't's actually impossible, in the way the OP phrased it. Solar heating would by definition heat from the outside in, so the internal heat has to be either stored up from waaaaaaay long ago before the planet was at all habitable, or else generated by some other mechanism.'
I could be entirely off base here and readily admit my lack of knowledge of physics involved. But if the earth is basically a cooler, with the outer layers of earth acting as insulation then the sun heating the earth is really no different than the sun heating a cooler of beer. The insulation stops heat from escaping and from getting in but there is some loss both ways. If the cooler is heated faster than it loses heat then the heat will build up inside the cooler and the internal temperature will continue to rise beyond the ambient temperature while the surface of the cooler will not. You could use other examples like a car.
If the net impact of the sun upon the earth is to deliver more heat than escapes then it would stand to reason that the inside of the earth which is trapped beneath the largest amount of insulation would retain the most built up heat while the outer surface remains relatively cool.
'Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output'
I agree. The part I debate is where to cut emissions. There is this strange prevailing belief that nature is somehow superior to man and that therefore it must be man who upset this delicate balance. Maybe it is time that we started ignoring those naysayers (based upon a long history of manmade technology ultimately proving to be superior to nature in in the applications it is designed for) and looked curtail the far more substantial natural sources of CO2 emissions. It could be time to look into putting caps and scrubbers or some such onto volcanoes to reduce their emissions instead of nickel and diming with cars and gasoline.
Perhaps reducing these far more immense sources of CO2 would reduce emissions enough to that man wouldn't have to alter his lifestyle.
'Any human-produced climate change is even more serious if the sun is simultaneously helping out. It's not really a laughing matter. If the sun's output is rising, that means the simulations we run would suggest things are worse than we thought - more heat to be trapped by more greenhouse gases.'
True, but that does misrepresent the facts through implication. You imply that human greenhouse gas output represents a substantial amount compared to other sources. Yes, humans have increasing greenhouse gas output and even if it only 1/2% of the total output on the planet we are a contributing cause. That doesn't mean the human output threat is large enough to justify the inconviences and hurdles associated with removing it.
The problem of global warming and increasing greenhouse gas levels needs to be addressed. The solution could be to artifically curtail natural greenhouse emissions somehow rather than to curtail sources that man is responsible. Maybe, just maybe, contrary to current political belief that the blindly crashing along balanced by ignorant and automatic cause and effect natural systems need to be fixed by the arrogant tree-killing humans who dare to mess with mother nature.
lol I couldn't help but notice the same thing myself. People are making it out as if Essjay had claimed some sort of expertise with these credentials. That would imply that there are really people who see theology degrees to be legitimate educational credentials in the first place.
'Computer technology is still in its infancy. What better time to break this bad habit than now, just before computing gets really widespread?'
I don't know how it is elsewhere in the world. But here in the US there is a computer in pretty much every home. They are about as common as screwdrivers and hammers. I don't know how much more widespread you could get than that.
'Why should it be so hard to whack this silly bit of trivia on the head, when we are so early in the game?'
Marketing. The moment you create a different label for the proper base 2 units that are actually required for computing you have just vindicated the marketing droids. The marketing droids will continue to the terms just as they always have (incorrectly) because you have just made it correct for them to do so. The public will never be aware that any change was made at all and will continue to mistake a base 2 megabyte for a marketing megabyte.
The only way to make this change happen appropriately would be to require labels on all computer merchandise that use base 2 units much like we do for food.
'They've done enough damage with jargon and three-letter-abbreviations, why do they have to fuck with scientific language too?'
Last I checked the metric system had nothing to do with science. It is simply another arbitrary measurement system that happens to be a little easier to work with when using base 10.
Truthfully I couldn't agree more. But the fact is that this particular screwing with the language was done decades ago and the damage is done. Attempting to change it now will only make things worse.
'Suppose you look at a file. It's 95,015,327 bytes long. You're claiming that referring to the file as being 95MB is "inappropriate"?'
As an informal rough estimate, not at all. But yes, in any formal or written sense I absolutely think that is inappropriate.
