 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I mean, apparently every positive integer is the product of a unique
> sequence of prime numbers. That's a pretty fascinating fact. I don't
> really care who discovered this or how, but the fact itself is pretty
> fascinating.
from there on it seems you doesn't bother either how they've come up with such
discovery in the first place. Yes, that's how we learn: by ignoring errors
and just accounting successes... *sarcasm off*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> Of course, from a professional perspective, be very careful about displaying
> your ignorance of trade matters. An employer just looking for some anonymous
> codemonkey may not care, but if you're looking for something a little more
> ambitious, not knowing who Steve Jobs and RMS are could be downright lethal
> in an interview, because it would reveal a deep lack of curiosity and
> interest *** in your own trade ***. For instance, not knowing about Stallman
> means that you never wondered and read about open source software licenses
> and the world of issues surrounding them. Not knowing about Steve Jobs means
> that you never got remotely interested and read anything about Apple
> software and hardware, even in mainstream newspapers.
You make an excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree with this.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > You should know who Richard Stallman is.
> No. But I looked up his website and decided I don't like him anyway. ;-)
You don't have to like someone to know who he is. I don't like Steve
Ballmer, but I know who he is.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>> History has never been something that really interests me, that's all.
>
> Well, perhaps you should expand your horizons a little bit. Knowing how
> things came to be is more than often very illuminating, even from a personal
> perspective. You're missing a lot.
Perhaps.
People have told me I'm missing a lot by not liking jazz music. I'm sure
I'll get over it. ;-)
> Of course, from a professional perspective, be very careful about displaying
> your ignorance of trade matters. An employer just looking for some anonymous
> codemonkey may not care, but if you're looking for something a little more
> ambitious, not knowing who Steve Jobs and RMS are could be downright lethal
> in an interview, because it would reveal a deep lack of curiosity and
> interest *** in your own trade ***.
Well, that's what it comes down to. You keep mentioning the "trade". I
have no interest in the "trade" at all. I am interested in abstract
theoretical concepts, not mundane practicalities. This is a statement of
fact; as to what an employer would want - well that is an entire other
question...
[This is the big reason why I see myself as a programmer - not as, say,
a sales person, product designer or manager. I don't have the necessary
knowledge or motivation to do those jobs.]
> For instance, not knowing about Stallman
> means that you never wondered and read about open source software licenses
> and the world of issues surrounding them.
False.
I'm aware of the GPL. I'm one of the [I hypothesize] very few people to
have read it end to end. I've looked at the things it allows you to do.
And the things it doesn't allow you to do. I'm aware that some people
consider it far too liberal, and others consider it cripplingly
restrictive. I just wasn't aware of who wrote it. And if you're trying
to pick a licence, or trying to use some software released under a given
license, does it matter who wrote it? Not really. What matters is what
the license actually says.
[I can't claim the same familiarity with, say the BSD license - although
I hear BSDish licenses are the other popular group.]
> Not knowing about Steve Jobs means
> that you never got remotely interested and read anything about Apple
> software and hardware, even in mainstream newspapers.
False.
I'm curios about Apple hardware and software. [Altough I've never
actually met any.] I'm aware their current OS is based on Unix, and that
their hardware was originally M68k, then PPC, and now plain Intel Core
2. [But with custom chipsets, BIOS, etc.] And I'm aware that Apple is
rare but has a niche following in some parts. I just don't know who this
Steve Jobs person is... (Does it matter?)
> Nothing wrong with that of course, but even if these particular points
> wouldn't interest me as an employer, I'd be wondering about the many other
> basic trade issues you'd be ignorant and unwilling to learn about, and that
> would drastically decrease your employability - once I'd picked my jaw up
> from the floor and sent a witty note my coworkers about the strange chap who
> just left my office ;)
If you want somebody who knows about "trade issues", then no, I'd be
completely useless for that. If you want somebody who knows technical
stuff... well I probably know it or can learn it. And that's a good
start. :-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:38:39 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>>> History has never been something that really interests me, that's all.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you should expand your horizons a little bit. Knowing how
>> things came to be is more than often very illuminating, even from a personal
>> perspective. You're missing a lot.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>People have told me I'm missing a lot by not liking jazz music. I'm sure
>I'll get over it. ;-)
You are right about jazz but listen to Giles he is talking sense and not down.
