You have asked a bunch of people with (on average) poor social skills what to do to interact well. It's not that there isn't good advice here (I recognize several VERY good posts) it's that you'll have no idea which are right and which lead to death.
So don't read the responses. Go to a talented ex-boss that you've had (if you've had any) and ask him or her. Have a conversation.
Then with that answer in mind, go back through these posts and find the ones that sound similar.
Well, that's interesting. If that works, then there's no reason why ANYONE should be paying MS royalties. Who cares at all about 8.3 file names anymore? If you want an 8.3, put an 8.3 in the long name.
"however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment."
Of course. But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect. Fundies in some churches are politically active and try to undermine some VERY sensible ideas. In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.
"They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous."
Again, some fundamentalists are dangerous, but but not all fundamentalists are dangerous. The problem is not fundamentalism, it's stupidity and sheep-like behavior. Yes, these things are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Furthermore, you can get stupidity and sheep-like behavior in people who are not fundamentalists.
Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection. It allows us to ignore our own stupidity and sheep-like behavior, and while it feels good, doesn't solve the problem.
Fundamentalists are people who base their religion on an unmovable foundation: Generally this means a text which they believe to be 100% true.
So Christian fundamentalists believe that the bible is the word of God and thus 100% true (generally that bible is the KJB, since translations have essentially made Christian fundamentalism impossible without creating a fundamental text by fiat) are fundamentalists. Those that don't aren't. Those that say they are that don't believe some text is completely true are wrong about what they are. Those that do believe the text is 100% true but say "I'm not a fundamentalist" are deluding themselves.
If he says he's a fundamentalist, and he knows what that word means, then he's a fundamentalist. It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world. (I find their take on reality a little annoying, but virtually all the fundies I know are very nice people who wouldn't dream of blowing anyone up.)
Fundies are deranged, yes, but we all are in some ways. Very, very few of them are dangerous.
The weird thing about being a fundie is that it seems like all religious texts contradict themselves any number of times (especially if you assume any particular 10 words means 100 words, and that the post-hoc analysis which expands the short text must be completely true) and yet, it must ALL be true, so they wind up having to come up with little intellectual dances to make the whole thing consistent.
I mean, there are plenty of companies making ARM chips for phones. Google will want to use commodity stuff for that -- it means that the cost of innovating around the phone platform (hardware side) is someone else's problem, and that's already happening.
On the other hand, they have enormous power bills and would gain personally from computers which do the same amount of work as what they currently have for 1/10th the power.
Google's avoided making their own servers (using a commodity board) because other people were doing that already. There's not much available for ARM for servers, so here it makes sense for them to pick up the ball and make a bunch of machines for themselves.
Google's probably paying very roughly $100 per server every year for the electricity to power the board and then to cool the air it warms. They have something like a million servers (http://www.pandia.com/sew/481-gartner.html), so ARM boards for their data centers could be a huge financial win for them.
"The firm's enormous security guard reacted quickly to the arrival of Carlos the Jackal. Reaching for the closest blunt instrument at hand, the guard picked up I. M. Pei and architected the terrorist to death."
But he's not going to lose the iPhone-is-neato customers, and he's not going to lose the if Apple made a toilet I'd buy it crowd. Those groups either don't care that they're restricted, don't know they're restricted, or actually want to be restricted.
He's saying this for consumption by the media. It's a nice buzz-bit. "Android is for porn." The media will repeat it because it's pithy and uses a titillating word. And the folks who have no clue about restrictions will repeat this to themselves when they go to buy a phone. Wives will insist that husbands buy iPhones for themselves and for the kids.
This is not Jobs being stupid. This is both genius and an indication that Jobs is very, very afraid. His control-everything system depends on him being the master of really the only very good phone/tablet system. There's another system and pretty soon it'll be good enough to make his look less revolutionary. He needs another way to keep his silo full.
"...packaging costs go up; because the die bonding gets harder and more complex..."
