In other words, don't be an incompetent manager. Incompetent managers hire people whose expertise they distrust so they can waste time and effort second-guessing their motives and use their authority to undermine technical decisions that should instead be made with facts and logic. This behavior is a bit like paying a doctor to diagnose a disease and then calling him a liar when he makes the diagnosis - if you honestly believe you know medicine better than the doctor does, why would you hire him?
To agree with your diagnosis, confirm your otherwise unacknowledged brilliance, and write the damn prescription. Especially if it's for powerful narcotics.
A good manager knows better. A bad (tragically, horrible, PHB-level) boss doesn't care.
Maximum diameter of 10.5". Tape width was 1/2". The protective ring around the tape reel would add about another 1/4" to the diameter, and the thickness of the reel sides and retaining ring would add about another 1/4" to the thickness.
We're not going for a rigorous space-filling solution; we'll stack the tapes in a square array (rather than, say, a hexagonal one). So the tapes effectively become 10.75"^2 x.75" rectangular prisms. That's 0.0501573351 cubic feet per tape.
According to this scan of the 1972 Mercury station wagon brochure, the 1972 Montego MX had 91.6 cu ft of cargo space. That's 1826 tapes. (Assuming dimensions of tapes and station wagon are compatible and don't leave some wasted modulus.) So 1,000 tapes is in the right order of magnitude, but a smidge low. Good guess. But your "number of cars" division was off by a factor of ten. Using the correct version of your numbers, 58,820,000 tapes transported 1000 tapes at a time is 58,820 loads. Using the 1,826 tapes per load number, it works out to 32,213 loads.
I calculate that the capacity of a station wagon full of 9-track tapes works out to 310 GB. (170 MB per late-era IBM 3400-series tape reel at maximum length, 32K blocking, and 6250BPI. At least that's what Wikipedia says.)
Hmm... I wonder if the various IP performance calculations would work out for a MTU of 310GB and a ping time of minutes to hours (depending on trip length and freeway speeds)....
Because this is On the Web, as you very sagely put it, you could... you know... click the link. Assess the content of the linked page against eldavojohn's original context, and perhaps decide for yourself whether he means what he says or is being ironic.
To quote one of my older sigs here, "Whether this post is ironic or sincere is left as an exercise for the reader."
I'm no copyright expert, but basic googleage tells me that even in an academic environment, public performance (i.e., a concert, marching band on the field, etc.) requires distinct license, above and beyond buying sheet music. But apparently, just performing music within a classroom setting for the purposes of teaching (for instance, in the band room while learning to read sheet music and tootle your tootler) isn't public performance.
As to "educational purposes" as a particular defense against infringement charges, as far as I can tell it isn't. It appears to be one particular species of Fair Use, with varying degrees of success depending on the extent of the "infringement".
You must have missed the unstated note that he deliberately used homophones for "et al."* "just to piss off the sort of people who would be pissed off by that."
You know, pedantic grammar Nazis like you and I.
By the bye, you forgot to close your interrogative statement with appropriate punctuation. A question mark is required even for rhetorical questions.
*Hey, fridaynightsmoke, please do a little research into Latin phrases and abbreviations in common usage in English. A simple sound-check test: if a phrase like "at all" doesn't make literal (non-idiomatic) sense in a sentence, perhaps the words you're using aren't the correct ones? "Foo, bar, baz at all" is grammatically incorrect. "Foo, bar, baz et al." is fine grammar when you realize that "et al." is the Latin abbreviation for "et alia", which literally translates "and other things". And "Foo, bar, baz and other things" is grammatically lovely.
You're proposing something between Dancing with the Stars and reality TV, with Web2.0 mediation of the public's information and participation.
I hope you're joking. I assume you're joking.
If this is a sincerely-held proposal, I weep for the future.
If you are, in fact, joking, congratulations. Please make sure you let everyone know you're joking so that some Web2.0tard doesn't seize this suggestion and try to run with it.
And given the well-known WoC® (Wisdom of Crowds), we'd be assured of better outcomes. I see it as win-win-win.
This sentence is why I believe you're being sarcastic. OTOH, if you're being sincere here, please see my sig.
