I can understand robots for work purposes, but for play???
What's next? Some company with a marketing division that will be defined as a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall and shot when the revolution comes thinking up new marketing slogans for robots, such as:
"You're plactic pal who's fun to be with.."
It's just too much. Somebody send me back to the 19th century before they make robots with the GPP (Genuine People Personality) feature.
I don't think I can stand meeting robot with a pain in all the diodes down its left side.
Perhaps that is part of the M$ plan and would fit perfectly into their pattern of creating a partnership, building on it, then burning their partner.
This would get WinMedia into theaters and, once it's established and M$ has a lock on Digital Restrictions Management, when a new movie comes out, they can control distribution. You could go pay $10 to see a movie in the theater, or wait a week, and pay $5 to download it and watch it on your computer or TV.
I'll bet that's their plan -- get into the market, then bypass the theater chains and begin home delivery of just-released flics. They'd make a fortune and destroy another business. Isn't that M$'s normal pattern?
I can just see it now -- watching a movie like Outbreak or Andromeda Strain, about a killer virus and it is suddenly changed to XXX porn by the latest M$ TheaterO$ virus....
Oh, right. I did. It was in my original post. It was my point -- along with the point that if enough items broke or needed repair, they wouldn't make money and therefore wouldn't sell them.
While the interest on one warranty is small, and interest on a large number of warranties adds up, if you're going to take the math that far, you also have to add in the cost of paperwork, the fact that many stores now have one or more employees who work exclusively on such a program, and that it costs money to administer.
Nope, if all they get is the interest, they don't make money. It won't pay the overhead on that warranty.
(As long as you're getting that technical on the subject, I thought we should look at both sides of the picky issues.)
First, let me preface this with a disclaimer: A large part of my family's stock portfolio is in Best Buy, so I'm biased toward the store.
Having said that, of course they're not worth it, and simple math should show you that. If it were worth it for the customer, a product of this type would not make a profit for the store and they wouldn't be pusing them so hard.
If I spend $100 on an extended warranty (whatever it's called), and get $100 in parts for it, the store doesn't make money. They make a profit because the products are generally reliable and only a tiny fraction of these extended warranties. It's the same as insurance -- you pay huge bucks for insurance and if you ever file a claim, they either drop you or up your premium to help pay for what they've spent. In theory, you're paying them to take care of you if you ever need it. As long as you're paying in and not taking out, they make money.
As long as most customers that buy extended warranties don't file claims, the store makes a huge profit. You can bet that if a particular product were unstable and not reliable and everyone who bought an extended warranty on it filed a claim, they'd stop offering the e.w. on that product because it would no longer be profitable.
On the other hand, if you're Joe User and have a life (instead of spending it all mucking w/ 'puters), there is the benefit of not having to worry about replacing parts.
I'm not a developer, at least I don't think of myself as one. I've spent the last year and a half programming in Perl and I'll be doing it for another year (I hope less), but I'm only doing it because it's a great opportunity for right now. I used to teach and, within the next year (I hope), I'll be writing and producing video full time.
I've reported a few bugs to AbiWord and one or two other places. Then I filed a bug report for Open Office -- files that were originally done in Word Perfect would import with margins intact into ALL word processors except Open Office. (Even if it was imported to Word, then imported to OOo, it still got messed up.) I submitted it as a bug report. Several months later I got an e-mail saying it wasn't a bug and that I sent it through the wrong channels. I brought it up in the OOo Users mailing list and a number of people connected with OOo and Star Office/Sun encouraged me to re-submit it. I followed up on the original "closed" report by saying it was a bug -- that ALL word processors could handle WP margins BUT OOo. This time the response was scathing. It was basically a programmer going into technical (I don't mean simple -- I mean long technical) explainations about why it wasn't a bug and why I was being a pest.
I know people are working hard on OOo to produce a solid filter for importing WP docs. I know, from the mailing list, that they want bug reports like this so they can improve the program.
Personally, I won't bother with any more bug reports. While this one would help me, I've got a work-around. I see no reason why I, as a user (and even though I am programming in Perl, I am not trained to be a programmer), should be jumped on by a programmer for not knowing "programmer things" and just trying to submit a bug report.
I don't know if bug reports help developers or users more, but I do know that I will be less likely to submit them in the future (that OOo bug was the last I ever submitted).
While I do think it is the responsibility of the user to RTFM, I think there's another side of the story -- those responding to bugs should make it as easy as possible for users to submit bugs (assuming the developers want to fix all their bugs).
My point? The user should use brains in submitting a bug report, but this sword has two edges and if the developers want bug reports, they need to make it easy and painless for users to report bugs.
I don't remember exactly. It's been SOOO long since I used it.
I think, once Integer BASIC is loaded into the language card, you do a CALL -151, and I think a simple exclamation point does it -- like !.