'It's pointless and annoying.'
As a software engineer you don't know that as an electronic engineer you would know that the machine can not be efficiently made to work with a different system. Understanding that fact means that using anything but the base 2 numbering will always require numerous extra steps whenever a REAL calculation is performed. You will always ultimately end up having to translate to the base 2 system that the hardware and software is using.
Simply because NIST and Europe don't want to confuse the prefixes they are using for other things (like the metric system that has no relevance to computers, tough europeans) doesn't mean the world should adapt to an inconsistant system.
I for one prefer that the computing world use a consistant system and simply ignore European confusion with metric prefixes. After all, they really aren't relevant here in the US were almost every element of modern computing was invented.
How about we get rid of all the marketing systems and go back to good old base 2 for ALL data measurements. Stop calling it 10/100 ethernet when it tops out at 11.9mb/s
Yes but computers don't use the metric system, they use a base 2 system. There is no context in which is appropriate to apply metric reasoning to computers. Especially when USians still constitute a majority share in the modern computing world and USians don't use the metric system or recognize its prefixes.
The biggest reason is that memory uses base 2. Since everything must be addressed through memory it simply doesn't make sense to measure it in a unit that can't be evenly addressed.
People don't even bit about network devices but they should be measured in base 2 units as well. The new prefixes are ridiculous because they continue to allow the alternate notations by giving them difficult to remember prefixes. A network card should not be 100mb or mib or MB or whatever damn prefix we are using for that marketing notation today simply because 11.9mb sounds less impressive.
It is simply stupid that I have to figure out the notation and expand it to 100000000bits, divide by 8 to get bytes, divide by 1024 to get k and then again to get mb simply to figure out how fast this device can actually transfer a given set of data (which will always be measured in base 2 units).
Even non-techs understand the base 2 units because they are used to purchasing memory that way.
If we were really talking about molecules of air sure but by air we really only mean oxygen. There are plenty of non-oxygen molecules in air that could fill the space previously occupied by air and thus all the oxygen could fill one part of the room while all the other gases filled the side you are in.
Should this ever happen to you I would recommend breathing out while on the ground and jumping as high as possible to take a breath. Oxygen is a lot lighter than CO2 so if the molecules are going to split it will probably be a vertical split rather than a horizontal split.
'I'd argue that attention to detail and producing finished projects is a good component of most positions.'
I'd argue that are dozens or even hundreds of details that are overlooked by even the most anal worker in a complex project. Attention to detail is critical in most positions but the most important aspect is prioritizing your time to address the most important details.
As a hirer you are looking at dozens of candidates. You forget that those candidates are looking at dozens of positions and probably custom tailored their resume to each one of those. Failing to hit spellcheck after one of those edits is not only likely but it is probably safe to say that any mortal will do so at some point. The person that does it is as likely to be the best candidate in the stack as the worst candidate.
That is as ridiculous as disregarding a candidate because they have facial piercings and green hair. Unless the candidate is applying for a position that requires interaction with customers there is no justification in punishing non-conformists.
And yet somehow without any basis you associate spelling ability with competence in areas unrelated to spelling?
Spelling, grammar, and language abilities DO NOT correspond to intelligence, education, or anything beyond spelling, grammar, and language abilities.
If you are hiring someone to work as a writer, editor, or speller then judge their spelling abilities. If you are hiring someone to do anything else then you need to drop your false assumption that will follow the academic heard and avoid words like irregardless and aint. You certainly need to drop your false assumption that spelling ability has a relation to competence or attention to detail.
'I'm going to pass on your second example, because as far as I know, most armies don't have a limit to numbers of recruits.'
So you ignore the example you can't argue with. Interesting tactic.
'However, do you think your first man should get a job over someone else who has done the work to earn a magic "bit of paper"?'