On a personal not if you broaden your horizons then you have more chance of
finding friends. Try it as an intellectual exercise, I don't see how it could do
any harm.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, that's what it comes down to. You keep mentioning the "trade". I
> have no interest in the "trade" at all.
look, I'm brazilian and I know Gilles didn't employ the word in the way it's
generally used. Call it your craft or whatever.
> I am interested in abstract
> theoretical concepts, not mundane practicalities.
No, I don't think you really are interested in "abstract theoretical concepts".
If you truly were interested, you'd really seek how they came to be in the first
place: the breakthroughs, old techniques not used anymore, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
478f848f$1@news.povray.org...
> False.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who has done a minimal
amount of reading on Apple or OSS never saw those names on screen or on
paper. Stallman is cited *** 13 times *** in the GPL article in Wikipedia.
Jobs is cited *** 55 times *** in the Apple article. These guys are legends
in computing, warts and all. And the names don't ring any sort of bell to
you?
> 2. [But with custom chipsets, BIOS, etc.] And I'm aware that Apple is rare
> but has a niche following in some parts. I just don't know who this Steve
> Jobs person is... (Does it matter?)
Jobs and Stallman have been major influential figures in your area of
business/trade/expertise/whatever for more than 20 years. What they say and
what they do has a direct influence in what you (and millions of other
people, developers or not) do and on the way you work. Understanding (or
trying to understand...) the philosophy that drives Stallman is a key to
understand the GPL and the open source movement. Ditto for Jobs and what
drives Apple. So yes, it does matter. I mean, I'm a specialist in cow and
pig feeding and it matters to me.
In any case, the point is that showing your ignorance about things as basic
as those can make a potential employer wonder about your overall technical
and learning abilities, no matter how good those abilities actually are.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who has done a minimal
> amount of reading on Apple or OSS never saw those names on screen or on
> paper. Stallman is cited *** 13 times *** in the GPL article in Wikipedia.
> Jobs is cited *** 55 times *** in the Apple article. These guys are legends
> in computing, warts and all. And the names don't ring any sort of bell to
> you?
I ignore people's names when I read about stuff?
[Most Wikipedia articles I completely skip the "history" section. It's
just not a part that interests me very much.]
FWIW, I'm not really good with names anyway. I watched virtually the
whole of the world darts championship this year - but I couldn't tell
you the names of any of the players. I just watch the darts... [I'd
probably recognise their faces though.]
> Jobs and Stallman have been major influential figures in your area of
> business/trade/expertise/whatever for more than 20 years. What they say and
> what they do has a direct influence in what you (and millions of other
> people, developers or not) do and on the way you work. Understanding (or
> trying to understand...) the philosophy that drives Stallman is a key to
> understand the GPL and the open source movement. Ditto for Jobs and what
> drives Apple. So yes, it does matter. I mean, I'm a specialist in cow and
> pig feeding and it matters to me.
Interesting. I tend to think that actions rather than thoughts are what
gets things done. I might for example look at what products Apple have
on sale, but I wouldn't sit down and analyse "hmm, now why did they put
an ATI card in here rather than an nVidia one? What was the underlying
philosophical idea behind this move?" I'm just not that sort of person.
> In any case, the point is that showing your ignorance about things as basic
> as those can make a potential employer wonder about your overall technical
> and learning abilities, no matter how good those abilities actually are.
Allow me to put my argument concisely.
If you're saying "employers want people who know who Stallman is", then
maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't got a clue what employers
actually look for. You probably know more about this than I do.
If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman
is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being
"morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in
which year, and why they did it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman
> is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being
> "morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in
> which year, and why they did it.
it's not "morally wrong" being clueless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman
>> is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being
>> "morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in
>> which year, and why they did it.
>
> it's not "morally wrong" being clueless.
And not knowing every fact that can possibly be known isn't "clueless". ;-)
Nobody knows everything, so some people know some things and other
people know others. I know things that many people don't know. Many
people know things that I don't. It's part of what makes everybody
different...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Nobody knows everything, so some people know some things and other
> people know others. I know things that many people don't know. Many
> people know things that I don't. It's part of what makes everybody
> different...
....and the world not too boring. :)
Nice discussion!