I'm not sure, though, it's been just too long and I only used it for trouble shooting or writing quick code. There aren't any load/save functions -- you'll have to use BSAVE (is that the right command -- again, I've forgotten some of these) and you can't use labels -- you have to specify addresses directly (like JSR $FDED to call COUT to print a character) for both subroutines and loading/saving bytes in locations.
In hindsight -- why didn't you just load Integer BASIC and use the mini-assembler? I used that MANY times when troubleshooting code or writing a small program/routine. It didn't handle names/labels for addresses, but it did convert the instructions to hex.
When I saw this, my first thought was of the scene in ST:TNG with Scotty and Picard on the hologram bridge of Kirk's Enterprise. Scotty liked the first Enterprise because he could tell the speed by the feel of the deck plates and Picrad said the Enterprise was superior than the Stargazer in terms of numbers, but he still often wished he was on the Stargazer.
I learned almost everything I know about computers from my Apple//e. I knew the monitor ROM backwards and forwards. I used an amazingly powerful assembler called ORCA/M (known for it's macros and libraries), and learned hardware from books about the Apple//e. It was a wonderful world to learn and play in. I sold my//e to buy an Amiga. I still have the Amiga, but I wish I still had that//e -- it had a FULLY SOCKED motherboard, with a modified ROM that gave me extra features (I did the ROM mods myself), and a few nice accessories -- like a hard drive with a whopping 5 Meg of storage and a memory card that gave me over a megabyte of online memory -- which I used as a ramdrive.
Just like Picard and the Stargazer, I often wish I were programming on my old//e (I had even figured out how I could make it multi-task w/ a clock card -- but never got around to programming it) instead of worrying about networking and web pages and relational databases.
You're right -- ADC. It added an 8 bit number to the 8 bit accumulator and set the carry flag if it carried over. There was also SBC -- and you had to set or clear (can't remember which) the carry flag BEFORE subtracting to be sure you had accurate results.
If the test is accurate, then they've decided what kind of people they want working for them. If they say you're not in their mold, do you really want to be working in a company filled with that kind of person?
And if the test is not accurate, do you want to be working for a company that places that much faith in something inaccurate?
Or, look at it this way:
You seem to see this as a Bad Thing (tm) that you were rejected so quickly by that company. Have you considered turning things around and seeing it as a Good Thing (tm) that you weren't hired? If they're looking for someone that fits a particular description, and you don't, it might have been a miserable fit. Just because it's a chance at a job, doesn't mean it's a chance at the right job.
For example, for most positions in my business, part of the interview process is going through a ropes course with the other applicants. A lot of people can't be bothered. Some tell me they can't afford the time to do it (we do it on weekends). I have my reasons, which are lengthy and based on my experience working in residential treatment centers, but I don't debate it with applicants. This narrows down our pool of applicants. It might seem like a far-out idea, but I have yet to have to fire anyone or have an employee quit on me. Those that don't like the idea of a ropes course are not likely to like the way I think and do things and the way my company works.
Perhaps there is more involved in the tests than what you know or understand.
I know it's a geek tendancy to assume one's self is hyper-intelligent and knows more than 99% of the population, but I've also noticed that particular assumption blinds one to huge amounts of knowledge and experience that one does not know.
But don't worry about it. I just said something negative about geeks, so this post will get modded to troll immediately.
Funny, but this post almost proves my point -- that any view involving religion is flamed. I'm not saying this post is a flame, but it is a great example of someone who believes strongly in science and is so sure s/he is right that s/he won't even pay attention to what is being said about other points of view.
Basically, it's an example of someone so sure science is the ONLY way, they refuse to even consider other options. It shows that science can be as blind a religion as extreme fundamentalism.
It's the "I'm right and I am so sure I'm right, I won't even consider anything else and I know it's got to be wrong if it's not my point of view," thing -- the same for a believer in science as for a believer in the Bible. Both are equally ignorant of the other points of view and both are equally stubborn in refusing to even look into other ways.
As I said, I keep an open mind. It is not uncommon for me to be invited to a range of religious ceremonies. I think it's clear I've been open minded and seen things others here haven't.
For ages we prayed anw we were the victims of famine and disease.
You're right. Now we don't have to worry about hunger -- nobody starves any more. Science has solved that problem. And certainly, disease is no longer a problem. (I'm glad you didn't hear the show on AIDS I heard yesterday -- about how over 30% of the population in some areas of Africa is HIV positive -- it might lead you to doubt that we are no longer victims of disease.)
I have been to places like St. Anne's Cathedral in Quebec, or Chimayo, in New Mexico (or Lourdes in France). I've seen people I've known, with "incurable" conditions be healed by their faith.
I never said science was wrong. I never said don't believe in science. All I pointed out was that I've seen a WIDE variety, from no faith at all, to faith in science, to faith in spiritual beliefs. I've seen many different things work for many people.
