Actually like the parent I am a bit confused, too. I roughly associate entropy with disorder. So I'd expect that black holes destroy entropy. They suck stuff in and destroy it totally or at least homogenize it totally -> less disorder. Like you have a very messy room. When you take out everything and throw it in a garbage bin, the room is empty and clean -> less entropy.
Question is, where is the flaw in this view?
We had hours of conversation whether a red was red enough. Colours and perfect layout of the printed reports were most important. Whether the actually results were correct....since our product manager did not understand the medical relevancy no resources were available to do even a rudimentary quality control there. Oh yeah, the user manual were perfect, too. It was his highest priority to find even the last typo in it.
Our database was bulletproof; but we didn't care if the UI had a glitch.
Strange, I coded also medical software. I my company it was vice versa. Database had a bug? Who cares. Was invisible. But the UI had to be perfect. Pixel precision. This was what the customer could see. I quit.
- New company hires intolerable HR "person". She has no real work with her position. She goes around annoying/interrupting actual work. Is the direct cause of the old owner (very well liked) being fired. We complained to new owner about the situation, he ignores it. At the very least, she becomes a pejorative.
This is a totally common event. Better get used to it.
- After working with the old owner for over a year, we knew him very well. From time to time, would have a drink or meal with him outside of work. The new owner didn't want us to talk to him. Of course, we already did, several times. This is the "reason" two of us were let go, not work performance related.
Again, shit happens. Nothing unusual about this, too.
- My work computer was purchased by the new owners, I didn't use it, mainly because I used my personal laptop. It was setup the way I wanted and WAY more portable. The old owner encouraged this, since he got more work out of me. If they would have provided a laptop, I would certainly have used that, and they would have had all the current code.
No problem here. If this was allowed and encouraged by your former boss, fine. BUT, and this is the sole reason why I think that you deserved to be kicked out, this is no reason not to keep a central repository up-to-date. Keeping critical files on _one_ personal laptop, and not checking regularly into the repository is an act of gross negligence. Suppose you had no problems with your superiors, your old, very liked boss remained in the company and suddenly your laptop hd had a serious had crash? How would you have explained to him that the work of at least three month was lost? Very unprofessional.
Do I punish the company for bad treatment? For sure. Do I cause real damage? Happened once or twice. Did I do something illegal? Of course not. I am freelancing software-developer and I am good at what I do. So what is the worst thing I do to crap companies? Simple, I do not renew my contract. Can be very, very bad to lose a developer, who cannot easily and fast be replaced. Especially late in a project. Nothing beats to see an incompetent project leader beg.:-)
I am longer in the IT than most licensing authorities exist. I have over a dozen successful projects in my CV. But I have absolutely no formal IT education. Taught everything myself. So you think I am not a professional?
I would not say it is so bad as you make it sound. It is just another type of eye-candy like transparent or wobbly windows. Some like things like that, others hate them. Nevertheless, trying to patents this is ridiculous.
But Nokia is so short sighted. Far too attached to the physical world. I will at once file a patent for displaying different data depending on how the photo was flipped. Left to right, right to left, up/down, down/up and of course depending on the weekday and the current moon phase. Oh boy I will be soooo rich.
This is a stupid comparison. You compare the "evilness" of a state with the "evilness" of a company. If you want to do it right, though it still would not make much sense, you'd have to compare Microsoft with Evermore Software or China with the USA. In that case there wouldn't be much of a difference.
This is moderated 'insightful'? But definitely not by real coders. More by wannabes like a previous project manager of mine, who, whenever he found one of my bugs, complained I would not test my code. I just wonder how he knew that when he found one, that I previously did not remove 500, which I found myself through testing.
They are attempting to judge value when there simply is no objective measure for the kind of things they are trying to judge.
