Jonaskoelker's irony meter has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
If you were in the middle of something, the irony you were working on may be lost.
Please tell Beelsebob about this problem. We have created an irony report that you can send to help us laugh at Internet Explorer. We treat this report as hilarious and highly entertaining.
To see which nuggets of irony the report contains, click here.
You could show her a room full of scientific studies disproving each and every word she's ever said on the matter - and she wouldn't change her course one inch.
That sounds like delusions. Well, you say "change her course"---to be specific, delusions are about beliefs you don't change despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; you're talking about behavior.
She's acting like the guy who insists on being Napoleon [...]
Assuming Napoleon is grandiose, could you be talking about delusions of grandeur?
On the other hand, the description on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania doesn't seem to quite fit your description. But maybe I'm not reading your description right.
Given that all packets heading for IP address $ADDR get dropped on the floor by the very first piece of ISP equipment it hits, good luck trying to use your non-spoofed results two years from now.
An IT-department, IMHO, should be working on making itself obsolete.
I disagree.
As an inspirational aside, consider Peel's Principles about what an ethical police force is.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
I must've skipped the history lesson where all the other kids were told that the public is the police and vice versa, so I don't have much to say about it.
What I think is relevant is the idea of paying someone to pay full-time attention to a particular task even if others could do it. It takes time filling out order forms for more backup tapes and drives for the storage system. It takes time repairing the tape robot (or being the tape monkey). It takes time installing ssh-tunneled IRC daemons and mail servers and... whatever other tasks the IT department is tasked with.
Plus, I question the degree to which you can obviate the need for specialized knowledge. Even if it's a piece of cake installing ssh-tunneled IRC daemons, knowing that you want that rather than jabbber daemons (or sending internal memos through MSN servers!) is not trivial.
Any department should work on (1) doing what it's there to do; and (2) do it more effectively. But its tasks (presumably) need to be done. By dissolving the department, you only shift the tasks onto someone else. Is that really the smart(est) thing to do?
A nice metric might be the count of tickets that are never opened.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly! So does Robert Peel:
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is?
Considering how your two options are "run an 8 year old OS" and "run a piece of turd", is it too much to ask that the migration away from the 8 year old OS is not too laborious?
I'm all for migrating away from a piece of turd, but let's consider that many people don't run it; be nice to the fortunate people as well.
I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.
I think people should build a network designed from the ground up to support data storage and forwarding first and... well, voice is a kind of data.
Maybe if different networks arise, they could interconnect and come to traffic swap agreements.
Someone for the love of spaghetti, please, embed telephony into the internet and sell us portable internet devices which does web browsing, email, IRC, instant messaging, games, voice chat (i.e. telephony), data transfer, the pocket calculator app, alarm clocks, a frigging NTP client (hello, phone makers and network operators... it's called a network. You use it to exchange data. Then the user can do less work. Hello? He-llooo?)
Phones suck. The telephony network sucks. Telecoms suck. The internet doesn't.
People would come to depend on centralized authorities to hand out addresses and names, which would become corrupt and monopolistic, and would charge people through the nose, making the whole thing economically unfeasible.
Also, given how much the US loves "free markets", they would let private companies own the networks, leading to more monopoly control and monopoly pricing. Also, what's the economic incentive for people to put stuff on this "Internet"?
The economics would never work. Never, I tell you!
They went from blue boxes to beige boxes to white boxes. Now the white boxes themselves are getting blue-boxed;-)
That is, play the right piece of software at 2600 Hz into the iPhone microphone and you can use it to access the whole network instead of Apple and AT&T's walled garden.
Only this time, the wall is on your phone and not the network.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
based on the ohsosubjective ratings process. These guys provide no value-add [...]
ESRB staff reviews the raters' recommended rating category and content descriptors, conducts a parity examination where appropriate to maintain consistency in rating assignments
Taking them at their word (this should raise a red flag, but let's just play "what if" for the moment), they try to make the ratings consistent with at least themselves.
This would mean that if you have experienced, say, Twilight Princess which has PEGI rating 12+ for violence (let's just assume it's rated Teen:Violence by ESRB), you know that a rating of Mature:Violence is going to be more violent and a game rated "Everyone" (no violence) is going to be less violent. That's (probably) the proposed value of ESRB. Whether you find it valuable is for you to decide. Disagreeing is perfectly valid (I do); agreeing because you trust the ESRB is also valid (although the question "what do you based your trust in ESRB on?" might be revealing). Acknowledging that you'd really want to judge yourself and discuss game content with your kids if you had the time, but you really prefer working so you can feed your kids... is also valid (and an unfortunate situation to be in).
