You yourself have some growing up to do if you equate being civil and polite (a sign of the respect you mention) with being an "anal WASP type".
Please don't be insulting, you have no idea what I'm talking about. The environment I was describing was not one where respect was key: solely dis-trust and fear as the driving force.
I ask you again, as long as they are resepectful, you have to see beyond their laddish behavior. You seemed to have missed this point entirely, and posting as an AC, you hardly have higher moral ground here.
...the other side of the scale is when you work with anally-retentive, passive-agressive f***wads (there, I said it, guess I'm a little more with your crew). When you're used to being a little more "expressive" with your speech, and being physical, you can easily come across as a raging psycho to these anger-management class victim-types. That's what I've had to content with in the past, and when I get nasty e-mails from a boss simply because I sneezed loudly (no coming over to me to talk personally--no! that would be confrontational!), you have to wonder if you're losing your mind.
Trust me, the pendulum can swing too far in the opposite direction. Then of course, the whole professionalism question comes up again, but it's because you are treated like a rambunctious five-year-old.
The only thing that matters is: do your co-employees treat you with respect? If they do, forgive 'em their laddish attitudes. Chances are you'll come around anyway.
Unless you're cut from the same cloth as those anal WASP-types at that particular job I was stuck at...
Yeah, I've got the same issue. I remembert reading that it's at the upper edge of the human hearing range and most people aren't very sensitive to sound in that range.
I remember as a boy remarking that someone's television was on just from that sound, and a lot of times people would be startled, like I had some bizarre ESP.
Moreover, Yahoo! was only a useful "catalog of sites" because that was early days on the web.
Yes, Yahoo! implemented searching as well, but a million years ago, it was self-registration that created that "catalog of sites" (e.g. 1995). Searching came later, and was organic, but Yahoo! in no way was ever the dominant search engine, certainly not in the way Google has become. They were a directory service initially, and thus becoming a "Portal" as they are today was the direct evolution upward from that model.
IMHO the biggest loser from Google's emergent dominance was Altavista, who for a while were certainly the cognoscenti's search-engine of choice.
Apple has certainly not kept their solution proprietary--they have acceded to "market demands". Any tower Mac has AGP, PCI, USB, ATA... all technologies which were created on the PC side of the fence. Rather than battle with proprietary designs (even Firewire, Apple-innovated, has been accepted as the de facto new A/V transmission standard, cross-platform), Apple has certainly chosen more compatibility, not less. Furthermore, every Mac since System 7.1 Pro has had the ability to read and write PC media. And now, OS X is, with its core: BSD!
This is a long ways from the time when PC and Mac hardware/software was absolutely separate, with completely different interfaces on each platform. When it comes to compatibility, Macs are a far cry from a "proprietary" design, relative to what it once was, these days.
I think the switch has more to do with a politically palatable way to ditch the unimportant portions of the suite (Chatzilla and Composer) and allow a sprucing up of the interface on ALL platforms to match the UI (a huge issue on OS X, and one on XP even although slightly less so).
Personally, I have found I now consistently use Phoenix^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFirebird on the PC side. On OS X, well, I have Firebird hanging around but Safari is at this point "good enough" for my daily use (even though I still want some of the customizability of TBE).
I personally applaud them for breaking up the application. Remember, there's nothing to stop them, when replacement time comes, for offering a monolithic installer which includes both Thunderbird and Firebird. But since the average Windows user (their ultimate target market) will want to install probably the browser only (and use OE/Outlook for email) it is sensible to allow the piecemeal installation.
Always very quiet and congenial. In at the right time, out at the right-time.
Regardless, this can be true even with Yanks. A former boss comes to mind, being as I had to normally fix his mistakes when he attempted to help. Being a linear thinker, he presumed that the more you work on something, the faster it gets done.
1. Yes, you can run Yahoo! Instant Messenger on OS X.
2. Yes, you can buy any standard two-button USB wheel mouse, plug it in, and OS X will recognize it just fine, and suddenly your mom isn't such a pariah.
Really: you only've proven your ignorance of the Macintosh platform.