This is only half true. You can judge the quality of code. How good does is comply to the OO principles? Makes the design sense? Does it look maintainable? Robust? Reusable? How is it documented? There are even some metrics, which could be measured by static code analysis programs. Nevertheless I doubt that for each with Ohloh registered software project a senior software engineer will spend time to analyze the code independently from its purpose and give an objective evaluation of the skills of the programmers.
Ah-ha! A psychologist AND a biologist in one package! Credentialed in neither, I assume.
Yeah, and a god, too. Ok, not absolutely seen, but compared to a loud mouth like you I sure am.
Just for the record: I never said or implied that I am a psychologist OR a biologist. But I suppose it never occurs to someone like you, that it is possible to learn certain aspects of many fields without being an expert.
Since you imply I claim to be a psychologist AND a biologist you seem to have read some of my other posts. Apparently not the one where I talked with a zookeeper during a guided zoo tour. HE might have been a biologist. HE told me the zoo tigers could leave their contraptions at will. HE told me that they are by far weaker than the free living variety. And even if he did not, the latter is common sense. Zoo tigers don't have to hunt and they usually don't fight. The only thing they do is either sunbathing, eating or sleeping. A human in this situation gets fat and soft. The tigers don't get fat, because their food is strictly controlled. But they still get soft (for a tiger).
Due to your 'moron' I should not answer to you. Your are simply not worth it. However, there might be others, who read this. For those is this answer.
To other possible readers:
In a certain way my parent is right. Contraptions of any kind should be immune to human error. This is valid for the average human, who is no professional in the field under view. However, he is still wrong. He does not distinguish between amateurs and professionals.
It simply is not possible to create 100% fool proof contraptions or devices. Partly because it is impossible, partly it is too costly. Usually, as long nothing happens, this is well accepted.
Therefore professionals get training. An x-ray device is inherently dangerous. Improperly used it can kill. It is hardly possible to design such a device that if fulfills a its task, is totally fool proof to use. Therefore people have to undergo intense training to be allowed to operate it.
People are not allowed to enter the tracks in a train station, because it is dangerous. Railroad worker have to do it from time to time to inspect the racks. There is no mechanism, which makes it totally impossible that train can come, while a train worker is inspecting the tracks. Why not? It should be technically feasible to do something like this. Probably because after a proper training the remaining risk can be neglected.
There are many examples, where professionals have to so things, which are too dangerous for anyone else. The only difference is that professionals got the proper training to recognize potential dangerouse situationes and act appropriately.
A zookeeper is a professional in his line of work, too. So there is as in many other cases no need to have the absolute possible amount of safety, which would be necessary when untrained amateurs are required to handle this contraption. The only way the zoo is responsible for the accident is when it did not make sure that all personnel is properly trained for their job. If it did, then the zookeeper was inattentive and it was her own fault.
I never said something about that tiger. I never even joined one of the discussions about taunting or not. I wasn't there, so I cannot know what happened. But provocation or not wasn't what were 'talking' about. Furthermore when we only talk about the zookeeper accident, I can assure you that the tiger is capable of attacking without provocation.
As I wrote in another thread I once attended a guided tour through a zoo. I was able to talk with a zookeeper a bit. When we came to the big cats he told me that those cats really hate their keepers. It is a hierarchy thing. The keeper feeds the cats = tells them when and how much to eat, makes then enter and leave their cages, i.e. acts like the alpha male of the group. But he did not earn this place in a proper fight, so the cats won't accept them. He told me that when normal visitors come close to the bulletproof glass of the cages, nothing happens. The cats usually ignore visitors. When he comes close the the glass, the cats jump at the class, try to bite and claw at it. But all keepers know this. They know that when the cats get the slightest opportunity to kill them, they attack. I doubt this different is in any American zoo. So again my opinion, if it is not a material or design defect, which causes the cage door unpredictably to open, it is the keepers own fault when he 'allows' to a tiger to claw him through or under the bars.