While I don't want to talk about my beliefs here, I do want to point out it is unscientific to belittle things one has not investigated or studied. It is accepting something as untrue without investigating it.
Those who base their faith on religious scripture and belittle science usually have no understanding at all of science. And those who base their faith on science and belittle faith usually have no understanding, at all, of faith. As is shown by your post.
If science works for you, great, but that doesn't mean you know enough about faith based points of view to drag them down or belittle them.
(Side note: From your comments like "Keep praying," and "go to your doctor," it seems clear you put me in the "faith healing" camp. Notice, if you read my post, I never once put myself in any group. As I said, I withhold judgement. Again, this is an example of someone so strong in their beliefs they don't want to read anything that could possibly disagree with them carefully.)
I know this will get modded to troll immediately, because I'm daring to disagree with the "normal" Slashdot contingent, but here goes:
I get modded as flamebait, yet the submitter gets a story posted that begs for an attack.
I didn't see your original post -- it must have been modded down to troll.
You're overlooking a tremendous irony of Slashdot (and I am not being sarcastic). This is a "geek site" where most of the posters are highly intelligent. The problem is this: you're dealing with a group of people that are focused on intelligence and value IQ so highly. Whenever you say something that triggers an emotional response, people get ticked and don't realize it. They're too focused on their "intelligence" to pay attention to their emotions. They react emotionally and justify it intellectually, without ever seeing or admitting they're reacting emotionally.
This happens when people rate posts and respond to posts.
If, however, you start or end your post with, "This will probably get modded to troll because I'm saying something a lot of people'll disagree with...," you have a much better chance of people reading your post and thinking about their reaction instead of just having a knee jerk reaction. A phrase like that catches the "brain" and engages people on an intellectual level as opposed to an emotional level.
Of course, you'd better read this fast, since I'm sure it'll be modded to troll quickly!;)
After all, the irony of someone making such narrow minded statements when complaining about narrow minded souls is just to delicious to not be laughed at.
Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry
Good point. Whenever religion pops up here, anyone supporting it (or any "non-geek" world view) is often flamed and rapidly roasted.
I have friends who are devout athiests as well as friends who are strict fundamentalist Christians -- as well as friends who are Wiccan, Quaker, Buddist, and memembers of other religions, including "new-agers." I've seen people with faith do remarkable things (Yes -- I've seen faith healing). I've learned that, even though I've studied many religions, I don't know squat about religion.
I've seen many people here continually point out that any form of religious or spiritual belief is unproven, and therefore, untrustworthy and false.
I have yet, however, to see anyone who has said such a thing show that s/he knows the first thing about the religion they are claiming is false -- other than what outsiders say of various religions.
Newton was very interested in religious and spiritual matters -- and even studied astrology. (There is a story that Halley asked him, "Why do you believe in astrology?" To which Newton replied, "Because I have studied it. You have not." -- I've seen writings that document this as true and others that claim it is false, but it's an interesting point.)
I'll probably get flamed for this (by people that think they know everything but have never studied any of the world's religions), since I'm sticking up for Newton and others believing in religious beliefs that can't be proven scientifically, but I think it's a point worth making.
In my experience, I withhold judgement. By not judging my friends of many different religious, I've been able to have some wonderful opportunities to learn and see things I would have never expected to see.
Isn't this question a little close to impossible to answer?
If you ask any group about who they are and what they are like, you get one point of view from inside the group, and another point of view from outside. If you ask software developers what they are like, they are observing themselves. It's like the problem in quantam mechanics, where the observer changes the experiment just by observing.
Ask me what I'm like, and I'll tell you. But I can promise you, if you ask me what I'm like, then ask my best friend what I'm like, then ask other friends what I'm like, then ask my clients what I'm like, and ask people who don't like me whta I'm like, they will all give different answers. The least reliable would probably be my own opinion of myself.
I think it's the same with any group -- so if you ask software developers what they are like, you won't get an accurate answer (and I'm not making jokes about the stereotypical poor human interaction skills).
On the other hand, if you focus on the question of, "What do software developers do and what responsibilities do they have?" then you have a much more objective question and can give a much more objective answer. Then you have something specific and non-nebulous to compare to the movies.
Using the function keys means moving my hands from the home key positions. While I have to do that for control or alt, it's not that far a move. The numbers are far enough from home for me. Beyond that is more than I want to have to reach while I'm writing.
But that's just me. I map other functions on to the keyboard myself (for example, I write a lot of scripts, and I use alt with different keys for different margin settings and for character names). It would be ironic to think a writer who is more-or-less a part time programmer has a better feel for re-mapping a keyboard than a "real geek" does.
I think one reason the Dvorak keyboard hasn't effected keyboard layout overall is that the numbers to justify switching just aren't there. Back in the day when I bought my first Apple//e and was programming on it in assembler (and realized I could write a program to re-map the keyboard), I read up on Dvorak keyboards and found that for every test that showed improved speeds on the Dvorak, there were 2 tests taht disagreed. If it were really that good, it would be more widespread.