Also, how could the process be made less subjective? I'm sure it would be possible to do psych experiments to see whether the particular imagery in one game causes players to be violent, and how that causality is dependent on age, but that's expensive and time-consuming. Guesstimating the game industry time scales, it can range between wildly or only moderately impossible. You could also do broad-brushed experiments and build up general guidelines which you then use to judge the game in question. For instance, do the potential harmful effects of depictions of violence depend on whether the target of violence is a human or not (say, an animal or a fantasy creature such as a dragon or zombie)? Does the display of blood vs. cartoony "Kapoww!!!" jagged polygons influence this? (And so forth). Even if you know the general guidelines, with enough variables, the guesstimation you have to do will become subjective.
Do you have a good idea how it could be made less subjective?
(I don't know how well ESRB works in practice, although I suspect them to be over-cautious)
Even if she is found guilty again, if she's found guilty on good evidence while bad evidence is thrown out that will be a win: It will set some precedent for what is good and bad evidence. (Especially if the RIAA gets some egg on their face for some of the bad evidence.)
Because suing those who will be emotionally and financially hurt the most by such lawsuits just doesn't have the same oomph as fudging legal technicalities most people need to have explained first...
Not to say that partial credit isn't appropriate in largely the manner you described, but being right has to also count, doesn't it?
That depends on whether the aim of the course is to
teach useful problem-solving skills in the domain of calculus and other mathematics; or
teach how to come up with correct solutions to mathematical problems.
In other words, do you want the right answers or the right questions? Which is going to help you the most in making bridges that stay up? Can you learn one of them on the job or by yourself or in some other way not requiring you to spend (valuable) otherwise-university-dedicated hours on it?
And, more importantly, why can't we let the market decide which culture is better?
How do you propose leaving that decision to the market?
I can sign up however many or few of my natural rights to download stuff for free from TPB as I want, as part of a contract between me and an artist?
(That sounds like "The market-based solution" to me: I negotiate with people how much I'm willing to pay, in terms of freedoms, for whatever service or product I want with those I want to provide it.)
So... I call up $ARTIST and say "Hi. I promise to not give away copies of your CDs for the next five years; wanna make me a CD?", and then he asks me how many other people are willing to do the same, and says he wants at least ten years, and then we hold a general assembly and agree to offer him seven, and then he accepts because there are at least $N of us?
And then we move on to the next $(($BIGNUM-1)) artists?
That seems like an absurd amount of overhead.
I think it'd be much better if the people elected someone to decide, considering the wishes of the people ONLY, which freedoms should be given away (for how long) and which freedoms should be kept, so as to enrich the people with culture as much as possible (both by not having restrictions and by giving artists an incentive).
If you did test-driven development then code reviews would be redundant.
No, not for everything.
I'm currently fitting a wiimote-shaped peg into an XTest-shaped hole. I find that I can point the nunchuk upwards by a larger angle than I can point it downwards. The code that reads nunchuk data should compensate for this fact somehow.
I'm not really sure how you write a test method for "Wiimote should be pleasant for human hands to hold and operate". Nor am I convinced that I would have found out my discovery without exploratory coding, something which TDD forbids or at least discourages and frowns upon ("write tests first").
Slashdot Mirror
Jonaskoelker's Irony Meter
Jonaskoelker's irony meter has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
If you were in the middle of something, the irony you were working on may be lost.
Please tell Beelsebob about this problem.
We have created an irony report that you can send to help us laugh at Internet Explorer. We treat this report as hilarious and highly entertaining.
To see which nuggets of irony the report contains, click here.
You could show her a room full of scientific studies disproving each and every word she's ever said on the matter - and she wouldn't change her course one inch.
That sounds like delusions. Well, you say "change her course"---to be specific, delusions are about beliefs you don't change despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; you're talking about behavior.
She's acting like the guy who insists on being Napoleon [...]
Assuming Napoleon is grandiose, could you be talking about delusions of grandeur?
On the other hand, the description on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania doesn't seem to quite fit your description. But maybe I'm not reading your description right.
