Jim Henderson wrote:

> One of the things I find a lot of geeks do, though, is tend to go into a 
> lot of unnecessary detail.
> 
> My point is that sometimes it's more effective to say less.

I like to delude myself that this is one of the things I'm good at.

I've seen computer policy documents that are full of technobabble. I've 
seen procedure documents that have a list of definitions that looks like 
a geek's guide to TCP/IP. It's really not necessary. These aren't 
technical documents, they're *policy statements*.

I get the impression that a lot of the people who write these things 
can't think abstractly. Like, they're so obsessed with individual 
technologies, and even where individual buttons are on a specific piece 
of software, that they can't see the big picture of what they're trying 
to do. It doesn't *matter* to an auditor if you use RAID1 or RAID5. They 
don't give a ****. What they want to know is that you're using RAID, and 
what exactly that means. They don't want to know about stripe sets and 
mirroring and parity computation hardware. All they need to know is that 
you've got multiple drives, and if one breaks the system can continue to 
function. That's one sentence. That's all you need to say.

Now that the IT Director is gone, I'm going to make a serious attempt to 
get permission to take my disaster recovery plan home with me. 
(Obviously, being written as part of my job, my employer owns the IP for 
that, so I need written permission to disclose it outside the company.) 
I think it's a damn fine piece of writing - and I have the likes of 
Roche and Pfizer agreeing with me.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to read.

> Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you have
> a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute detail:
> people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the email".

  With regular people that might be understandable, but with people whose
*job* is to read emails and respond to them (eg. technical support) I think
it's inexcusable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> The main problem I see with email exchanges is this:  people don't like to 
> read.
>
> Nerds like you and me, yes, general population, no.  Doesn't matter if you 
> have
> a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in minute 
> detail:
> people just won't read and will eventually phone you to talk "about the 
> email".

IME this is usually because the person you sent it to has other things to do 
that they consider more important.  So many times I have called someone and 
asked if they read the email - "oh, i glanced over it but haven't taken it 
in yet".  If you understand this concept then you understand why a lot of 
things in the world work the way they do.

> Hate the phone.

Me too, but I know when it needs to be used.

> Hate dumb people.

Only if they are trying to a job which they are not skilled enough for, and 
then I really don't hate them, just the manager that put them there.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:21:57 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't matter if you
> >> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in
> >> minute detail:
> >
> > That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute
> > detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.

yes, but I was not talking about money-saving exec bastards in particular, but
about people in general.  In any case, I agree with your points.  But still
think they'd save a lot of time by actually reading it... :P

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b67b77a@news.povray.org...
> Yep, it's so difficult to get your train of thought back
(and some
> studies show it can take a half hour to get back to the
frame of mind you
> were in when you were interrupted).

Having several source files open, making global changes is
the worst time. There have been times where someone walks
in, blabbing about this or that, and I'd just close all the
files and start over. And it's not like I have all these
buddies coming in to talk, no, it's always some idiot who
can't configure a browser to allow popup windows to open...
It's always best to ask a programmer those questions, you
know... Don't call the help desk... :)

> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer
distractions.
> Jim

After 20 years, I finally got an unlisted work phone number.
The phone I have doesn't ring and goes immediatley to
message. But I'd much rather work at home and could do that,
but I drive the wife to work (same employer) every day. When
I retire...

~db

Post a reply to this message

>> I can be brief when cursing.
> also is not particularly constructive 

"Profanity is my primary debugging tool."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I can be brief when cursing.
> > also is not particularly constructive
>
> "Profanity is my primary debugging tool."

funny.  Dilbert?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I can be brief when cursing.
>>> also is not particularly constructive
>> "Profanity is my primary debugging tool."
> 
> funny.  Dilbert?

No, one of the blogs I follow.  (I don't remember which.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:08:57 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b67b77a@news.povray.org...
>> Yep, it's so difficult to get your train of thought back
> (and some
>> studies show it can take a half hour to get back to the
> frame of mind you
>> were in when you were interrupted).
> 
> Having several source files open, making global changes is the worst
> time. There have been times where someone walks in, blabbing about this
> or that, and I'd just close all the files and start over. And it's not
> like I have all these buddies coming in to talk, no, it's always some
> idiot who can't configure a browser to allow popup windows to open...
> It's always best to ask a programmer those questions, you know... Don't
> call the help desk... :)

Yeah, I have that problem as well in the office.  I don't mind helping 
coworkers with things that are a little more involved (like walking them 
through data manipulation, which I do a lot of anyways), but often it's 
just someone stopping by to chat.  Or me getting up to stretch and 
stopping by to chat with coworkers in a way that I know is distracting to 
them.

So it works better for everyone if I'm home most of the time. :-)

>> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer
> distractions.
>> Jim
> 
> After 20 years, I finally got an unlisted work phone number. The phone I
> have doesn't ring and goes immediatley to message. But I'd much rather
> work at home and could do that, but I drive the wife to work (same
> employer) every day. When I retire...

That's cool.  I have an extension from the office that rings here, but 
very often it's set to forward to voicemail.  I figure if it's important, 
they'll leave a message, and if they don't leave a message, then they 
probably should've called someone else first.

Occasionally my wife or stepson will interrupt, but they're learning that 
when I'm working, I'm working.  The fridge is less than 10 feet from my 
desk, though (my "office" is just outside the kitchen and isn't 
enclosed), so I do occasionally have people wandering through.  Or cats.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:57:16 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:21:57 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:02 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doesn't matter if you
>> >> have a clear text with everything needed covered and explained in
>> >> minute detail:
>> >
>> > That's often the problem, though - people don't *want* the minute
>> > detail.  They want the overall high-level picture.
> 
> yes, but I was not talking about money-saving exec bastards in
> particular, but about people in general.  In any case, I agree with your
> points.  But still think they'd save a lot of time by actually reading
> it... :P

Only if they understand it, that was my point. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message