You seem unaware that even with all 10 people visibly running around, only 1 may be exerting himself appropriately to get a quality cardiac workout. The others may be running too hard (heart rate pushed into the anaerobic level) or not enough (heart rate too close to resting). Heart rate monitoring (the runners working to keep their own heart rates within the aerobic zone) helps make sure all 10 are getting a proper, non-dangerous, non-futile workout. After-the-fact checking makes sure that (A) lazy people aren't able to skate their way through the class, and (B) anyone who needs closer attention to make sure they aren't over-exerting can get that attention.
Anyways, we are talking about slashdot, so I guess unfamiliarity with exercise is safely assumed.
With a simple HRM, I suspect the warning that Tubby Junior is about to keel over will precede the actual keeling over by mere seconds*. It's not medical-grade bio-telemetry; it's just a heart-rate number. Keeping heart rate out of the arrhythmia range is just a nice-to-have side effect of keeping heart rate in the aerobic range.
That said, it's possible someone in charge of making these decisions is operating under the same misapprehension as you are, and honestly expects to get meaningful cardiac stress warning from a $50 heart rate monitor. This is commonly known as using the wrong tool for the job.
*If that much. I suspect it'll be more like "Whoa, Fatty fell down. <a few seconds later> OH CRAP his heart rate is ZERO!"
Yeah. the twitter angle was pretty much gratuitous. I think it's become the Web2.0 way of making something cool: wedge "on Twitter" on the end of the sentence. Just like "in my pants" automatically makes any sentence hilarious.
"Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants"
And if the bacterium accidentally finds itself on the aforementioned co-workers' skin, they wouldn't be able to establish a beachhead against the aggressive pre-existing community already there.
We're all microbiomes; some of us are just more... lush.
Speaking of which, that might not be a bad idea: Kibbles and Bits for humans. If you eat the measured amount of this per day, and nothing else, and drink nothing but water then you will get very decent nutrition given the current state of medical knowledge
In theory, the best response of the media and industry should be the timeless wisdom of the net: "Don't feed the trolls". Ignore the faux protestors. Throw away the checks. Disregard the stupid "contest".
Alas, however, the mere fact that we have to keep repeating "Don't feed the trolls" is proof that EA will come out on the winning side of this, because the majority of fools in their target demographic either (A) enjoy being trolled, or (B) don't recognize a troll when they see it.
The only proper response is to allow their trolling to fall, and fail, unnoticed. Their game doesn't work unless others play along.
Another piece of related gallows humor: "Never forget that your [spacecraft]* was manufactured by the lowest bidder."
*Original version, military-oriented, used "weapon" in this spot. For test pilots, many of whom were military and test-flying warplanes, this is a perfect 100% correlation.
Discovering the unknown, whether the unknown flight characteristics of a new prototype airplane or the unknown "out there" in space (or even across an uncharted ocean, 500 years ago) is a risky proposition.
The situation we find ourselves in is a perverse balance between risk aversion and risk denial. Aversion mode is driven by the perception that spaceflight is like aviation, and millions of people log billions of miles a year in the air, so spaceflight should be as perceptually safe as any routine activity. Any indication of spaceflight being more dangerous than climbing onto a 757 and winging your way to visit Grandma and we get into a tizzy. The people who manage the programs and funding of space exploration have to contend with that PR crapstorm.
In denial mode, the people running space programs come to believe the hype and act as if space exploration were routine. Schedule and performance pressure, based out of unrealistic expectations of reliability and capability, encourage the decision-makers to actively "tune out" known risks (even ones that could be mitigated or fixed). Competent engineers find actual flaws with known probable failure modes, recommend fix action, and get denied or put off because the fixes take time and money that management don't think they can fight for. And let's face it, not every manager is going to expend their political capital in order to prevent something that may not happen anyways. I've actually dealt with engineering managers whose mindset was "the chance of that happening is 0% until it actually happens, so I'm not gonna go to war with program management to fix that."
Jeebus... I don't know whether to call that appealing, or appalling. I guess both. The best of good times are supposed to leave you feeling conflicted.
BTW, I vote for oil, not honey. And let's leave the illegals back at the Home Depot; I don't need anyone else horking my single-malt.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a four-word rebuttal to that: Microsoft is marketing only.
True.
We need a huge ticker-tape parade for our hero, Inanimate Carbon Nanotube.
