You can no longer be hired just for the job. You must show "passion" for the company and whatever the hell it happens to be doing at the moment. If you are not "passionate" about your work to the point of putting in 60-70 hour weeks, then we can find someone more "passionate" than you.
Note that this is a good cultural barrier to keep old people out, too, as their "passion" has been tempered by years of experience and thus, they are not seen as "passionate" enough by hiring manager. We like 'em young, stupid, and cheap in out industry and "passion" is a good way to weed out anyone who might derail corporate planning and say something negative about a proposed product, project, or plan which might be flawed. Your job is to code without commentary, monkey boy.
Excuse me - your "passion" is to code without commentary, monkey boy..
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
No, the reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to ENTER Iraq we didn't think how we'd destabilize the situation. FTFY. Which is what Republicans and hawkish Democrats are plumping for again. They needs their wargasms to make 'em feel like men. Even Conservatard Hillary.
I was concerned I would annoy my wife to death but the banjo sounds good even in the hands of a beginner.
Ha. Ha. Haha. Hahaha! Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahhhahahahaahaha!!!!!!!! [Gasp for breath]! Sounds good! Good one! I would make another joke here, but I sense I would not be alone. As such, I'll simply let others chime in.
Here's my thoughts. The problem with the Guitar Hero-like games is that they have nowhere to go.
They have a somewhat clunky controller that can't be made much more complicated or much more responsive without having something that, in twitch complexity, might as well be playing the real thing. Plus today you could build a training tool that looks a lot like a game by combining a MIDI-guitar with a simplified display showing the next fingering position and which strings to pick for close to the same cost as a more complex controller. So moving up in complexity starts making it look too much like training and who wants that?
It's time to practice your guitar lessons, Maurice... Yawn after three weeks.
Thank you. I should have known. I know conning tower, although I thought it came a shortened form of control, with the "n" doubled to make it still sound like "kawn"when -ing was appended. I assume it's an abbreviation of the -ing form. Or is there another derivation?
Anyhow, knowing this, I sort of like the pun it implies with my original post - it might even get the TOS fanbois vs. the reboot fanbois (are there any yet?) riled up.
It will never do anything impressive and no one will ever use it, but it will exist and has already taught me why I hate the x86 processor line in about 18,000 different ways:)
it worries me somewhat that you hadn't figured out that last bit before you started the project, but I wish you luck anyway.
If they can create the parts that fast, why don't they just power it up, see which parts fail, and improve those, rather than trying to improve it before testing? After all, they can reprint broken/worn parts (and probably reassemble) within a 2-3 week period.
Granted, I know the grad students and postdocs need to write their papers, and I know sintered metal isn't always as strong as parts made via other methods, but two years seems a bit long for the fire-up process.
Recycle it? It's not worth the power it's wasting.
Besides, if you haven't needed the data on it and transferred it/used it since then, other than the geek dick measuring aspects of it, why in God's name are you doing this? More importantly, why are you bothering us about it? The mid-90's, as far as laptops go, might as well be the dark ages.
I'm so sorry for your situation and for the sorrow I'm sure it will bring to your family.
All I can say is that we all have different paths through this life and, as such, we all have different things that would be important to us. I would simply say to ask yourself if this is the most important thing you want your daughter to know of you. If it is, I'm sure you'll find some good advice here. If it is not, you owe it to yourself to both yourself and her to say those other things first. I hope you've actually gotten to the point where this really is the most important thing you want to talk about with her. If so, you are a lucky man, regardless of the final outcome, for she knows your heart already.
Because [random person] went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime.
No, not thoughtcrime. Just not embraced by people who see that together with anything remotely sensible from the TEA Party, there's huge swathes of nonsense that needs to be "honored" to "respect" its crackpot hangers on. It's not the (very few) good ideas, it's the huge number of bad ideas that seem to be pushed along with them. In the future, thank you for not trying to get us to support people who have mostly bad ideas by attempting to whitewash the bad ideas with the good.
Historical note: x86 is a bastadised rip-off of the PDP11 instruction set.
And as with most technological descendents, the folks who did the job botched it. Incredibly obtuse instruction decoding, special instructions that do five things at a time (most of which are not useful), and horribly slow to interrupt and restore.
The PDP11 was built as a "hardware Fortran machine" ie one instruction represents one Fort[r]an instruction as far as was achievable in 1970.