I *have* to join: :)
--Yes, if you are very motivated and want to show that (or not), it's very good
to know the people, who invented those things of your field (IT, trade,
science, etc) [and why and how]. You are showing interest, more than only
telling someone "it's just the way it is".
--If you "just" know the way, how and why they did come up to their theory and
you can use it for your special case/problem, it's also good.
--But it is quite bad only to learn names, because you want to show that you
know quite a lot about a topic (but are not really interested in).
I really know, why we had to learn that Mr. X did things Y. in the year of XY,
where the people didn't have the comfort, which we are having now. But I really
can't figure out a reason, why we should learn, that Mrs. X. with name X and
surname XX pushed her man Mr. X. with Xx and helped him that way to do XXx? Or
at least I can't figure out any other reason than showing respect to that great
inventors, whose theories and technologies improved our lives...
So far to your problem of only knowing a few peoples names. :)
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
478f9c21$1@news.povray.org...
> Interesting. I tend to think that actions rather than thoughts are what
> gets things done.
Because there are actions that are not backed by thoughts? Apart sex and
digestion? You really think that people like Gates or Jobs or Ellison just
started doing random stuff and built their little empires by chance, never
thinking about it? And Stallman is fundamentally an ideologue. He didn't
call the GNU Manifesto a manifesto for nothing.
> If you're saying "employers want people who know who Stallman is", then
> maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't got a clue what employers
> actually look for. You probably know more about this than I do.
You still don't get it. Having a job with a certain level of qualification
implies that you maintain a some awareness of what's going on in your area
of expertise. Keeping track of major trends and what drives them and knowing
who is who in your trade is part of being a professional. This is ***
expected *** in any job that entails expertise.
>If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman is",
>then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being "morally
>wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in which year,
>and why they did it.
The problem is not about *** being *** a idiot, it's about not *** sounding
*** like one. I can understand your total lack of interest in certain
matters, but don't expect the same sort of benevolent complacency from your
professional peers, including potential employeers. Of course if you want to
keep saying the darnest things, just do it.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And I'm aware that Apple is
> rare but has a niche following in some parts.
Really? Have you heard of this thing called "iPod"? Are you aware of
its market share? Do you know which company produces it?
Have you followed the marketshare of this thing called "iPhone" in
the US? Do you know how many people use an Apple computer in the US?
"Rare" and "niche following" aren't quite close to the truth.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mathematics fascinates me; the people who made these discoveries are
> rather irrelevant. Similarly for computers, physics, and many other
> things...
Except when they're still alive and vocally influencing your
professional field.
It's like saying you're uninterested in learning about the history of
politics, so there's no reason to know who the current leader of your
country is, or what wars your country is currently engaged in.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Of course if you want to keep saying the darnest things, just do it.
It can be helpful to learn how to BS on a topic you know virtually
nothing about. Then you spend an hour reading a half-dozen wikipedia
pages, and now you can sound like an expert in them too. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> Of course if you want to keep saying the darnest things, just do it.
>
> It can be helpful to learn how to BS on a topic you know virtually
> nothing about. Then you spend an hour reading a half-dozen wikipedia
> pages, and now you can sound like an expert in them too. ;-)
Except when Wikipedia is wrong... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> And I'm aware that Apple is
>> rare but has a niche following in some parts.
>
> Really? Have you heard of this thing called "iPod"? Are you aware of
> its market share? Do you know which company produces it?
Last time I checked, an iPod isn't a Mac. What I meant is that the Apple
Mac is a niche following.
> Have you followed the marketshare of this thing called "iPhone" in
> the US? Do you know how many people use an Apple computer in the US?
I'm aware Apple is trying really hard to tell the iPhone. I haven't
heard anybody with anything nice to say about it, so I had presumed that
it's not doing too well...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Mathematics fascinates me; the people who made these discoveries are
>> rather irrelevant. Similarly for computers, physics, and many other
>> things...
>
> Except when they're still alive and vocally influencing your
> professional field.
>
> It's like saying you're uninterested in learning about the history of
> politics, so there's no reason to know who the current leader of your
> country is, or what wars your country is currently engaged in.
Random fact: I know who the 11th president of the USA was, but I have no
idea what the name of the PM of the UK is...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>> Interesting. I tend to think that actions rather than thoughts are what
>> gets things done.
>
> Because there are actions that are not backed by thoughts?