In other words, don't be an incompetent manager. Incompetent managers hire people whose expertise they distrust so they can waste time and effort second-guessing their motives and use their authority to undermine technical decisions that should instead be made with facts and logic. This behavior is a bit like paying a doctor to diagnose a disease and then calling him a liar when he makes the diagnosis - if you honestly believe you know medicine better than the doctor does, why would you hire him?
To agree with your diagnosis, confirm your otherwise unacknowledged brilliance, and write the damn prescription. Especially if it's for powerful narcotics.
A good manager knows better. A bad (tragically, horrible, PHB-level) boss doesn't care.
Maximum diameter of 10.5". Tape width was 1/2". The protective ring around the tape reel would add about another 1/4" to the diameter, and the thickness of the reel sides and retaining ring would add about another 1/4" to the thickness.
We're not going for a rigorous space-filling solution; we'll stack the tapes in a square array (rather than, say, a hexagonal one). So the tapes effectively become 10.75"^2 x .75" rectangular prisms. That's 0.0501573351 cubic feet per tape.
According to this scan of the 1972 Mercury station wagon brochure, the 1972 Montego MX had 91.6 cu ft of cargo space. That's 1826 tapes. (Assuming dimensions of tapes and station wagon are compatible and don't leave some wasted modulus.) So 1,000 tapes is in the right order of magnitude, but a smidge low. Good guess. But your "number of cars" division was off by a factor of ten. Using the correct version of your numbers, 58,820,000 tapes transported 1000 tapes at a time is 58,820 loads. Using the 1,826 tapes per load number, it works out to 32,213 loads.
I calculate that the capacity of a station wagon full of 9-track tapes works out to 310 GB. (170 MB per late-era IBM 3400-series tape reel at maximum length, 32K blocking, and 6250BPI. At least that's what Wikipedia says.)
Hmm... I wonder if the various IP performance calculations would work out for a MTU of 310GB and a ping time of minutes to hours (depending on trip length and freeway speeds)....
I didn't know there was a shotgun season for aunt-elope.
Because this is On the Web, as you very sagely put it, you could... you know... click the link. Assess the content of the linked page against eldavojohn's original context, and perhaps decide for yourself whether he means what he says or is being ironic.
To quote one of my older sigs here, "Whether this post is ironic or sincere is left as an exercise for the reader."
I'm no copyright expert, but basic googleage tells me that even in an academic environment, public performance (i.e., a concert, marching band on the field, etc.) requires distinct license, above and beyond buying sheet music. But apparently, just performing music within a classroom setting for the purposes of teaching (for instance, in the band room while learning to read sheet music and tootle your tootler) isn't public performance.
As to "educational purposes" as a particular defense against infringement charges, as far as I can tell it isn't. It appears to be one particular species of Fair Use, with varying degrees of success depending on the extent of the "infringement".
IANAL, of course. But google agrees with me.
that criminals aren't criminals because they're too smart to hold down a regular job.
Where do you think the fly carcasses wind up?
Hint: those aren't peppercorns.
Yes indeedy
Disclaimer: not a Unisys employee, just a satisfied former user of some of their products.
9. ???
10. PROFIT!
You must have missed the unstated note that he deliberately used homophones for "et al."* "just to piss off the sort of people who would be pissed off by that."
You know, pedantic grammar Nazis like you and I.
By the bye, you forgot to close your interrogative statement with appropriate punctuation. A question mark is required even for rhetorical questions.
*Hey, fridaynightsmoke, please do a little research into Latin phrases and abbreviations in common usage in English. A simple sound-check test: if a phrase like "at all" doesn't make literal (non-idiomatic) sense in a sentence, perhaps the words you're using aren't the correct ones? "Foo, bar, baz at all" is grammatically incorrect. "Foo, bar, baz et al." is fine grammar when you realize that "et al." is the Latin abbreviation for "et alia", which literally translates "and other things". And "Foo, bar, baz and other things" is grammatically lovely.
You're proposing something between Dancing with the Stars and reality TV, with Web2.0 mediation of the public's information and participation.
I hope you're joking. I assume you're joking.
If this is a sincerely-held proposal, I weep for the future.
If you are, in fact, joking, congratulations. Please make sure you let everyone know you're joking so that some Web2.0tard doesn't seize this suggestion and try to run with it.
And given the well-known WoC® (Wisdom of Crowds), we'd be assured of better outcomes. I see it as win-win-win.
This sentence is why I believe you're being sarcastic. OTOH, if you're being sincere here, please see my sig.