And what part of 'I don't care' do you not understand?
a) A tiger stands free directly before me -> I am toast.
b) A tiger is in a cage, which does not even allow to stick a whisker between the bars. -> I am safe.
c) A tiger is in a cage and can claw through the bars. -> I am still safe, since I have the brains to stay out of reach.
When now some organization says that cage c) is improperly built, I don't care. I use my own judgment. I don't need an organization, which tells me what is right or wrong or properly or improperly built.
Perhaps he (or she) should have followed common sense. I really don't see how wrong such a feeding cage can be designed that a normal attentive person is in any danger. The tiger was able to reach under the bars? So what? It's a tiger and not Mr. Fantastic. It has a limited reach. How are zookeeper in America trained? Picked randomly from the streets, given a fancy hat and told 'feed the tiger'? Fine, then you are right, the cage was inadequate. I always thought zookeeper had a very good knowledge of the animals they are keeping. Knew which one of their animals are dangerous, were able to read their moods, and knew how to stay out of reach.
..and that the ZOO (meaning the director and others in charge) KNEW about this and did nothing to correct to flaw and protect Lori.
Again, knew what? That the tiger was able to reach through the bars? So what? He was also able to piss through the bar*, he would have been even if the bars were much closer. I bet if this happened once to Lori, she would have paid attention and miraculously been able to avoid a second tiger shower.
Also by reading the articles, AND just by reading my messages, you would know to STOP saying "he" in referring to Lori, who is a woman.
Irrelevant.
You're just not giving me anything positive to say about you, as you clearly are not reading anything that would torpedo your argument. That's called willful ignorance, and it is not a quality that is becoming of a decent human being.
If you say so. I don't care. But I do care for those overprotective mommies who can't accept that accidents happen. They disgust me. And I am also disgusted by those who think that of course it is never the fault of the victim of the accident that the accident happened, but always the fault of some far away or faceless 'entity', which should have looked at least three years into the future and foreseen what could happen and prevented even the tiniest probability of even the slightest accident. Even if a minimum of commons sense could have prevented the accident.
I read it, but I disagree. There is no such thing as a 100% fool proof system. When a tiger is able to injure a zookeeper, the zookeeper was careless. Period. In many German zoos there are tiger cages, where the same thing might happen. A tiger or another big cat might reach through the bars. Therefore there are fences, which prevent visitors to get too close to the cages. Of course zoo employees can go behind those fences, but they should know what they are doing and pay attention to the cats. So yes, without knowing details I claim it was Lori Komejan's own fault, he was careless.
What the Cal/OSHA finds, or what penalties are paid is, when it comes to decide about who is to blame for something, in America even more irrelevant than anywhere else.
So you say the tiger was lieing in the sun, perhaps thinking: 'What a boring day today. What could I do? Hey, look those hairless apes over there. Let's see how they taste'. Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.
I made a nanny state analogy. No, you did not say zoos should be banned. But try to get a decent chemistry set, like the ones I got during my childhood. Impossible. Why? Probably because something happened and the same discussion stated. Too dangerous, this never should have been possible, yada yada. I like current zoos. But I suppose next time I want to see a tiger in a zoo I have to bring some good binoculars to watch the tigers in a 40 meter deep hole, 1 km away through a 20 cm sheet of bulletproof glass.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually like the parent I am a bit confused, too. I roughly associate entropy with disorder. So I'd expect that black holes destroy entropy. They suck stuff in and destroy it totally or at least homogenize it totally -> less disorder. Like you have a very messy room. When you take out everything and throw it in a garbage bin, the room is empty and clean -> less entropy. Question is, where is the flaw in this view?
We had hours of conversation whether a red was red enough. Colours and perfect layout of the printed reports were most important. Whether the actually results were correct....since our product manager did not understand the medical relevancy no resources were available to do even a rudimentary quality control there. Oh yeah, the user manual were perfect, too. It was his highest priority to find even the last typo in it.
Our database was bulletproof; but we didn't care if the UI had a glitch.