I don't need to think he should to dispute your point. I don't think the person who has done the work to earn a magic 'bit of paper' should be hired over someone who has not. This isn't the romantic fairy tale the world lived in circa 1950. You degree is worth the directly career relevent knowledge you gained while in school; not the effort or dedication you put into earning it. If you are being hired by someone objective they will only be interested in things relevent to the position. In fact, someone who has managed to gain the relevent career related knowledge on their own has demonstrated an ability to find and gather information and to do so more efficiently and with dramatically lower cost than an otherwise equally qualified person with a degree.
'Except for the whole manufacturers warranty from major manufacturers bit. You know which manufacturers I'm talking about, the guys who developed the CompTIA organization in the first place. It's pretty handy to know that you're not violating a warranty just to open the box and confirm that their field tech needs to come out and replace the motherboard, or the IDE cable*.'
I do all my own hardware work. In fact, I've gone over all the materials for the A+ exam and even filled in some small gaps in my knowledge at the time. But I've never bothered to take and pay for the exam. Why would I spend money on it? Most people I know of with experience don't even bother to list their A+ certs on their resume anymore.
So you'd rather cut the guy with 20 years of experience, a flawless track record, a masters from MIT, and all the relevant certs because he forgot to run spellcheck after making some adjustment on the resume he tailored to you?
Common sense applies in all cases. Regardless of your criteria you wouldn't cut the guys with substantial experience, a masters, or all the relevant certs. But after grabbing those cherries you should apply a filter that is at least related to the job. Nothing pisses me off more than some anal prick who thinks that spelling and grammar performance can somehow be used to divine performance in anything else.
Either way I couldn't care less about what the guy lies about. I care about results. I haven't heard anyone able to claim that he in any way failed to maintain high standards in his work with wikipedia. Regardless of his personal desire for pats on the back by claiming false degrees, the fact is that his genuine work with wikipedia is worthy of higher honor than any degree.
Basically you just said the same thing as the guy I responded to.
'If you're that good, you will get recognition with or without the paper.'
How are you ever going to show anybody that your that good if they won't give anyone who doesn't have the piece of paper the opportunity? Lying about credentials on resumes is actually fairly common and some of those liars are the best performers ever hired. But you can bet that regardless of skill or merit they wouldn't be hired if they hadn't claimed to have the paper.
In this case the guy fibbed came to a worthwhile position at wikipedia. I haven't heard anyone able to disparage anything he actually did in that position; in fact he helped build wikipedia and that is true merit. The fact is that this guy lying about a piece of paper was probably why he got into the position he did and in that position he was able to help build something that impacted the globe in a positive way.
Lets say I get a job as a shoesalesmen claiming to have a high school diploma instead of a GED and then work my way up to management and am finally instrumental in growing the store into a multi-million dollar chain. Who the hell cares that I lied about some insignificant and unimportant piece of paper? My results are what matter. A degree is a notation at the bottom of your resume that you get as a reward for kissing pompous professor tail for several years not an award of merit.
Or for another example. If a recruit lies about his age to join the military. While in the military forrest carries his fallen comrades out of the jungle and danger and thereby saves 20 lives. Afterward he is awarded a medal of honor for his actions. Would you support an effort to strip the man of the medal he earned with merit because he fibbed on the paperwork to get the opportunity to show that merit?
Why on earth would a sysadmin code? Some mild scripting maybe but no coding. It isn't as if you are implementing custom coded solutions, as a sysadmin you are configuring an arrangment of already coded solutions. If any coding has to be done that is outsourced.
Criteria that have no relation to job performance unless you are hiring an editor. Excellent choice.
You are replying to someone who filters our resumes using a criteria which likely yields better candidates for the position. If you are going to counter with another method don't pick one that could as easily cut your best candidates as your worst.
I've never met one that requires an A+. At least not if you have any actual experience in the industry. If you have a firm understanding of the principles and don't need to fill in the holes in your knowledge then I'd say skip it. Get your CCNA. They all go gaga for cisco certs these days. If you have a CCNA then it is assumed you have the 'basic' knowledge in the A+.
Slashdot Mirror
What is gravity again? I'll accept the sarcasm when that theory has a bit of weight behind it. ;)
't's actually impossible, in the way the OP phrased it. Solar heating would by definition heat from the outside in, so the internal heat has to be either stored up from waaaaaaay long ago before the planet was at all habitable, or else generated by some other mechanism.'