I agree that it's likely you wouldn't see a remapping of the alpha and number keys, but I find I use other keys often enough that shifting them around (keys like alt, control, shift, symbols) would be enough to distract a touch typist.
As for taking away a keyboard -- no, he isn't. But, on the other hand, if all he is doing is trying to have choices, why doesn't he just remap the one he has?
I notice the original author complains about some keys that he feels are a waste of keys, and also complains that keys he needs are either not present or need to work in conjunction with modifiers/dead keys.
It seems the whole post and the idea of redesigning a keyboard (at least in this context) means, "redesigning the keyboard the way I need it to work for me."
Maybe this hits me more than others because I'm a writer first, and a programmer second (I'm only programming while I need to, to develop the software for my company so I can make enough money to get back to writing full time). However, I find a bothersome trend with many developers to assume that "what I need is what we all need."
I don't know how it works on a Mac, but I would think under OSX, if one does not like the way a keyboard is mapped, one can simply change the key map.
I know for me, as a writer, the keyboard works fine, and I'd rather not see it changed (much), because I'd rather not have to learn a new layout.
But for me to assume that since the current keyboard works well for me, so it should not be changed, would be as absurd as the original topic, which assumes that most people need keys to switch between windows more than they need other keys.
(Yes -- I know. I'll be modded to troll immediately because I dared to say the slightest negative thing about a programmer or developer!)
I am not a professional programmer. I am, however, making a living with programming at this point (and for the past year). I know some will say that means I'm a professional developer. I'm starting a business and, if I could, I'd pay someone to create the system I need. During startup, I could not afford a programmer, so I dug back to the 2 or so programming courses I've had over a decade ago, and learned Perl. Now I deal with clients asking for this feature and that feature. I give it to them -- they're paying my rent and other bills, so I do all I can to give them what they want. I can't tell them it works better another way or that something isn't possible. If I do that, I have to drop cable so I can pay for dinner.
My experience, in asking for help online, and dealing with other developers and computer people, is that there are a lot of helpful and nice people in computers. There are also more than a fair share of people who think they're always right because they're so goddamn gifted "I'm in Mensa, so I know what I'm talking about" -- yes, I've seen that attitude and been told things close to that.
I've seen a big problem with developers who have an attitude that they are so smart they know what's best. To be blunt, people all think and learn differently. When I've said that online before, I always get hit with "stop your stupid psychobabble." The point is it's true. In my experience developpers are logical and just can't see or understand that most people think in an entirely different way. It isn't a good way or bad way, it's just different. It's also so foreign a way of thinking to many developers that it is difficult for them to understand and see. So it's easy for the short tempered and vocal minority to say, "It works. This is good. It's easy. If you can't use it it's your problem."
That's what, IMHO, it boils down to. The vocal minority in denial and unable to listen to the end user with the idea that they just might have a point -- they're too busy being right to listen to anyone else.
And it's a damn shame that those few who can't deal with different learning and thinking styles ruin the end users' perception of a group of people who have given us so much.
It boils down to the old saying, "It takes all kinds of people." And it takes users and developers understanding that fact to make it work.
Unless you're a PhD, I'm sure the expert witness knows more about this than you and I put together.
I forgot his credentials, but he was involved in originating several significant designs in RAM chips.
His point was that it could be considered a switch and could be considered memory under certain conditions depending on what the rest of the circuit it was connected to was doing.
I was working as a videographer when Rambus went after Infineon in the 4th circuit court (Richmond, VA). I sat in on a LOT of depositions, both from Rambus witnesses, and from Infineon witnesses. I have to say the Rambus lawyers were always polite and wonderful to work with. The Infineon lawyers were always blowhards and bastards. If a Rambus lawyer had to delay a deposition, s/he would make sure the clerk and I were notified as soon as possible and, if we were already on site, would make sure we could get a meal if the delay would make us miss lunch or dinner. The Infineon lawyers went beyond ignoring us to being just downright rude.
I have to say, compared to the legal issues, this is neither here nor there. I just found it interesting.
On the other hand, after listening to deposition after deposition, I heard more than I'll ever want to know about JEDEC, Rambus, and anything related. Even to me, who works with computers but hasn't brushed up on electronics in years, it was clear, after several weeks, Rambus was hanging onto a thin thread and was basically bluffing.
I remember one lawyer going on and on with an expert witness. He kept asking if a flip-flop was switch and if it could be considered memory. The lawyer kept badgering him for a yes or no answer. It got even more fun when the witness finally asked if he was talking about an RS or JK flip-flop. It was clear, at least to me (and I'm sure to the witness) that this lawyer had not even read the most basic info on electronics and memory.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand robots for work purposes, but for play???
What's next? Some company with a marketing division that will be defined as a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall and shot when the revolution comes thinking up new marketing slogans for robots, such as:
"You're plactic pal who's fun to be with.."