Strange, I coded also medical software. I my company it was vice versa. Database had a bug? Who cares. Was invisible. But the UI had to be perfect. Pixel precision. This was what the customer could see. I quit.
Good for you. But it just means you have nothing M$ is interested in and your are no thread for their profit.
This is a totally common event. Better get used to it.
Again, shit happens. Nothing unusual about this, too.
No problem here. If this was allowed and encouraged by your former boss, fine. BUT, and this is the sole reason why I think that you deserved to be kicked out, this is no reason not to keep a central repository up-to-date. Keeping critical files on _one_ personal laptop, and not checking regularly into the repository is an act of gross negligence. Suppose you had no problems with your superiors, your old, very liked boss remained in the company and suddenly your laptop hd had a serious had crash? How would you have explained to him that the work of at least three month was lost? Very unprofessional.
And IMHO absolutely deserving to be kicked out.
Do I punish the company for bad treatment? For sure. Do I cause real damage? Happened once or twice. Did I do something illegal? Of course not. I am freelancing software-developer and I am good at what I do. So what is the worst thing I do to crap companies? Simple, I do not renew my contract. Can be very, very bad to lose a developer, who cannot easily and fast be replaced. Especially late in a project. Nothing beats to see an incompetent project leader beg. :-)
I am longer in the IT than most licensing authorities exist. I have over a dozen successful projects in my CV. But I have absolutely no formal IT education. Taught everything myself. So you think I am not a professional?
I would not say it is so bad as you make it sound. It is just another type of eye-candy like transparent or wobbly windows. Some like things like that, others hate them. Nevertheless, trying to patents this is ridiculous.
Still would not be worth a patent. This technique is called steganography and certainly nothing new.
But Nokia is so short sighted. Far too attached to the physical world. I will at once file a patent for displaying different data depending on how the photo was flipped. Left to right, right to left, up/down, down/up and of course depending on the weekday and the current moon phase. Oh boy I will be soooo rich.
I have worked in enough software companies to know that they are not necessarily better.
This is a stupid comparison. You compare the "evilness" of a state with the "evilness" of a company. If you want to do it right, though it still would not make much sense, you'd have to compare Microsoft with Evermore Software or China with the USA. In that case there wouldn't be much of a difference.
This is moderated 'insightful'? But definitely not by real coders. More by wannabes like a previous project manager of mine, who, whenever he found one of my bugs, complained I would not test my code. I just wonder how he knew that when he found one, that I previously did not remove 500, which I found myself through testing.
Just for the record: I never said or implied that I am a psychologist OR a biologist. But I suppose it never occurs to someone like you, that it is possible to learn certain aspects of many fields without being an expert.
Since you imply I claim to be a psychologist AND a biologist you seem to have read some of my other posts. Apparently not the one where I talked with a zookeeper during a guided zoo tour. HE might have been a biologist. HE told me the zoo tigers could leave their contraptions at will. HE told me that they are by far weaker than the free living variety. And even if he did not, the latter is common sense. Zoo tigers don't have to hunt and they usually don't fight. The only thing they do is either sunbathing, eating or sleeping. A human in this situation gets fat and soft. The tigers don't get fat, because their food is strictly controlled. But they still get soft (for a tiger).
Due to your 'moron' I should not answer to you. Your are simply not worth it. However, there might be others, who read this. For those is this answer.
To other possible readers: In a certain way my parent is right. Contraptions of any kind should be immune to human error. This is valid for the average human, who is no professional in the field under view. However, he is still wrong. He does not distinguish between amateurs and professionals.
It simply is not possible to create 100% fool proof contraptions or devices. Partly because it is impossible, partly it is too costly. Usually, as long nothing happens, this is well accepted.
Therefore professionals get training. An x-ray device is inherently dangerous. Improperly used it can kill. It is hardly possible to design such a device that if fulfills a its task, is totally fool proof to use. Therefore people have to undergo intense training to be allowed to operate it.