I could be entirely off base here and readily admit my lack of knowledge of physics involved. But if the earth is basically a cooler, with the outer layers of earth acting as insulation then the sun heating the earth is really no different than the sun heating a cooler of beer. The insulation stops heat from escaping and from getting in but there is some loss both ways. If the cooler is heated faster than it loses heat then the heat will build up inside the cooler and the internal temperature will continue to rise beyond the ambient temperature while the surface of the cooler will not. You could use other examples like a car.
If the net impact of the sun upon the earth is to deliver more heat than escapes then it would stand to reason that the inside of the earth which is trapped beneath the largest amount of insulation would retain the most built up heat while the outer surface remains relatively cool.
'Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output'
I agree. The part I debate is where to cut emissions. There is this strange prevailing belief that nature is somehow superior to man and that therefore it must be man who upset this delicate balance. Maybe it is time that we started ignoring those naysayers (based upon a long history of manmade technology ultimately proving to be superior to nature in in the applications it is designed for) and looked curtail the far more substantial natural sources of CO2 emissions. It could be time to look into putting caps and scrubbers or some such onto volcanoes to reduce their emissions instead of nickel and diming with cars and gasoline.
Perhaps reducing these far more immense sources of CO2 would reduce emissions enough to that man wouldn't have to alter his lifestyle.
'Any human-produced climate change is even more serious if the sun is simultaneously helping out. It's not really a laughing matter. If the sun's output is rising, that means the simulations we run would suggest things are worse than we thought - more heat to be trapped by more greenhouse gases.'
True, but that does misrepresent the facts through implication. You imply that human greenhouse gas output represents a substantial amount compared to other sources. Yes, humans have increasing greenhouse gas output and even if it only 1/2% of the total output on the planet we are a contributing cause. That doesn't mean the human output threat is large enough to justify the inconviences and hurdles associated with removing it.
The problem of global warming and increasing greenhouse gas levels needs to be addressed. The solution could be to artifically curtail natural greenhouse emissions somehow rather than to curtail sources that man is responsible. Maybe, just maybe, contrary to current political belief that the blindly crashing along balanced by ignorant and automatic cause and effect natural systems need to be fixed by the arrogant tree-killing humans who dare to mess with mother nature.
'For starters, the Earth has its own geothermal heat'
True, although this could actually be built-up heat that has resulted from the continuous process in which the sun cooks our planet.
lol I couldn't help but notice the same thing myself. People are making it out as if Essjay had claimed some sort of expertise with these credentials. That would imply that there are really people who see theology degrees to be legitimate educational credentials in the first place.
'Computer technology is still in its infancy. What better time to break this bad habit than now, just before computing gets really widespread?'
I don't know how it is elsewhere in the world. But here in the US there is a computer in pretty much every home. They are about as common as screwdrivers and hammers. I don't know how much more widespread you could get than that.
'Why should it be so hard to whack this silly bit of trivia on the head, when we are so early in the game?'
Marketing. The moment you create a different label for the proper base 2 units that are actually required for computing you have just vindicated the marketing droids. The marketing droids will continue to the terms just as they always have (incorrectly) because you have just made it correct for them to do so. The public will never be aware that any change was made at all and will continue to mistake a base 2 megabyte for a marketing megabyte.
The only way to make this change happen appropriately would be to require labels on all computer merchandise that use base 2 units much like we do for food.
IANAB either, but I'm fairly sure it would be better than breathing 0% Oxygen.
'They've done enough damage with jargon and three-letter-abbreviations, why do they have to fuck with scientific language too?'
Last I checked the metric system had nothing to do with science. It is simply another arbitrary measurement system that happens to be a little easier to work with when using base 10.
Truthfully I couldn't agree more. But the fact is that this particular screwing with the language was done decades ago and the damage is done. Attempting to change it now will only make things worse.
'Suppose you look at a file. It's 95,015,327 bytes long. You're claiming that referring to the file as being 95MB is "inappropriate"?'