Uh, not really. The PDP-11 was designed as a general-purpose ISA, used as much for assembly code as Fortran. In addition, it hosted four OSes (RT-11, RSX-11/M, and RSTS/E from DEC and UNIX from an odd place called Bell Labs). The different OS'es used different tools. A lot of RT-11 code was used for industrial control and was done in Assembler (did some of that), RSX-11/M was their mainline OS for applications and was programmed in COBOL (the implementation here sort of sucked) or FORTRAN (a pretty brilliant implementation) or Assembler, and RSTS/E was an odd duck that had a BASIC interpreter. UNIX had C. The best thing about programming on the -11 (besides the nice, relatively orthogonal ISA) was the FORTRAN automatic overlay feature. It let you bundle code into overlay segments that were automatically swapped in when routines in the module were called. A performance killer when used improperly, it was the only way I could fit a FORTRAN program that took 320K on an IBM\360 into the PDP-11's 64K.
C is (just one) PDP11 assembly language!
I don't think I'd go that far. There were many things (conditional branches on overflow, control of interrupts/traps, computed gotos) that, although accessible via assembler, could not be easily done in C. That's why today you still have assembly modules and/or use of inline assembly in UNIX code.
The VAX instruction set was an attempt to achieve a higher level machine code, which worked quite well - most VAX assembly instructions are actually function calls to application specific microcode.
As were most instructions in those days. As for "worked quite well"? Well, there was that whole RISC/CISC thing going on and, you know what? RISC sort of won the technical war - it may be papered over with an ugly CISC instruction set on the inside, but internally, it's all condensed onto execution on a mostly RISC core.
X86 was a poor ISA when the first 8086 chips were made (but good, given hardware capabilities at the time). That was about 40 years ago. MIPS and Sparc (and ARM) are all better than x86.
Well, yeah. They have the benefit of hindsight and much less self-inflicted baggage. On the other hand, that baggage has kept Intel in the game while they try to catch up to ARM in power consumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Very carefully. They kick.
You can no longer be hired just for the job. You must show "passion" for the company and whatever the hell it happens to be doing at the moment. If you are not "passionate" about your work to the point of putting in 60-70 hour weeks, then we can find someone more "passionate" than you.
Note that this is a good cultural barrier to keep old people out, too, as their "passion" has been tempered by years of experience and thus, they are not seen as "passionate" enough by hiring manager. We like 'em young, stupid, and cheap in out industry and "passion" is a good way to weed out anyone who might derail corporate planning and say something negative about a proposed product, project, or plan which might be flawed. Your job is to code without commentary, monkey boy.
Excuse me - your "passion" is to code without commentary, monkey boy..
Nah, that was when Samuel L. Jackson crashed his plane.
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
No, the reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to ENTER Iraq we didn't think how we'd destabilize the situation. FTFY. Which is what Republicans and hawkish Democrats are plumping for again. They needs their wargasms to make 'em feel like men. Even Conservatard Hillary.
Oracle is just trying to get itself out of a lawsuit for a grand screw up caused by their own poor judgement.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
I was concerned I would annoy my wife to death but the banjo sounds good even in the hands of a beginner.
Ha. Ha. Haha. Hahaha! Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahhhahahahaahaha!!!!!!!! [Gasp for breath]! Sounds good! Good one! I would make another joke here, but I sense I would not be alone. As such, I'll simply let others chime in.
Here's my thoughts. The problem with the Guitar Hero-like games is that they have nowhere to go.
They have a somewhat clunky controller that can't be made much more complicated or much more responsive without having something that, in twitch complexity, might as well be playing the real thing. Plus today you could build a training tool that looks a lot like a game by combining a MIDI-guitar with a simplified display showing the next fingering position and which strings to pick for close to the same cost as a more complex controller. So moving up in complexity starts making it look too much like training and who wants that?
It's time to practice your guitar lessons, Maurice... Yawn after three weeks.
Thank you. I should have known. I know conning tower, although I thought it came a shortened form of control, with the "n" doubled to make it still sound like "kawn"when -ing was appended. I assume it's an abbreviation of the -ing form. Or is there another derivation?
Anyhow, knowing this, I sort of like the pun it implies with my original post - it might even get the TOS fanbois vs. the reboot fanbois (are there any yet?) riled up.
... you have the con.
RIP, Leonard. Godspeed.
It will never do anything impressive and no one will ever use it, but it will exist and has already taught me why I hate the x86 processor line in about 18,000 different ways :)
it worries me somewhat that you hadn't figured out that last bit before you started the project, but I wish you luck anyway.
If they can create the parts that fast, why don't they just power it up, see which parts fail, and improve those, rather than trying to improve it before testing? After all, they can reprint broken/worn parts (and probably reassemble) within a 2-3 week period.
Granted, I know the grad students and postdocs need to write their papers, and I know sintered metal isn't always as strong as parts made via other methods, but two years seems a bit long for the fire-up process.
"fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts with totals at just over $2 billion"
Ding ding ding... We have our writer!
Uh, if you're transplanting the entire head, the optic nerves should already be intact. Just sayin'...
Man has this place ever gone down hill.
Regardless of whether by "this place" you mean "Slashdot", "this country", or "the world", I have a sneaking suspicion you're right.
If that option is excluded, what else can I do?
Recycle it? It's not worth the power it's wasting.
Besides, if you haven't needed the data on it and transferred it/used it since then, other than the geek dick measuring aspects of it, why in God's name are you doing this? More importantly, why are you bothering us about it? The mid-90's, as far as laptops go, might as well be the dark ages.
Is it's event horizon gaining on us?
I'm so sorry for your situation and for the sorrow I'm sure it will bring to your family.
All I can say is that we all have different paths through this life and, as such, we all have different things that would be important to us. I would simply say to ask yourself if this is the most important thing you want your daughter to know of you. If it is, I'm sure you'll find some good advice here. If it is not, you owe it to yourself to both yourself and her to say those other things first. I hope you've actually gotten to the point where this really is the most important thing you want to talk about with her. If so, you are a lucky man, regardless of the final outcome, for she knows your heart already.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, but it often makes JUSTICE.
Yeah, they've gotten more visibility since the Kia comercials.
Because [random person] went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime.
No, not thoughtcrime. Just not embraced by people who see that together with anything remotely sensible from the TEA Party, there's huge swathes of nonsense that needs to be "honored" to "respect" its crackpot hangers on. It's not the (very few) good ideas, it's the huge number of bad ideas that seem to be pushed along with them. In the future, thank you for not trying to get us to support people who have mostly bad ideas by attempting to whitewash the bad ideas with the good.
Well, yeah, but why don't you talk about anywhere outside the CxO suites?
Good thing that the definition of "evil" is sooooo malleable.
Historical note: x86 is a bastadised rip-off of the PDP11 instruction set.
And as with most technological descendents, the folks who did the job botched it. Incredibly obtuse instruction decoding, special instructions that do five things at a time (most of which are not useful), and horribly slow to interrupt and restore.
The PDP11 was built as a "hardware Fortran machine" ie one instruction represents one Fort[r]an instruction as far as was achievable in 1970.
Uh, not really. The PDP-11 was designed as a general-purpose ISA, used as much for assembly code as Fortran. In addition, it hosted four OSes (RT-11, RSX-11/M, and RSTS/E from DEC and UNIX from an odd place called Bell Labs). The different OS'es used different tools. A lot of RT-11 code was used for industrial control and was done in Assembler (did some of that), RSX-11/M was their mainline OS for applications and was programmed in COBOL (the implementation here sort of sucked) or FORTRAN (a pretty brilliant implementation) or Assembler, and RSTS/E was an odd duck that had a BASIC interpreter. UNIX had C. The best thing about programming on the -11 (besides the nice, relatively orthogonal ISA) was the FORTRAN automatic overlay feature. It let you bundle code into overlay segments that were automatically swapped in when routines in the module were called. A performance killer when used improperly, it was the only way I could fit a FORTRAN program that took 320K on an IBM\360 into the PDP-11's 64K.
C is (just one) PDP11 assembly language!
I don't think I'd go that far. There were many things (conditional branches on overflow, control of interrupts/traps, computed gotos) that, although accessible via assembler, could not be easily done in C. That's why today you still have assembly modules and/or use of inline assembly in UNIX code.
The VAX instruction set was an attempt to achieve a higher level machine code, which worked quite well - most VAX assembly instructions are actually function calls to application specific microcode.
As were most instructions in those days. As for "worked quite well"? Well, there was that whole RISC/CISC thing going on and, you know what? RISC sort of won the technical war - it may be papered over with an ugly CISC instruction set on the inside, but internally, it's all condensed onto execution on a mostly RISC core.
X86 was a poor ISA when the first 8086 chips were made (but good, given hardware capabilities at the time). That was about 40 years ago. MIPS and Sparc (and ARM) are all better than x86.
Well, yeah. They have the benefit of hindsight and much less self-inflicted baggage. On the other hand, that baggage has kept Intel in the game while they try to catch up to ARM in power consumption.
So, according to your model, we'll all be able to drink hydrofluoric acid next year? I'll let you go first.
How does a single company make bad decision after bad decision so persistently?
A conundrum for the ages to be sure, but my humble opinion?
Ahem... A company that makes bad decision after bad decision does not understand the difference between a good decision and a bad decision.
Do I win a prize?