Okay. Why don't I just go back to your original source for the quote from which you have derived this interminally idiotic argument. It's plain you know little about geography since you've tarried this long.
But average density is not a particularly useful indicator, since population distribution is highly uneven. Half of the population occupy just over 10% of the surface area - the Paris area and lower part of the Seine valley, the Lyon area, the Rhone valley and the Mediterranean coast, the Loire, Garonne and Rhine valleys, the Brittany coast and industrial areas in Lorraine and the north. These areas have the densest populations; it is Paris which holds the record, with 20,000 inhabitants per km2. Meanwhile, vast swathes of countryside are sparsely populated - sometimes with fewer than 20 inhabitants per km2.
Because the web is becoming an ever more useless place, I can't get links to actual demographically relevant maps, but suffice it to say, you are simply another example of one of those sad slash-dotters who can't let an argument die.
Since your original assertion was that France was somehow much more densely populated than the Eastern US, how do you feel getting brought back to task with your own source, less selectively quoted and referenced appropriately?
Here's a map of Canada, and its relative densities. Gee, look where all the people are--ain't that where the blackout happened?
And here are two small states--NJ and CT--that flank NYC ("Tri-State Area") and their own densities. Pretty good amount of people eh? Granted the stats are per sq. mile, but it is not too hard to extrapolate.
So please, tell me again how the Northeastern US is so different from France in terms of denisty?
Maybe that would be because power facilities aren't like lightbulbs, as in, the closer you are, the more light you have.
This was an enormous grid failure with automated shutdowns required due to the fact that it would have otherwise destroyed the local portion of the grid. Remember, this wasn't a power generation failure...
Sure, the average density in the United States is less than in France. But France does not have large sparsely populated areas such as Alaska and a great deal of the Southwest and Prairie States, like we do.
You should look at a map before you rely on a mere statistic. Population denisties in the eastern US are very comparable to European densities, and only serves to point out how ridiculous it is that this could happen.
I had an interview with a firm about a year ago, a health plan provider in Manhattan. Originally I was to be interviewed by the team lead and the project manager, but I have a feeling the recruiter went a little overboard selling me as "technical" because by the time I had gotten there they had one of the techs interview me.
Needless to say, he was your typical gearhead; like one of those car afficionados who can spout the statistics relating to the latest engine in a particular model of car. And of course, as a result, he completely mangled the "soft" part, the initial part, of the interview, cutting me off when I attempted to give relevant, and high-level explanations of problems I had solved and technological solutions I had implemented in previous positions--because obviously technical minutiae is what matters.
Finally, the "technical test" began. It appeared to be something they had told him to prepare to "flush out the know-nothings", but it was hardly scientific; it was manifest that he had chosen questions based upon his own prejudices as to what a qualified applicant should know, simply because they were things he knew. That they represented horribly antiquated or erroneous approaches to problem-solving was, of course, irrelevant.
I don't cram my head with minutiae, especially as concerns details of things that can be implemented in several different fashions. But thanks to this "test" they thought I wasn't qualified, and showed me the door. Their loss, of course; but I am still steamed to this day that they could have let this idiot high-jack their interview process, and wonder how many persons got passed-over simply because they hadn't bothered to do a classic MCSE-style "cram" the night before.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee... they're already working on it.
You yourself have some growing up to do if you equate being civil and polite (a sign of the respect you mention) with being an "anal WASP type".
Please don't be insulting, you have no idea what I'm talking about. The environment I was describing was not one where respect was key: solely dis-trust and fear as the driving force.
I ask you again, as long as they are resepectful, you have to see beyond their laddish behavior. You seemed to have missed this point entirely, and posting as an AC, you hardly have higher moral ground here.
You should be so lucky...
...the other side of the scale is when you work with anally-retentive, passive-agressive f***wads (there, I said it, guess I'm a little more with your crew). When you're used to being a little more "expressive" with your speech, and being physical, you can easily come across as a raging psycho to these anger-management class victim-types. That's what I've had to content with in the past, and when I get nasty e-mails from a boss simply because I sneezed loudly (no coming over to me to talk personally--no! that would be confrontational!), you have to wonder if you're losing your mind.
