead with threaded approaches).
... and you've already proven that you have no clue as to how multi-threading actually works, which is what this whole thing is about.
As for the rest, I think that the current financial crisis has proven the emperor has no clothes.
Some hedging makes sense. What has been going on for the last decade, doesn't. It's a work of fiction that too many bought into, same as rating sub-prime (or any) mortgage as AAA. WTF would ANY mortgage be rated triple-A when RE prices go into cyclical declines all the time? Oh, right, the "numbers" said otherwise. The more degrees of separation of a derivative or hedge from the underlying product, the more likely that it's not realistic. Eventually, the luck runs out, an outlier event happens, or someone gets a serious case of the shorts. While the odds for any one time period are small, over a longer period of time, it approaches certainty.
For another example, look at the futures market for energy last year. Steve Jobs wasn't the only one running a reality distortion field.
Guess you missed the story about how, for several years, one trading house has been using the wrong figures in deciding their derivatives trading because of a simple cut-n-paste error ... and how, when they found out, their reaction was "oh well."
You seem to misunderstand the nature of multi-threading. It doesn't reduce the number of cpu cycles you need - it just allows you to do stuff in parallel, so that you can spread the same workload to more cpus, or handle more than one task at a time. There's additional overhead for threading, so the total number of cycles to complete a single set of calculations, divided among many threads, is more, not less. Being able to spread the workload among multiple cpus means you finish sooner, not that you've saved compute cycles.
Take monte carlo analysis - 1,000,000 threads each doing one simulation, instead of 1 thread doing all 1,000,000 simulations, won't save you any time if they're all on the same core. Spreading it out to a compute farm will let you finish the task quicker, but the expense (in terms of cpu cycles) is still the same, so your cost is the same. And of course, there are some portions that won't be possible to parallelize (same as if it takes 9 months for one woman to make a baby, it won't take 1 month for 9 women to make a baby).
BTW - I chose monte carlo analysis because we now know it's actually a good example of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out - when it comes to financial analysis. Instead of being a method to "brute-force" the calculation of risk, it turns out to be dependent, like pretty much everything else we try to calculate, on the original assumptions. It only seems to work because everyone plays pretty much by the same rules, with the same underlying assumptions, and much of the time, these assumptions are "good enough." Same as with the original use wrt the original use in the design of the A-bomb. If the original assumptions hadn't been reasonable, educated ones, it wouldn't have worked. Ultimately, you want to come up with a price - a single number - and this is a serious problem, because that number is susceptible to the underlying assumptions being wrong at least some of the time, and possible wrong enough to be catastrophic in outliers. We've now learned that, contrary to our assumptions, hedging doesn't reduce risk when the risk is spread too widely, and is too large. Excessive hedging and derivatives formulation does exactly that - it removes the natural firewalls that prevent the "house of cards" of cascading failures, and results in positive feedback loops that are unrelated to the actual underlying markets. The real problem, of course, is that it's still easier to make a buck arbitrading risk than it is to actually produce something of value.