On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:03:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.
>>>> There were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the
>>>> Empire is still a work of fiction.
>>>
>>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
>>
>> Except for everyone who remembers the first Iraq war (back in the 90s),
>> or everyone who heard of Saddam Hussein, or everyone who took the
>> slightest interest in where oil in the US came from.
> 
> Seriously? You get oil from Iraq? The entire country appears to be a
> barren desert wilderness; where is the complex infrastructure necessary
> for oil extraction?

I really wonder sometimes if you're just trying to wind people up with 
statements like this, or trying to see if you can invoke an 'extreme 
facepalm' incident.
 
>> When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?
> 
> Of the Middle East? Never.

Maybe that's part of the reason why you have little sense of how the 
world actually is.  Just a thought.
 
> I'm the guy who thought that Brazil was in Europe, remember? Geography
> was never my strong point. (Or history, actually.)

That's correctable, but you have to correct it.  Both of these things are 
quite important.

>>>> Do you read slashdot?  The Register?
>>>
>>> Nope, never. Why would I?
>>
>> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
>> important to furthering a career in technology
> 
> Really? In what sense?

If you don't know what technology is out there, how do you expect to know 
when a proposed solution is good or not?

Seriously, that would help your job prospects a lot.  Not knowing what 
trends are taking place in IT is kinda like not being aware of the 
development of the automobile when you are a driver for hire of a hansom 
cab.  (Yes, I'm going to make you look that up)

>> and those are two places
>> where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?
> 
> Well, that's news to me.

<boggle>

>>>> Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed
>>>> to take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.
>>>
>>> Maybe in the US. In Britain, it seems to be YouTube and iPlayer that
>>> everyone was whining about.
>>
>> iPlayer I could see.  YouTube?  I haven't heard that, but I could see
>> that it does take up a fair bit of bandwidth.  There was a report
>> yesterday that they've exceeded an hour of video uploaded *per second*
>> of actual video runtime.
> 
> An hour of *uploaded* video per second of video runtime? Wow.

Yes.

> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?

It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or The 
Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as well. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message