We skip the hard part and pass the savings on to us!
You seem unaware that even with all 10 people visibly running around, only 1 may be exerting himself appropriately to get a quality cardiac workout. The others may be running too hard (heart rate pushed into the anaerobic level) or not enough (heart rate too close to resting). Heart rate monitoring (the runners working to keep their own heart rates within the aerobic zone) helps make sure all 10 are getting a proper, non-dangerous, non-futile workout. After-the-fact checking makes sure that (A) lazy people aren't able to skate their way through the class, and (B) anyone who needs closer attention to make sure they aren't over-exerting can get that attention.
Anyways, we are talking about slashdot, so I guess unfamiliarity with exercise is safely assumed.
With a simple HRM, I suspect the warning that Tubby Junior is about to keel over will precede the actual keeling over by mere seconds*. It's not medical-grade bio-telemetry; it's just a heart-rate number. Keeping heart rate out of the arrhythmia range is just a nice-to-have side effect of keeping heart rate in the aerobic range.
That said, it's possible someone in charge of making these decisions is operating under the same misapprehension as you are, and honestly expects to get meaningful cardiac stress warning from a $50 heart rate monitor. This is commonly known as using the wrong tool for the job.
*If that much. I suspect it'll be more like "Whoa, Fatty fell down. <a few seconds later> OH CRAP his heart rate is ZERO!"
Yeah. the twitter angle was pretty much gratuitous. I think it's become the Web2.0 way of making something cool: wedge "on Twitter" on the end of the sentence. Just like "in my pants" automatically makes any sentence hilarious.
"Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers In My Pants"
Yup. Hilarious.
And if the bacterium accidentally finds itself on the aforementioned co-workers' skin, they wouldn't be able to establish a beachhead against the aggressive pre-existing community already there.
We're all microbiomes; some of us are just more... lush.
Speaking of which, that might not be a bad idea: Kibbles and Bits for humans. If you eat the measured amount of this per day, and nothing else, and drink nothing but water then you will get very decent nutrition given the current state of medical knowledge
I hear we make great pets.
In theory, the best response of the media and industry should be the timeless wisdom of the net: "Don't feed the trolls". Ignore the faux protestors. Throw away the checks. Disregard the stupid "contest".
Alas, however, the mere fact that we have to keep repeating "Don't feed the trolls" is proof that EA will come out on the winning side of this, because the majority of fools in their target demographic either (A) enjoy being trolled, or (B) don't recognize a troll when they see it.
The only proper response is to allow their trolling to fall, and fail, unnoticed. Their game doesn't work unless others play along.
You "tl;dr"'d, didn't you?
Another piece of related gallows humor: "Never forget that your [spacecraft]* was manufactured by the lowest bidder."
*Original version, military-oriented, used "weapon" in this spot. For test pilots, many of whom were military and test-flying warplanes, this is a perfect 100% correlation.
Discovering the unknown, whether the unknown flight characteristics of a new prototype airplane or the unknown "out there" in space (or even across an uncharted ocean, 500 years ago) is a risky proposition.
The situation we find ourselves in is a perverse balance between risk aversion and risk denial. Aversion mode is driven by the perception that spaceflight is like aviation, and millions of people log billions of miles a year in the air, so spaceflight should be as perceptually safe as any routine activity. Any indication of spaceflight being more dangerous than climbing onto a 757 and winging your way to visit Grandma and we get into a tizzy. The people who manage the programs and funding of space exploration have to contend with that PR crapstorm.
In denial mode, the people running space programs come to believe the hype and act as if space exploration were routine. Schedule and performance pressure, based out of unrealistic expectations of reliability and capability, encourage the decision-makers to actively "tune out" known risks (even ones that could be mitigated or fixed). Competent engineers find actual flaws with known probable failure modes, recommend fix action, and get denied or put off because the fixes take time and money that management don't think they can fight for. And let's face it, not every manager is going to expend their political capital in order to prevent something that may not happen anyways. I've actually dealt with engineering managers whose mindset was "the chance of that happening is 0% until it actually happens, so I'm not gonna go to war with program management to fix that."
the power of POKE.
And rightly, too. It's iPhone red pill.
BTW, I vote for oil, not honey. And let's leave the illegals back at the Home Depot; I don't need anyone else horking my single-malt.
Enjoy your burger, mate.