People are not allowed to enter the tracks in a train station, because it is dangerous. Railroad worker have to do it from time to time to inspect the racks. There is no mechanism, which makes it totally impossible that train can come, while a train worker is inspecting the tracks. Why not? It should be technically feasible to do something like this. Probably because after a proper training the remaining risk can be neglected.
There are many examples, where professionals have to so things, which are too dangerous for anyone else. The only difference is that professionals got the proper training to recognize potential dangerouse situationes and act appropriately.
A zookeeper is a professional in his line of work, too. So there is as in many other cases no need to have the absolute possible amount of safety, which would be necessary when untrained amateurs are required to handle this contraption. The only way the zoo is responsible for the accident is when it did not make sure that all personnel is properly trained for their job. If it did, then the zookeeper was inattentive and it was her own fault.
I mean, what is reproduction without men good for, when there is no way to make a man pay for the children?
I never said something about that tiger. I never even joined one of the discussions about taunting or not. I wasn't there, so I cannot know what happened. But provocation or not wasn't what were 'talking' about. Furthermore when we only talk about the zookeeper accident, I can assure you that the tiger is capable of attacking without provocation.
As I wrote in another thread I once attended a guided tour through a zoo. I was able to talk with a zookeeper a bit. When we came to the big cats he told me that those cats really hate their keepers. It is a hierarchy thing. The keeper feeds the cats = tells them when and how much to eat, makes then enter and leave their cages, i.e. acts like the alpha male of the group. But he did not earn this place in a proper fight, so the cats won't accept them. He told me that when normal visitors come close to the bulletproof glass of the cages, nothing happens. The cats usually ignore visitors. When he comes close the the glass, the cats jump at the class, try to bite and claw at it. But all keepers know this. They know that when the cats get the slightest opportunity to kill them, they attack. I doubt this different is in any American zoo. So again my opinion, if it is not a material or design defect, which causes the cage door unpredictably to open, it is the keepers own fault when he 'allows' to a tiger to claw him through or under the bars.
Normal thing. Tigers (and the other big cats) hate their keepers. Don't want to type all this again: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=438748&cid=22263954
And what part of 'I don't care' do you not understand?
a) A tiger stands free directly before me -> I am toast.
b) A tiger is in a cage, which does not even allow to stick a whisker between the bars. -> I am safe.
c) A tiger is in a cage and can claw through the bars. -> I am still safe, since I have the brains to stay out of reach.
When now some organization says that cage c) is improperly built, I don't care. I use my own judgment. I don't need an organization, which tells me what is right or wrong or properly or improperly built.
*Tiger sometimes do this.
I read it, but I disagree. There is no such thing as a 100% fool proof system. When a tiger is able to injure a zookeeper, the zookeeper was careless. Period. In many German zoos there are tiger cages, where the same thing might happen. A tiger or another big cat might reach through the bars. Therefore there are fences, which prevent visitors to get too close to the cages. Of course zoo employees can go behind those fences, but they should know what they are doing and pay attention to the cats. So yes, without knowing details I claim it was Lori Komejan's own fault, he was careless.
What the Cal/OSHA finds, or what penalties are paid is, when it comes to decide about who is to blame for something, in America even more irrelevant than anywhere else.
So you say the tiger was lieing in the sun, perhaps thinking: 'What a boring day today. What could I do? Hey, look those hairless apes over there. Let's see how they taste'. Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.
I made a nanny state analogy. No, you did not say zoos should be banned. But try to get a decent chemistry set, like the ones I got during my childhood. Impossible. Why? Probably because something happened and the same discussion stated. Too dangerous, this never should have been possible, yada yada. I like current zoos. But I suppose next time I want to see a tiger in a zoo I have to bring some good binoculars to watch the tigers in a 40 meter deep hole, 1 km away through a 20 cm sheet of bulletproof glass.