No - I just meant that thinking about something doesn't make anything
happen. Performin actions makes things happen. I tend to focus on the
actions that companies take, rather than the individuals who thought of
them, or why.
>> If you're saying "employers want people who know who Stallman is", then
>> maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't got a clue what employers
>> actually look for. You probably know more about this than I do.
>
> You still don't get it. Having a job with a certain level of qualification
> implies that you maintain a some awareness of what's going on in your area
> of expertise.
My area of expertise is computer technology, not economics or business
climate or whatever the latest buzzword for it is. That's all.
> This is *** expected *** in any job that entails expertise.
As I said, maybe you're right. I don't really know.
> The problem is not about *** being *** a idiot, it's about not *** sounding
> *** like one.
OK, fair enough.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
479008ec$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> Of course if you want to keep saying the darnest things, just do it.
>
> It can be helpful to learn how to BS on a topic you know virtually nothing
> about. Then you spend an hour reading a half-dozen wikipedia pages, and
> now you can sound like an expert in them too. ;-)
It sometimes happens that I have someone on the phone asking me stuff that
I'm mostly ignorant about, while I'm frantically googling about it in real
time and providing answers as they appear on screen. There's no point trying
to hide it (people can hear the clicking anyway) but as a rule, answering
"uh, dude, what are you talking about, never heard about that" is not an
option.
The ability to assimilate lots of new info in a very short time is part of
the engineering training here (there's an exam where the student is given a
full paper and asked to summarize it in a few minutes).
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm aware Apple is trying really hard to tell the iPhone. I haven't
> heard anybody with anything nice to say about it, so I had presumed that
> it's not doing too well...
Yeah. The Time Magazine naming it invention of the year, and 5 million
units sold in a half year, taking over 15% of the smart phone market in
the US certainly means "it's not doing too well".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
479073b2$1@news.povray.org...
> Random fact: I know who the 11th president of the USA was, but I have no
> idea what the name of the PM of the UK is...
Hmm, well. From what you say, you're not willing to understand the world
(and particularly people), except for the bits of trivia that do interest
you, and the occasional pair of mammaries that floats, sadly out of reach,
in your field of vision. Of course, you're fully entitled to do that.
However, keep in mind that by willingly shutting out the rest of the world,
you're actually shutting yourself in. If you're making the world - which is
made from something else than fancy algorithms - invisible to you, you can't
complain that you are invisible to it. That's a two-way relationship.
Abstruse programming languages make poor friends.
Let's quote John Donne, fellow brothers: "No man is an island, entire of
itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main".
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> but I have no
> idea what the name of the PM of the UK is...
Now there really is no excuse for that one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:56:26 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>Let's quote John Donne
I somehow don't think that quoting a Jacobean poet however relevant will
illustrate what you mean.
Andrew, or do you prefer Andy? Do you understand what people are trying to say
to you? Could you summarise it?
Odds of a mars bar to anything this is ignored.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Let's quote John Donne, fellow brothers: "No man is an island, entire of
> itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main".
"We are the Borg. Resistance is futile." ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:32:04 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I'm aware Apple is trying really hard to tell the iPhone. I haven't
>> heard anybody with anything nice to say about it, so I had presumed that
>> it's not doing too well...
>
> Yeah. The Time Magazine naming it invention of the year,
Oo did they have Putin, their man of the year, holding it?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
47909d01@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Let's quote John Donne, fellow brothers: "No man is an island, entire of
>> itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main".
>
> "We are the Borg. Resistance is futile." ;)
True. Perhaps someone should just collect Andrew's darnest quotes and put
them on a webpage somewhere to preserve them for the posterity.
In fact, perhaps Andrew himself could put them on his blog, that would sure
get him some readers and drive traffic to his site, up to the point he'd be
able to make a living from out of selling ad space ;) (I'm only half-joking,
because he's actually good at writing and one could put a positive spin at
stuff like "I never heard of this Steve Jobs fellow and really don't care").
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Oo did they have Putin, their man of the year, holding it?
Their "man of the year" doesn't mean "the person who has made most good
in the world", but "the person who has been most significant in the world,
who has had most impact", in good or bad.
In the year 1938 they chose Adolph Hitler as the person of the year,
and in the year 1939 Joseph Stalin. Not because they did something good
for the world, but because they were considered some of the most influential
persons (in good or bad).