Trust me, the pendulum can swing too far in the opposite direction. Then of course, the whole professionalism question comes up again, but it's because you are treated like a rambunctious five-year-old.
The only thing that matters is: do your co-employees treat you with respect? If they do, forgive 'em their laddish attitudes. Chances are you'll come around anyway.
Unless you're cut from the same cloth as those anal WASP-types at that particular job I was stuck at...
Something tells me that this guy wouldn't mind working there either...
Yeah, I've got the same issue. I remembert reading that it's at the upper edge of the human hearing range and most people aren't very sensitive to sound in that range.
I remember as a boy remarking that someone's television was on just from that sound, and a lot of times people would be startled, like I had some bizarre ESP.
Moreover, Yahoo! was only a useful "catalog of sites" because that was early days on the web.
Yes, Yahoo! implemented searching as well, but a million years ago, it was self-registration that created that "catalog of sites" (e.g. 1995). Searching came later, and was organic, but Yahoo! in no way was ever the dominant search engine, certainly not in the way Google has become. They were a directory service initially, and thus becoming a "Portal" as they are today was the direct evolution upward from that model.
IMHO the biggest loser from Google's emergent dominance was Altavista, who for a while were certainly the cognoscenti's search-engine of choice.
Christ, not that tired old analogy again.
Apple has certainly not kept their solution proprietary--they have acceded to "market demands". Any tower Mac has AGP, PCI, USB, ATA... all technologies which were created on the PC side of the fence. Rather than battle with proprietary designs (even Firewire, Apple-innovated, has been accepted as the de facto new A/V transmission standard, cross-platform), Apple has certainly chosen more compatibility, not less. Furthermore, every Mac since System 7.1 Pro has had the ability to read and write PC media. And now, OS X is, with its core: BSD!
This is a long ways from the time when PC and Mac hardware/software was absolutely separate, with completely different interfaces on each platform. When it comes to compatibility, Macs are a far cry from a "proprietary" design, relative to what it once was, these days.
Well, geez, the B does stand for Berkeley...
I believe you answered your own question!
I think the switch has more to do with a politically palatable way to ditch the unimportant portions of the suite (Chatzilla and Composer) and allow a sprucing up of the interface on ALL platforms to match the UI (a huge issue on OS X, and one on XP even although slightly less so).
Personally, I have found I now consistently use Phoenix^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFirebird on the PC side. On OS X, well, I have Firebird hanging around but Safari is at this point "good enough" for my daily use (even though I still want some of the customizability of TBE).
I personally applaud them for breaking up the application. Remember, there's nothing to stop them, when replacement time comes, for offering a monolithic installer which includes both Thunderbird and Firebird. But since the average Windows user (their ultimate target market) will want to install probably the browser only (and use OE/Outlook for email) it is sensible to allow the piecemeal installation.
Ah, yes. The eternal refrain of the conspiracy theorist.
concentrated nerd juice
That sounds like a marketable product!
A 32" TV? Like this one? Sho' nuff--pimpin' ain't easy!
(Kind of missed out on the dot-com thing, didn't we?
Yup. Been around a few of those myself.
Always very quiet and congenial. In at the right time, out at the right-time.
Regardless, this can be true even with Yanks. A former boss comes to mind, being as I had to normally fix his mistakes when he attempted to help. Being a linear thinker, he presumed that the more you work on something, the faster it gets done.
Now that's a prediction I can sink my teeth into.
"Worst. Jokes. Ever."
Oh c'mon, this is flamebait for sure!
1. Yes, you can run Yahoo! Instant Messenger on OS X.
2. Yes, you can buy any standard two-button USB wheel mouse, plug it in, and OS X will recognize it just fine, and suddenly your mom isn't such a pariah.
Really: you only've proven your ignorance of the Macintosh platform.
Okay. Why don't I just go back to your original source for the quote from which you have derived this interminally idiotic argument. It's plain you know little about geography since you've tarried this long.