It's just too much. Somebody send me back to the 19th century before they make robots with the GPP (Genuine People Personality) feature.
I don't think I can stand meeting robot with a pain in all the diodes down its left side.
That makes me wonder.
Perhaps that is part of the M$ plan and would fit perfectly into their pattern of creating a partnership, building on it, then burning their partner.
This would get WinMedia into theaters and, once it's established and M$ has a lock on Digital Restrictions Management, when a new movie comes out, they can control distribution. You could go pay $10 to see a movie in the theater, or wait a week, and pay $5 to download it and watch it on your computer or TV.
I'll bet that's their plan -- get into the market, then bypass the theater chains and begin home delivery of just-released flics. They'd make a fortune and destroy another business. Isn't that M$'s normal pattern?
I can just see it now -- watching a movie like Outbreak or Andromeda Strain, about a killer virus and it is suddenly changed to XXX porn by the latest M$ TheaterO$ virus....
The Adventures of Buckeroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
It's a definate original. If only they had been able to make the planned sequal.
Gee. Why didn't I think of that?
Oh, right. I did. It was in my original post. It was my point -- along with the point that if enough items broke or needed repair, they wouldn't make money and therefore wouldn't sell them.
While the interest on one warranty is small, and interest on a large number of warranties adds up, if you're going to take the math that far, you also have to add in the cost of paperwork, the fact that many stores now have one or more employees who work exclusively on such a program, and that it costs money to administer.
Nope, if all they get is the interest, they don't make money. It won't pay the overhead on that warranty.
(As long as you're getting that technical on the subject, I thought we should look at both sides of the picky issues.)
First, let me preface this with a disclaimer: A large part of my family's stock portfolio is in Best Buy, so I'm biased toward the store.
Having said that, of course they're not worth it, and simple math should show you that. If it were worth it for the customer, a product of this type would not make a profit for the store and they wouldn't be pusing them so hard.
If I spend $100 on an extended warranty (whatever it's called), and get $100 in parts for it, the store doesn't make money. They make a profit because the products are generally reliable and only a tiny fraction of these extended warranties. It's the same as insurance -- you pay huge bucks for insurance and if you ever file a claim, they either drop you or up your premium to help pay for what they've spent. In theory, you're paying them to take care of you if you ever need it. As long as you're paying in and not taking out, they make money.
As long as most customers that buy extended warranties don't file claims, the store makes a huge profit. You can bet that if a particular product were unstable and not reliable and everyone who bought an extended warranty on it filed a claim, they'd stop offering the e.w. on that product because it would no longer be profitable.
On the other hand, if you're Joe User and have a life (instead of spending it all mucking w/ 'puters), there is the benefit of not having to worry about replacing parts.
I'm not a developer, at least I don't think of myself as one. I've spent the last year and a half programming in Perl and I'll be doing it for another year (I hope less), but I'm only doing it because it's a great opportunity for right now. I used to teach and, within the next year (I hope), I'll be writing and producing video full time.
I've reported a few bugs to AbiWord and one or two other places. Then I filed a bug report for Open Office -- files that were originally done in Word Perfect would import with margins intact into ALL word processors except Open Office. (Even if it was imported to Word, then imported to OOo, it still got messed up.) I submitted it as a bug report. Several months later I got an e-mail saying it wasn't a bug and that I sent it through the wrong channels. I brought it up in the OOo Users mailing list and a number of people connected with OOo and Star Office/Sun encouraged me to re-submit it. I followed up on the original "closed" report by saying it was a bug -- that ALL word processors could handle WP margins BUT OOo. This time the response was scathing. It was basically a programmer going into technical (I don't mean simple -- I mean long technical) explainations about why it wasn't a bug and why I was being a pest.
I know people are working hard on OOo to produce a solid filter for importing WP docs. I know, from the mailing list, that they want bug reports like this so they can improve the program.
Personally, I won't bother with any more bug reports. While this one would help me, I've got a work-around. I see no reason why I, as a user (and even though I am programming in Perl, I am not trained to be a programmer), should be jumped on by a programmer for not knowing "programmer things" and just trying to submit a bug report.
I don't know if bug reports help developers or users more, but I do know that I will be less likely to submit them in the future (that OOo bug was the last I ever submitted).
While I do think it is the responsibility of the user to RTFM, I think there's another side of the story -- those responding to bugs should make it as easy as possible for users to submit bugs (assuming the developers want to fix all their bugs).
My point? The user should use brains in submitting a bug report, but this sword has two edges and if the developers want bug reports, they need to make it easy and painless for users to report bugs.
I don't remember exactly. It's been SOOO long since I used it.
I think, once Integer BASIC is loaded into the language card, you do a CALL -151, and I think a simple exclamation point does it -- like !.