But is that really unit cost or RD cost (which gets amortized into the costs of the unit, but eventually disappear)? If the cost is developing a robot which stacks chips nicely and bonds them, but the robot costs a LOT of money to develop, then that should effect the ultimate cheapness of stacked stuff a few years after everyone buys one of these expensive monsters and starts cranking out gobs of stacked flash.
Or do you think that the difficultly will cost more over time because the number of defective units will go up?
Or does stacking require materials which are more expensive than non-stacked?
Garnter analyst Joseph Unsworth [says] "...The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte."
is wrong. Flash is simpler than drives. The manufacturing requires less machining, materials, and human labor. I'm not saying next year or even five years out, but as SOME POINT, I am sure that memory devices like flash will be cheaper than disk drives on a per bit basis, or at least close enough that innovation on spinning drives will stop and that will allow flash/memory devices to pass them.
Not misguided, but under-informed. Let me just expand on what you've implied.
People think they can multitask. Young people who grow up with it especially are certain they can do it with little or no penalty. But they can't, as recent studies have shown.
The studies Tom DeMarco talks about in his programming management books (/Peopleware/ jumps to mind) which show that programming speed (and especially style) goes down with interruption and noise.
The assumption that the IM time is free and productive is a fallacy. Instead of paying for an annoying meeting for an hour a day, management is now paying for a low-level intrusion ALL DAY LONG. So while this may be an improvement, it needs to be quantified. (It may actually be a net loss of productivity.)
It is probably (though not certainly -- we need numbers and studies) more profitable to make meetings short and effective.
It seems like MS cannot design or market anything that they weren't selling a LOT of 15 years ago. Anything they do that's new (or that wasn't selling well back then) comes off looking like MS is grossly out of touch with... well, everybody.
Hey, you're way more likely to die as a young person if you drive. Automobile accidents are far in a way our biggest killer in this country for 15-22 year olds. Driver's Ed teachers are culpable for those deaths. If we just jailed everyone who helped a kid get a learners permit (teachers, parents, DMV personnel) lots of kids would make it into their later 20s who would otherwise be dead.
No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong. There's a lot of stuff even loonier than this. This guy's certainly got it turned up to eleven, but if you haven't heard the manics with the volume set on sixteen, you're not randomly surfing the right hate pages.
Imperfect silicon wafers tend to have little dot-like blemishes. So there are points on wafers which spoil the chip that gets printed at that point.
As chips get smaller, more chips get printed on a wafer, but the count of blemishes (and thus spoiled chips) stays the same -- so as a percentage of chips on wafer, manufacturing reliability goes up.
One chip on a wafer with a blemish -- complete loss. Two chips, one blemish -- 50% loss. 1000 chips, one blemish --.1% loss.
So smaller chips mean lower manufacturing costs, there, too.
HOWEVER, I suspect someone on this thread can tell us if the smaller wavelength process (25nm, here) causes imperfections which would otherwise have allowed the chip to work fine to become an important blemish.
Will chip failure count go up because of this new process?
The Honda may be a better car, but now is definitely the time to buy a Toyota. You should be able to get a great deal on it, and the chances of you experiencing any of these acceleration problems seems to be about 1 in a few hundred thousand. You are SO much more likely to get killed in a different sort of crash that this is not worth thinking about.
This means I cannot check for llamas myself, and yet your signature makes me suspicious that my RAM, too, may be full of llamas. This would explain the recent slowness of my box.
Obviously one can't scrub the llamas out of RAM without finding them, but are there any open source programs which encourage the llamas to leave?
Slashdot Mirror
You have asked a bunch of people with (on average) poor social skills what to do to interact well. It's not that there isn't good advice here (I recognize several VERY good posts) it's that you'll have no idea which are right and which lead to death.
So don't read the responses. Go to a talented ex-boss that you've had (if you've had any) and ask him or her. Have a conversation.
Then with that answer in mind, go back through these posts and find the ones that sound similar.
Ignore the rest. We're mostly troglodytes, here.
Absolutely. Never suggest worse food than the group is used to eating. Find cheap food that's good, and suggest that.