As an informal rough estimate, not at all. But yes, in any formal or written sense I absolutely think that is inappropriate.
'It's pointless and annoying.'
As a software engineer you don't know that as an electronic engineer you would know that the machine can not be efficiently made to work with a different system. Understanding that fact means that using anything but the base 2 numbering will always require numerous extra steps whenever a REAL calculation is performed. You will always ultimately end up having to translate to the base 2 system that the hardware and software is using.
Simply because NIST and Europe don't want to confuse the prefixes they are using for other things (like the metric system that has no relevance to computers, tough europeans) doesn't mean the world should adapt to an inconsistant system.
I for one prefer that the computing world use a consistant system and simply ignore European confusion with metric prefixes. After all, they really aren't relevant here in the US were almost every element of modern computing was invented.
How about we get rid of all the marketing systems and go back to good old base 2 for ALL data measurements. Stop calling it 10/100 ethernet when it tops out at 11.9mb/s
Yes but computers don't use the metric system, they use a base 2 system. There is no context in which is appropriate to apply metric reasoning to computers. Especially when USians still constitute a majority share in the modern computing world and USians don't use the metric system or recognize its prefixes.
The biggest reason is that memory uses base 2. Since everything must be addressed through memory it simply doesn't make sense to measure it in a unit that can't be evenly addressed.
People don't even bit about network devices but they should be measured in base 2 units as well. The new prefixes are ridiculous because they continue to allow the alternate notations by giving them difficult to remember prefixes. A network card should not be 100mb or mib or MB or whatever damn prefix we are using for that marketing notation today simply because 11.9mb sounds less impressive.
It is simply stupid that I have to figure out the notation and expand it to 100000000bits, divide by 8 to get bytes, divide by 1024 to get k and then again to get mb simply to figure out how fast this device can actually transfer a given set of data (which will always be measured in base 2 units).
Even non-techs understand the base 2 units because they are used to purchasing memory that way.
If we were really talking about molecules of air sure but by air we really only mean oxygen. There are plenty of non-oxygen molecules in air that could fill the space previously occupied by air and thus all the oxygen could fill one part of the room while all the other gases filled the side you are in.
Should this ever happen to you I would recommend breathing out while on the ground and jumping as high as possible to take a breath. Oxygen is a lot lighter than CO2 so if the molecules are going to split it will probably be a vertical split rather than a horizontal split.
'I'd argue that attention to detail and producing finished projects is a good component of most positions.'
I'd argue that are dozens or even hundreds of details that are overlooked by even the most anal worker in a complex project. Attention to detail is critical in most positions but the most important aspect is prioritizing your time to address the most important details.
As a hirer you are looking at dozens of candidates. You forget that those candidates are looking at dozens of positions and probably custom tailored their resume to each one of those. Failing to hit spellcheck after one of those edits is not only likely but it is probably safe to say that any mortal will do so at some point. The person that does it is as likely to be the best candidate in the stack as the worst candidate.
That is as ridiculous as disregarding a candidate because they have facial piercings and green hair. Unless the candidate is applying for a position that requires interaction with customers there is no justification in punishing non-conformists.
And yet somehow without any basis you associate spelling ability with competence in areas unrelated to spelling?
Spelling, grammar, and language abilities DO NOT correspond to intelligence, education, or anything beyond spelling, grammar, and language abilities.
If you are hiring someone to work as a writer, editor, or speller then judge their spelling abilities. If you are hiring someone to do anything else then you need to drop your false assumption that will follow the academic heard and avoid words like irregardless and aint. You certainly need to drop your false assumption that spelling ability has a relation to competence or attention to detail.
'I'm going to pass on your second example, because as far as I know, most armies don't have a limit to numbers of recruits.'
So you ignore the example you can't argue with. Interesting tactic.
'However, do you think your first man should get a job over someone else who has done the work to earn a magic "bit of paper"?'