I'm not sure, though, it's been just too long and I only used it for trouble shooting or writing quick code. There aren't any load/save functions -- you'll have to use BSAVE (is that the right command -- again, I've forgotten some of these) and you can't use labels -- you have to specify addresses directly (like JSR $FDED to call COUT to print a character) for both subroutines and loading/saving bytes in locations.
I hope this helps.
In hindsight -- why didn't you just load Integer BASIC and use the mini-assembler? I used that MANY times when troubleshooting code or writing a small program/routine. It didn't handle names/labels for addresses, but it did convert the instructions to hex.
Or did your model come with Intege BASIC?
When I saw this, my first thought was of the scene in ST:TNG with Scotty and Picard on the hologram bridge of Kirk's Enterprise. Scotty liked the first Enterprise because he could tell the speed by the feel of the deck plates and Picrad said the Enterprise was superior than the Stargazer in terms of numbers, but he still often wished he was on the Stargazer.
//e. I knew the monitor ROM backwards and forwards. I used an amazingly powerful assembler called ORCA/M (known for it's macros and libraries), and learned hardware from books about the Apple //e. It was a wonderful world to learn and play in. I sold my //e to buy an Amiga. I still have the Amiga, but I wish I still had that //e -- it had a FULLY SOCKED motherboard, with a modified ROM that gave me extra features (I did the ROM mods myself), and a few nice accessories -- like a hard drive with a whopping 5 Meg of storage and a memory card that gave me over a megabyte of online memory -- which I used as a ramdrive.
//e (I had even figured out how I could make it multi-task w/ a clock card -- but never got around to programming it) instead of worrying about networking and web pages and relational databases.
I learned almost everything I know about computers from my Apple
Just like Picard and the Stargazer, I often wish I were programming on my old
You're right -- ADC. It added an 8 bit number to the 8 bit accumulator and set the carry flag if it carried over. There was also SBC -- and you had to set or clear (can't remember which) the carry flag BEFORE subtracting to be sure you had accurate results.
If the test is accurate, then they've decided what kind of people they want working for them. If they say you're not in their mold, do you really want to be working in a company filled with that kind of person?
And if the test is not accurate, do you want to be working for a company that places that much faith in something inaccurate?
Or, look at it this way:
You seem to see this as a Bad Thing (tm) that you were rejected so quickly by that company. Have you considered turning things around and seeing it as a Good Thing (tm) that you weren't hired? If they're looking for someone that fits a particular description, and you don't, it might have been a miserable fit. Just because it's a chance at a job, doesn't mean it's a chance at the right job.
For example, for most positions in my business, part of the interview process is going through a ropes course with the other applicants. A lot of people can't be bothered. Some tell me they can't afford the time to do it (we do it on weekends). I have my reasons, which are lengthy and based on my experience working in residential treatment centers, but I don't debate it with applicants. This narrows down our pool of applicants. It might seem like a far-out idea, but I have yet to have to fire anyone or have an employee quit on me. Those that don't like the idea of a ropes course are not likely to like the way I think and do things and the way my company works.
I think tests like these are a bunch of bullshit.
Perhaps there is more involved in the tests than what you know or understand.
I know it's a geek tendancy to assume one's self is hyper-intelligent and knows more than 99% of the population, but I've also noticed that particular assumption blinds one to huge amounts of knowledge and experience that one does not know.
But don't worry about it. I just said something negative about geeks, so this post will get modded to troll immediately.
Funny, but this post almost proves my point -- that any view involving religion is flamed. I'm not saying this post is a flame, but it is a great example of someone who believes strongly in science and is so sure s/he is right that s/he won't even pay attention to what is being said about other points of view.
Basically, it's an example of someone so sure science is the ONLY way, they refuse to even consider other options. It shows that science can be as blind a religion as extreme fundamentalism.
It's the "I'm right and I am so sure I'm right, I won't even consider anything else and I know it's got to be wrong if it's not my point of view," thing -- the same for a believer in science as for a believer in the Bible. Both are equally ignorant of the other points of view and both are equally stubborn in refusing to even look into other ways.
As I said, I keep an open mind. It is not uncommon for me to be invited to a range of religious ceremonies. I think it's clear I've been open minded and seen things others here haven't.
For ages we prayed anw we were the victims of famine and disease.
You're right. Now we don't have to worry about hunger -- nobody starves any more. Science has solved that problem. And certainly, disease is no longer a problem. (I'm glad you didn't hear the show on AIDS I heard yesterday -- about how over 30% of the population in some areas of Africa is HIV positive -- it might lead you to doubt that we are no longer victims of disease.)
I have been to places like St. Anne's Cathedral in Quebec, or Chimayo, in New Mexico (or Lourdes in France). I've seen people I've known, with "incurable" conditions be healed by their faith.
I never said science was wrong. I never said don't believe in science. All I pointed out was that I've seen a WIDE variety, from no faith at all, to faith in science, to faith in spiritual beliefs. I've seen many different things work for many people.