We are under no illusions as to any hint of professionalism among the chuckleheads at the TSA.
Is there some software/standard which gets cameras to snap a picture?
The spelling's always been bad on slashdot.
Well, that's interesting. If that works, then there's no reason why ANYONE should be paying MS royalties. Who cares at all about 8.3 file names anymore? If you want an 8.3, put an 8.3 in the long name.
"however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment."
Of course. But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect. Fundies in some churches are politically active and try to undermine some VERY sensible ideas. In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.
"They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous."
Again, some fundamentalists are dangerous, but but not all fundamentalists are dangerous. The problem is not fundamentalism, it's stupidity and sheep-like behavior. Yes, these things are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Furthermore, you can get stupidity and sheep-like behavior in people who are not fundamentalists.
Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection. It allows us to ignore our own stupidity and sheep-like behavior, and while it feels good, doesn't solve the problem.
Fundamentalists are people who base their religion on an unmovable foundation: Generally this means a text which they believe to be 100% true.
So Christian fundamentalists believe that the bible is the word of God and thus 100% true (generally that bible is the KJB, since translations have essentially made Christian fundamentalism impossible without creating a fundamental text by fiat) are fundamentalists. Those that don't aren't. Those that say they are that don't believe some text is completely true are wrong about what they are. Those that do believe the text is 100% true but say "I'm not a fundamentalist" are deluding themselves.
If he says he's a fundamentalist, and he knows what that word means, then he's a fundamentalist. It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world. (I find their take on reality a little annoying, but virtually all the fundies I know are very nice people who wouldn't dream of blowing anyone up.)
Fundies are deranged, yes, but we all are in some ways. Very, very few of them are dangerous.
The weird thing about being a fundie is that it seems like all religious texts contradict themselves any number of times (especially if you assume any particular 10 words means 100 words, and that the post-hoc analysis which expands the short text must be completely true) and yet, it must ALL be true, so they wind up having to come up with little intellectual dances to make the whole thing consistent.
Google should be frantically trying to buy as many shares of ARM as they possibly can, right now.
I mean, there are plenty of companies making ARM chips for phones. Google will want to use commodity stuff for that -- it means that the cost of innovating around the phone platform (hardware side) is someone else's problem, and that's already happening.
On the other hand, they have enormous power bills and would gain personally from computers which do the same amount of work as what they currently have for 1/10th the power.
Google's avoided making their own servers (using a commodity board) because other people were doing that already. There's not much available for ARM for servers, so here it makes sense for them to pick up the ball and make a bunch of machines for themselves.
Google's probably paying very roughly $100 per server every year for the electricity to power the board and then to cool the air it warms. They have something like a million servers (http://www.pandia.com/sew/481-gartner.html), so ARM boards for their data centers could be a huge financial win for them.
How about...
"The firm's enormous security guard reacted quickly to the arrival of Carlos the Jackal. Reaching for the closest blunt instrument at hand, the guard picked up I. M. Pei and architected the terrorist to death."
I've never liked SVCHOST.EXE anyhow. I'm glad it deletes it.
He's not going to get techies this way.
But he's not going to lose the iPhone-is-neato customers, and he's not going to lose the if Apple made a toilet I'd buy it crowd. Those groups either don't care that they're restricted, don't know they're restricted, or actually want to be restricted.
He's saying this for consumption by the media. It's a nice buzz-bit. "Android is for porn." The media will repeat it because it's pithy and uses a titillating word. And the folks who have no clue about restrictions will repeat this to themselves when they go to buy a phone. Wives will insist that husbands buy iPhones for themselves and for the kids.
This is not Jobs being stupid. This is both genius and an indication that Jobs is very, very afraid. His control-everything system depends on him being the master of really the only very good phone/tablet system. There's another system and pretty soon it'll be good enough to make his look less revolutionary. He needs another way to keep his silo full.
"...packaging costs go up; because the die bonding gets harder and more complex..."