I don't need to think he should to dispute your point. I don't think the person who has done the work to earn a magic 'bit of paper' should be hired over someone who has not. This isn't the romantic fairy tale the world lived in circa 1950. You degree is worth the directly career relevent knowledge you gained while in school; not the effort or dedication you put into earning it. If you are being hired by someone objective they will only be interested in things relevent to the position. In fact, someone who has managed to gain the relevent career related knowledge on their own has demonstrated an ability to find and gather information and to do so more efficiently and with dramatically lower cost than an otherwise equally qualified person with a degree.
'Except for the whole manufacturers warranty from major manufacturers bit. You know which manufacturers I'm talking about, the guys who developed the CompTIA organization in the first place. It's pretty handy to know that you're not violating a warranty just to open the box and confirm that their field tech needs to come out and replace the motherboard, or the IDE cable*.'
I do all my own hardware work. In fact, I've gone over all the materials for the A+ exam and even filled in some small gaps in my knowledge at the time. But I've never bothered to take and pay for the exam. Why would I spend money on it? Most people I know of with experience don't even bother to list their A+ certs on their resume anymore.
So you'd rather cut the guy with 20 years of experience, a flawless track record, a masters from MIT, and all the relevant certs because he forgot to run spellcheck after making some adjustment on the resume he tailored to you?
Common sense applies in all cases. Regardless of your criteria you wouldn't cut the guys with substantial experience, a masters, or all the relevant certs. But after grabbing those cherries you should apply a filter that is at least related to the job. Nothing pisses me off more than some anal prick who thinks that spelling and grammar performance can somehow be used to divine performance in anything else.
Either way I couldn't care less about what the guy lies about. I care about results. I haven't heard anyone able to claim that he in any way failed to maintain high standards in his work with wikipedia. Regardless of his personal desire for pats on the back by claiming false degrees, the fact is that his genuine work with wikipedia is worthy of higher honor than any degree.
Basically you just said the same thing as the guy I responded to.
'If you're that good, you will get recognition with or without the paper.'
How are you ever going to show anybody that your that good if they won't give anyone who doesn't have the piece of paper the opportunity? Lying about credentials on resumes is actually fairly common and some of those liars are the best performers ever hired. But you can bet that regardless of skill or merit they wouldn't be hired if they hadn't claimed to have the paper.
In this case the guy fibbed came to a worthwhile position at wikipedia. I haven't heard anyone able to disparage anything he actually did in that position; in fact he helped build wikipedia and that is true merit. The fact is that this guy lying about a piece of paper was probably why he got into the position he did and in that position he was able to help build something that impacted the globe in a positive way.
Lets say I get a job as a shoesalesmen claiming to have a high school diploma instead of a GED and then work my way up to management and am finally instrumental in growing the store into a multi-million dollar chain. Who the hell cares that I lied about some insignificant and unimportant piece of paper? My results are what matter. A degree is a notation at the bottom of your resume that you get as a reward for kissing pompous professor tail for several years not an award of merit.
Or for another example. If a recruit lies about his age to join the military. While in the military forrest carries his fallen comrades out of the jungle and danger and thereby saves 20 lives. Afterward he is awarded a medal of honor for his actions. Would you support an effort to strip the man of the medal he earned with merit because he fibbed on the paperwork to get the opportunity to show that merit?
Why on earth would a sysadmin code? Some mild scripting maybe but no coding. It isn't as if you are implementing custom coded solutions, as a sysadmin you are configuring an arrangment of already coded solutions. If any coding has to be done that is outsourced.
Criteria that have no relation to job performance unless you are hiring an editor. Excellent choice.
You are replying to someone who filters our resumes using a criteria which likely yields better candidates for the position. If you are going to counter with another method don't pick one that could as easily cut your best candidates as your worst.
I've never met one that requires an A+. At least not if you have any actual experience in the industry. If you have a firm understanding of the principles and don't need to fill in the holes in your knowledge then I'd say skip it. Get your CCNA. They all go gaga for cisco certs these days. If you have a CCNA then it is assumed you have the 'basic' knowledge in the A+.
That would be ideal. Unfortunately in the real world you probably won't have the opportunity to show such merit without claims to a piece of paper.