While I don't want to talk about my beliefs here, I do want to point out it is unscientific to belittle things one has not investigated or studied. It is accepting something as untrue without investigating it.
Those who base their faith on religious scripture and belittle science usually have no understanding at all of science. And those who base their faith on science and belittle faith usually have no understanding, at all, of faith. As is shown by your post.
If science works for you, great, but that doesn't mean you know enough about faith based points of view to drag them down or belittle them.
(Side note: From your comments like "Keep praying," and "go to your doctor," it seems clear you put me in the "faith healing" camp. Notice, if you read my post, I never once put myself in any group. As I said, I withhold judgement. Again, this is an example of someone so strong in their beliefs they don't want to read anything that could possibly disagree with them carefully.)
I know this will get modded to troll immediately, because I'm daring to disagree with the "normal" Slashdot contingent, but here goes:
;)
I get modded as flamebait, yet the submitter gets a story posted that begs for an attack.
I didn't see your original post -- it must have been modded down to troll.
You're overlooking a tremendous irony of Slashdot (and I am not being sarcastic). This is a "geek site" where most of the posters are highly intelligent. The problem is this: you're dealing with a group of people that are focused on intelligence and value IQ so highly. Whenever you say something that triggers an emotional response, people get ticked and don't realize it. They're too focused on their "intelligence" to pay attention to their emotions. They react emotionally and justify it intellectually, without ever seeing or admitting they're reacting emotionally.
This happens when people rate posts and respond to posts.
If, however, you start or end your post with, "This will probably get modded to troll because I'm saying something a lot of people'll disagree with...," you have a much better chance of people reading your post and thinking about their reaction instead of just having a knee jerk reaction. A phrase like that catches the "brain" and engages people on an intellectual level as opposed to an emotional level.
Of course, you'd better read this fast, since I'm sure it'll be modded to troll quickly!
Someone should mod the immediate parent to funny.
After all, the irony of someone making such narrow minded statements when complaining about narrow minded souls is just to delicious to not be laughed at.
Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry
Good point. Whenever religion pops up here, anyone supporting it (or any "non-geek" world view) is often flamed and rapidly roasted.
I have friends who are devout athiests as well as friends who are strict fundamentalist Christians -- as well as friends who are Wiccan, Quaker, Buddist, and memembers of other religions, including "new-agers." I've seen people with faith do remarkable things (Yes -- I've seen faith healing). I've learned that, even though I've studied many religions, I don't know squat about religion.
I've seen many people here continually point out that any form of religious or spiritual belief is unproven, and therefore, untrustworthy and false.
I have yet, however, to see anyone who has said such a thing show that s/he knows the first thing about the religion they are claiming is false -- other than what outsiders say of various religions.
Newton was very interested in religious and spiritual matters -- and even studied astrology. (There is a story that Halley asked him, "Why do you believe in astrology?" To which Newton replied, "Because I have studied it. You have not." -- I've seen writings that document this as true and others that claim it is false, but it's an interesting point.)
I'll probably get flamed for this (by people that think they know everything but have never studied any of the world's religions), since I'm sticking up for Newton and others believing in religious beliefs that can't be proven scientifically, but I think it's a point worth making.
In my experience, I withhold judgement. By not judging my friends of many different religious, I've been able to have some wonderful opportunities to learn and see things I would have never expected to see.
Isn't this question a little close to impossible to answer?
If you ask any group about who they are and what they are like, you get one point of view from inside the group, and another point of view from outside. If you ask software developers what they are like, they are observing themselves. It's like the problem in quantam mechanics, where the observer changes the experiment just by observing.
Ask me what I'm like, and I'll tell you. But I can promise you, if you ask me what I'm like, then ask my best friend what I'm like, then ask other friends what I'm like, then ask my clients what I'm like, and ask people who don't like me whta I'm like, they will all give different answers. The least reliable would probably be my own opinion of myself.
I think it's the same with any group -- so if you ask software developers what they are like, you won't get an accurate answer (and I'm not making jokes about the stereotypical poor human interaction skills).
On the other hand, if you focus on the question of, "What do software developers do and what responsibilities do they have?" then you have a much more objective question and can give a much more objective answer. Then you have something specific and non-nebulous to compare to the movies.
Using the function keys means moving my hands from the home key positions. While I have to do that for control or alt, it's not that far a move. The numbers are far enough from home for me. Beyond that is more than I want to have to reach while I'm writing.
But that's just me. I map other functions on to the keyboard myself (for example, I write a lot of scripts, and I use alt with different keys for different margin settings and for character names). It would be ironic to think a writer who is more-or-less a part time programmer has a better feel for re-mapping a keyboard than a "real geek" does.