But is that really unit cost or RD cost (which gets amortized into the costs of the unit, but eventually disappear)? If the cost is developing a robot which stacks chips nicely and bonds them, but the robot costs a LOT of money to develop, then that should effect the ultimate cheapness of stacked stuff a few years after everyone buys one of these expensive monsters and starts cranking out gobs of stacked flash.
Or do you think that the difficultly will cost more over time because the number of defective units will go up?
Or does stacking require materials which are more expensive than non-stacked?
Well, he'd know.
OK, I think this bit from Gartner
Garnter analyst Joseph Unsworth [says] "...The point here is SSDs will never, ever be able to match hard disk drives on price per gigabyte."
is wrong. Flash is simpler than drives. The manufacturing requires less machining, materials, and human labor. I'm not saying next year or even five years out, but as SOME POINT, I am sure that memory devices like flash will be cheaper than disk drives on a per bit basis, or at least close enough that innovation on spinning drives will stop and that will allow flash/memory devices to pass them.
Anyone agree/disagree?
Or "headphone is banned"?
Not misguided, but under-informed. Let me just expand on what you've implied.
People think they can multitask. Young people who grow up with it especially are certain they can do it with little or no penalty. But they can't, as recent studies have shown.
The studies Tom DeMarco talks about in his programming management books (/Peopleware/ jumps to mind) which show that programming speed (and especially style) goes down with interruption and noise.
The assumption that the IM time is free and productive is a fallacy. Instead of paying for an annoying meeting for an hour a day, management is now paying for a low-level intrusion ALL DAY LONG. So while this may be an improvement, it needs to be quantified. (It may actually be a net loss of productivity.)
It is probably (though not certainly -- we need numbers and studies) more profitable to make meetings short and effective.
I love the package. It makes me want a hot cocoa.
It seems like MS cannot design or market anything that they weren't selling a LOT of 15 years ago. Anything they do that's new (or that wasn't selling well back then) comes off looking like MS is grossly out of touch with... well, everybody.
"Profits are still privatized. We've only socialized failure."
No, we've also socialized the costs.
Hey, you're way more likely to die as a young person if you drive. Automobile accidents are far in a way our biggest killer in this country for 15-22 year olds. Driver's Ed teachers are culpable for those deaths. If we just jailed everyone who helped a kid get a learners permit (teachers, parents, DMV personnel) lots of kids would make it into their later 20s who would otherwise be dead.
No, I'm sorry, you're just wrong. There's a lot of stuff even loonier than this. This guy's certainly got it turned up to eleven, but if you haven't heard the manics with the volume set on sixteen, you're not randomly surfing the right hate pages.
Well, maybe that's good, though.
Imperfect silicon wafers tend to have little dot-like blemishes. So there are points on wafers which spoil the chip that gets printed at that point.
As chips get smaller, more chips get printed on a wafer, but the count of blemishes (and thus spoiled chips) stays the same -- so as a percentage of chips on wafer, manufacturing reliability goes up.
One chip on a wafer with a blemish -- complete loss. .1% loss.
Two chips, one blemish -- 50% loss.
1000 chips, one blemish --
So smaller chips mean lower manufacturing costs, there, too.
HOWEVER, I suspect someone on this thread can tell us if the smaller wavelength process (25nm, here) causes imperfections which would otherwise have allowed the chip to work fine to become an important blemish.
Will chip failure count go up because of this new process?
The Honda may be a better car, but now is definitely the time to buy a Toyota. You should be able to get a great deal on it, and the chances of you experiencing any of these acceleration problems seems to be about 1 in a few hundred thousand. You are SO much more likely to get killed in a different sort of crash that this is not worth thinking about.
Go get yourself a deal on a Toyota.
I am frustrated to note that my Linux box does not allow me to cat /dev/mem
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama /dev/mem: Operation not permitted
cat:
This means I cannot check for llamas myself, and yet your signature makes me suspicious that my RAM, too, may be full of llamas. This would explain the recent slowness of my box.
Obviously one can't scrub the llamas out of RAM without finding them, but are there any open source programs which encourage the llamas to leave?