(!MD)
It's the perfect storm of internet flamewars, completely immune to Godwin's Lawn!
Just like the Nazis!
Given that all packets heading for IP address $ADDR get dropped on the floor by the very first piece of ISP equipment it hits, good luck trying to use your non-spoofed results two years from now.
An IT-department, IMHO, should be working on making itself obsolete.
I disagree.
As an inspirational aside, consider Peel's Principles about what an ethical police force is.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
I must've skipped the history lesson where all the other kids were told that the public is the police and vice versa, so I don't have much to say about it.
What I think is relevant is the idea of paying someone to pay full-time attention to a particular task even if others could do it. It takes time filling out order forms for more backup tapes and drives for the storage system. It takes time repairing the tape robot (or being the tape monkey). It takes time installing ssh-tunneled IRC daemons and mail servers and... whatever other tasks the IT department is tasked with.
Plus, I question the degree to which you can obviate the need for specialized knowledge. Even if it's a piece of cake installing ssh-tunneled IRC daemons, knowing that you want that rather than jabbber daemons (or sending internal memos through MSN servers!) is not trivial.
Any department should work on (1) doing what it's there to do; and (2) do it more effectively. But its tasks (presumably) need to be done. By dissolving the department, you only shift the tasks onto someone else. Is that really the smart(est) thing to do?
A nice metric might be the count of tickets that are never opened.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly! So does Robert Peel:
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
"Fast, cheap, accurate. Pick two."
I'll have fast, cheap and accurate. That's approximately two.
You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is?
Considering how your two options are "run an 8 year old OS" and "run a piece of turd", is it too much to ask that the migration away from the 8 year old OS is not too laborious?
I'm all for migrating away from a piece of turd, but let's consider that many people don't run it; be nice to the fortunate people as well.
Is every single major US company run by a half-assed dickhead who only knows how to make money by screwing customers?
No, prostitutes are clitheads with very full asses who make money by screwing customers.
The difference is, when you pay money and subsequently get screwed, with the prostitutes at least you get what you pay for.
I think some of the major device providers should get together and form a network that is designed from the ground up to support data first and voice second.
I think people should build a network designed from the ground up to support data storage and forwarding first and... well, voice is a kind of data.
Maybe if different networks arise, they could interconnect and come to traffic swap agreements.
Someone for the love of spaghetti, please, embed telephony into the internet and sell us portable internet devices which does web browsing, email, IRC, instant messaging, games, voice chat (i.e. telephony), data transfer, the pocket calculator app, alarm clocks, a frigging NTP client (hello, phone makers and network operators... it's called a network. You use it to exchange data. Then the user can do less work. Hello? He-llooo?)
Phones suck. The telephony network sucks. Telecoms suck. The internet doesn't.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
How do you pronounce that? "The frat act?" "Tea-Frat act"?
Is that some sort of wordplay on Tigris and Eufrat? Tifrat? The puns are just flowing... ;-)
Sadonecroequinophilia?
Microsoft is never done when it comes to providing tools
Yeah, most of their products seem rather unfinished...
That would never work!
People would come to depend on centralized authorities to hand out addresses and names, which would become corrupt and monopolistic, and would charge people through the nose, making the whole thing economically unfeasible.
Also, given how much the US loves "free markets", they would let private companies own the networks, leading to more monopoly control and monopoly pricing. Also, what's the economic incentive for people to put stuff on this "Internet"?
The economics would never work. Never, I tell you!
They went from blue boxes to beige boxes to white boxes. Now the white boxes themselves are getting blue-boxed ;-)
That is, play the right piece of software at 2600 Hz into the iPhone microphone and you can use it to access the whole network instead of Apple and AT&T's walled garden.
Only this time, the wall is on your phone and not the network.
Fixed that for your.
Oh, the irony's.
This term is used in all forms of advertising.
Why am I not surprised that this word is invented by a marketroid?
Why not just tattoo a number on people.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood (this link is sponsored by Mike Godwin).
When can I have my America back?
based on the ohsosubjective ratings process. These guys provide no value-add [...]
ESRB staff reviews the raters' recommended rating category and content descriptors, conducts a parity examination where appropriate to maintain consistency in rating assignments
Taking them at their word (this should raise a red flag, but let's just play "what if" for the moment), they try to make the ratings consistent with at least themselves.