I think one reason the Dvorak keyboard hasn't effected keyboard layout overall is that the numbers to justify switching just aren't there. Back in the day when I bought my first Apple //e and was programming on it in assembler (and realized I could write a program to re-map the keyboard), I read up on Dvorak keyboards and found that for every test that showed improved speeds on the Dvorak, there were 2 tests taht disagreed. If it were really that good, it would be more widespread.
I agree that it's likely you wouldn't see a remapping of the alpha and number keys, but I find I use other keys often enough that shifting them around (keys like alt, control, shift, symbols) would be enough to distract a touch typist.
As for taking away a keyboard -- no, he isn't. But, on the other hand, if all he is doing is trying to have choices, why doesn't he just remap the one he has?
I notice the original author complains about some keys that he feels are a waste of keys, and also complains that keys he needs are either not present or need to work in conjunction with modifiers/dead keys.
It seems the whole post and the idea of redesigning a keyboard (at least in this context) means, "redesigning the keyboard the way I need it to work for me."
Maybe this hits me more than others because I'm a writer first, and a programmer second (I'm only programming while I need to, to develop the software for my company so I can make enough money to get back to writing full time). However, I find a bothersome trend with many developers to assume that "what I need is what we all need."
I don't know how it works on a Mac, but I would think under OSX, if one does not like the way a keyboard is mapped, one can simply change the key map.
I know for me, as a writer, the keyboard works fine, and I'd rather not see it changed (much), because I'd rather not have to learn a new layout.
But for me to assume that since the current keyboard works well for me, so it should not be changed, would be as absurd as the original topic, which assumes that most people need keys to switch between windows more than they need other keys.
(Yes -- I know. I'll be modded to troll immediately because I dared to say the slightest negative thing about a programmer or developer!)
I am not a professional programmer. I am, however, making a living with programming at this point (and for the past year). I know some will say that means I'm a professional developer. I'm starting a business and, if I could, I'd pay someone to create the system I need. During startup, I could not afford a programmer, so I dug back to the 2 or so programming courses I've had over a decade ago, and learned Perl. Now I deal with clients asking for this feature and that feature. I give it to them -- they're paying my rent and other bills, so I do all I can to give them what they want. I can't tell them it works better another way or that something isn't possible. If I do that, I have to drop cable so I can pay for dinner.
My experience, in asking for help online, and dealing with other developers and computer people, is that there are a lot of helpful and nice people in computers. There are also more than a fair share of people who think they're always right because they're so goddamn gifted "I'm in Mensa, so I know what I'm talking about" -- yes, I've seen that attitude and been told things close to that.
I've seen a big problem with developers who have an attitude that they are so smart they know what's best. To be blunt, people all think and learn differently. When I've said that online before, I always get hit with "stop your stupid psychobabble." The point is it's true. In my experience developpers are logical and just can't see or understand that most people think in an entirely different way. It isn't a good way or bad way, it's just different. It's also so foreign a way of thinking to many developers that it is difficult for them to understand and see. So it's easy for the short tempered and vocal minority to say, "It works. This is good. It's easy. If you can't use it it's your problem."
That's what, IMHO, it boils down to. The vocal minority in denial and unable to listen to the end user with the idea that they just might have a point -- they're too busy being right to listen to anyone else.
And it's a damn shame that those few who can't deal with different learning and thinking styles ruin the end users' perception of a group of people who have given us so much.
It boils down to the old saying, "It takes all kinds of people." And it takes users and developers understanding that fact to make it work.
Unless you're a PhD, I'm sure the expert witness knows more about this than you and I put together.
I forgot his credentials, but he was involved in originating several significant designs in RAM chips.
His point was that it could be considered a switch and could be considered memory under certain conditions depending on what the rest of the circuit it was connected to was doing.
I was working as a videographer when Rambus went after Infineon in the 4th circuit court (Richmond, VA). I sat in on a LOT of depositions, both from Rambus witnesses, and from Infineon witnesses. I have to say the Rambus lawyers were always polite and wonderful to work with. The Infineon lawyers were always blowhards and bastards. If a Rambus lawyer had to delay a deposition, s/he would make sure the clerk and I were notified as soon as possible and, if we were already on site, would make sure we could get a meal if the delay would make us miss lunch or dinner. The Infineon lawyers went beyond ignoring us to being just downright rude.
I have to say, compared to the legal issues, this is neither here nor there. I just found it interesting.
On the other hand, after listening to deposition after deposition, I heard more than I'll ever want to know about JEDEC, Rambus, and anything related. Even to me, who works with computers but hasn't brushed up on electronics in years, it was clear, after several weeks, Rambus was hanging onto a thin thread and was basically bluffing.
I remember one lawyer going on and on with an expert witness. He kept asking if a flip-flop was switch and if it could be considered memory. The lawyer kept badgering him for a yes or no answer. It got even more fun when the witness finally asked if he was talking about an RS or JK flip-flop. It was clear, at least to me (and I'm sure to the witness) that this lawyer had not even read the most basic info on electronics and memory.