But average density is not a particularly useful indicator, since population distribution is highly uneven. Half of the population occupy just over 10% of the surface area - the Paris area and lower part of the Seine valley, the Lyon area, the Rhone valley and the Mediterranean coast, the Loire, Garonne and Rhine valleys, the Brittany coast and industrial areas in Lorraine and the north. These areas have the densest populations; it is Paris which holds the record, with 20,000 inhabitants per km2. Meanwhile, vast swathes of countryside are sparsely populated - sometimes with fewer than 20 inhabitants per km2.
Because the web is becoming an ever more useless place, I can't get links to actual demographically relevant maps, but suffice it to say, you are simply another example of one of those sad slash-dotters who can't let an argument die.
Since your original assertion was that France was somehow much more densely populated than the Eastern US, how do you feel getting brought back to task with your own source, less selectively quoted and referenced appropriately?
You seem to have a problem with the concept of "high-density". Perhaps because you appear to be suffering from an internal form of "high-density".
To whit: high-density does not mean in a big city. Much of the suburban sprawl qualifies as "high-density", as well, especially in historical terms.
Please: get that through your own "high-denisty" zone.
From the article:
Total Recall was one of the biggest hits of 1990, grossing $118 million in the US alone. That was good for Carolco, even better for Dick.
What part of Philip K. Dick is dead does the author have trouble understanding?
It's just another Van Gogh-type situation. Better to have lived a Wharhol-ian career, IMHO...
Once you realise that the place he is in is Los Angeles, it becomes much clear how "unpleasant" the world has become.
Now, that is stupid. Ex-squeeze me, but, erm, the areas that got "blacked-out" are high-density population centers.
You must not live in the NE US.
Ohhhhh-kay... so what's your point?
Here's a map of Canada, and its relative densities. Gee, look where all the people are--ain't that where the blackout happened?
And here are two small states--NJ and CT--that flank NYC ("Tri-State Area") and their own densities. Pretty good amount of people eh? Granted the stats are per sq. mile, but it is not too hard to extrapolate.
So please, tell me again how the Northeastern US is so different from France in terms of denisty?
Maybe that would be because power facilities aren't like lightbulbs, as in, the closer you are, the more light you have.
This was an enormous grid failure with automated shutdowns required due to the fact that it would have otherwise destroyed the local portion of the grid. Remember, this wasn't a power generation failure...
Erm, this is an idiotic excuse.
Sure, the average density in the United States is less than in France. But France does not have large sparsely populated areas such as Alaska and a great deal of the Southwest and Prairie States, like we do.
You should look at a map before you rely on a mere statistic. Population denisties in the eastern US are very comparable to European densities, and only serves to point out how ridiculous it is that this could happen.
I agree with this one hundred percent.
I had an interview with a firm about a year ago, a health plan provider in Manhattan. Originally I was to be interviewed by the team lead and the project manager, but I have a feeling the recruiter went a little overboard selling me as "technical" because by the time I had gotten there they had one of the techs interview me.
Needless to say, he was your typical gearhead; like one of those car afficionados who can spout the statistics relating to the latest engine in a particular model of car. And of course, as a result, he completely mangled the "soft" part, the initial part, of the interview, cutting me off when I attempted to give relevant, and high-level explanations of problems I had solved and technological solutions I had implemented in previous positions--because obviously technical minutiae is what matters.
Finally, the "technical test" began. It appeared to be something they had told him to prepare to "flush out the know-nothings", but it was hardly scientific; it was manifest that he had chosen questions based upon his own prejudices as to what a qualified applicant should know, simply because they were things he knew. That they represented horribly antiquated or erroneous approaches to problem-solving was, of course, irrelevant.
I don't cram my head with minutiae, especially as concerns details of things that can be implemented in several different fashions. But thanks to this "test" they thought I wasn't qualified, and showed me the door. Their loss, of course; but I am still steamed to this day that they could have let this idiot high-jack their interview process, and wonder how many persons got passed-over simply because they hadn't bothered to do a classic MCSE-style "cram" the night before.