This would mean that if you have experienced, say, Twilight Princess which has PEGI rating 12+ for violence (let's just assume it's rated Teen:Violence by ESRB), you know that a rating of Mature:Violence is going to be more violent and a game rated "Everyone" (no violence) is going to be less violent. That's (probably) the proposed value of ESRB. Whether you find it valuable is for you to decide. Disagreeing is perfectly valid (I do); agreeing because you trust the ESRB is also valid (although the question "what do you based your trust in ESRB on?" might be revealing). Acknowledging that you'd really want to judge yourself and discuss game content with your kids if you had the time, but you really prefer working so you can feed your kids... is also valid (and an unfortunate situation to be in).
Also, how could the process be made less subjective? I'm sure it would be possible to do psych experiments to see whether the particular imagery in one game causes players to be violent, and how that causality is dependent on age, but that's expensive and time-consuming. Guesstimating the game industry time scales, it can range between wildly or only moderately impossible. You could also do broad-brushed experiments and build up general guidelines which you then use to judge the game in question. For instance, do the potential harmful effects of depictions of violence depend on whether the target of violence is a human or not (say, an animal or a fantasy creature such as a dragon or zombie)? Does the display of blood vs. cartoony "Kapoww!!!" jagged polygons influence this? (And so forth). Even if you know the general guidelines, with enough variables, the guesstimation you have to do will become subjective.
Do you have a good idea how it could be made less subjective?
(I don't know how well ESRB works in practice, although I suspect them to be over-cautious)
Even if she is found guilty again, if she's found guilty on good evidence while bad evidence is thrown out that will be a win: It will set some precedent for what is good and bad evidence. (Especially if the RIAA gets some egg on their face for some of the bad evidence.)
Because suing those who will be emotionally and financially hurt the most by such lawsuits just doesn't have the same oomph as fudging legal technicalities most people need to have explained first...
Right-o...
[...] they'll buy the better one and pirate the not so good one.
If I'm going to make myself guilty of a six-digit offense anyways, why not just buy the cheapest one?
Or, if you believe the chance of getting caught times the damages is less than the price of the cheapest one, why not pirate all of them?
Wouldn't that be the rational thing to do?
Not to say that partial credit isn't appropriate in largely the manner you described, but being right has to also count, doesn't it?
That depends on whether the aim of the course is to
In other words, do you want the right answers or the right questions? Which is going to help you the most in making bridges that stay up? Can you learn one of them on the job or by yourself or in some other way not requiring you to spend (valuable) otherwise-university-dedicated hours on it?
And, more importantly, why can't we let the market decide which culture is better?
How do you propose leaving that decision to the market?
I can sign up however many or few of my natural rights to download stuff for free from TPB as I want, as part of a contract between me and an artist?
(That sounds like "The market-based solution" to me: I negotiate with people how much I'm willing to pay, in terms of freedoms, for whatever service or product I want with those I want to provide it.)
So... I call up $ARTIST and say "Hi. I promise to not give away copies of your CDs for the next five years; wanna make me a CD?", and then he asks me how many other people are willing to do the same, and says he wants at least ten years, and then we hold a general assembly and agree to offer him seven, and then he accepts because there are at least $N of us?
And then we move on to the next $(($BIGNUM-1)) artists?
That seems like an absurd amount of overhead.
I think it'd be much better if the people elected someone to decide, considering the wishes of the people ONLY, which freedoms should be given away (for how long) and which freedoms should be kept, so as to enrich the people with culture as much as possible (both by not having restrictions and by giving artists an incentive).
If you did test-driven development then code reviews would be redundant.
No, not for everything.
I'm currently fitting a wiimote-shaped peg into an XTest-shaped hole. I find that I can point the nunchuk upwards by a larger angle than I can point it downwards. The code that reads nunchuk data should compensate for this fact somehow.
I'm not really sure how you write a test method for "Wiimote should be pleasant for human hands to hold and operate". Nor am I convinced that I would have found out my discovery without exploratory coding, something which TDD forbids or at least discourages and frowns upon ("write tests first").
At least, if I get what TDD is all about.
After all, if you've got coding standards, how are you supposed to tell if anybody is following them without reviewing the code?
Version control hooks---if the standards are codified and easily machine-verifiable.
The theory of Intelligent Design has a lot of holes.
So does proprietary software.