You are clearly trying to diminish the importance of Time Magazine's
titles by implying that the choice of Putin as person of the year shows
some kind of incompetence, but it only shows that you don't understand
what they mean by "person of the year".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:56:26 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>you, and the occasional pair of mammaries that floats, sadly out of reach,
>in your field of vision.
Damn! I just shot coffee out of my nose. That was funny.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:57:24 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Oo did they have Putin, their man of the year, holding it?
>
> Their "man of the year" doesn't mean "the person who has made most good
> in the world", but "the person who has been most significant in the
> world,
> who has had most impact", in good or bad.
>
> In the year 1938 they chose Adolph Hitler as the person of the year,
> and in the year 1939 Joseph Stalin. Not because they did something good
> for the world, but because they were considered some of the most
> influential
> persons (in good or bad).
>
> You are clearly trying to diminish the importance of Time Magazine's
> titles by implying that the choice of Putin as person of the year shows
> some kind of incompetence, but it only shows that you don't understand
> what they mean by "person of the year".
Actually I do, and by that measure making the iPhone the invention of the
year doesn't necessarily make it any good, or popular, or used.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Actually I do, and by that measure making the iPhone the invention of the
> year doesn't necessarily make it any good, or popular, or used.
I'm not saying you are this kind of person, but I have noticed that
there are many people who, for whatever reason I cannot really comprehend,
vehemently oppose Apple and its innovations by principle.
When I made a comment about Apple's new laptop in an IRC channel,
immediately one person jumped out with completely negative responses
about it. When I presented some innovative and cool features of that
laptop and other Apple products, he attacked each one of them ferociously
and vehemently, trying to diminish every single feature and innovation.
And mind you, this was *not* a Windows user or Microsoft fan.
In my experience this kind of negative attitude towards Apple and most
of its products and innovations seems rather puzzling. It raises the big
question of why. The amount of opposition against Apple and its products
with these people even surpasses the amount and strength of the opposition
against Microsoft's products by the most fanatic linux advocates. Not even
the most fanatic of them care to go through Microsoft's products and point
by point crush anything that could be good or innovative about them (but
the more typical behavior is to simply bash Microsoft's products in a way
more general way).
In my experience it's more usual that precisely *linux* people oppose
Apple more vehemently than Windows people (the latter usually have more
of an attitude like "yeah, sounds cool, but I'm not really interested",
aside from the typical myths which are no longer true).
I just can't understand why this is. Is it bad that another company
besides Microsoft is getting some market share? Is it bad that there's
a company which really tries to make a difference, which tries to be
innovative? Is it bad that Microsoft is getting serious competition?
I get the feeling that in some cases these people seem to think that
linux (and open source software in general) should have the exclusive
right to compete against Microsoft.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:00:28 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> but I have no idea what the name of the PM of the UK is...
>
> Now there really is no excuse for that one...
Especially when it makes such a good song
Gordon Brown taxes us all. Sets us up to take the fall. Throughout the
night. No way to fight. We'll all just drown with Gordon Brown.
Okay without cheating (honest)
UK: Brown himself duh.
US: Bush duh.
Veneuzala: Chavez
Zimbabwe: Mugabe
Pakistan: Moustachio er Musharaf
North Korea: Kim in Pajamas, oo I am so on his list now. Kim Jong Il
France: Um yeah, bloke who beat the women in the election, met Bush. S...?
No sorry
Russia: Pooty Putin.
Iran: I could pick his face out of a line-up, but as to name...? Nope.
Okay not good, but a) I'm really not good with names anyway, and b) If you
said how could you not know ? was the head of ? I'd be thumping my
forehead and saying yes of course it is for quite a few others.
Then again I do know who Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Stallman, and Tim
Berners-Lee are.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm not saying you are this kind of person, but I have noticed that
> there are many people who, for whatever reason I cannot really comprehend,
> vehemently oppose Apple and its innovations by principle.
I see lots of people say "well the iPhone/Pod/Mac/Book is really expensive
for what it is". These people seem to think that everything should be sold
for the absolute minimum price, even if the public are quite happy to pay
more for it.
Good for Apple I say, they manage to sell a product for a relatively large
profit compared to others - just like Nintendo has done with the Wii.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4790b842@news.povray.org...
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Actually I do, and by that measure making the iPhone the invention of the
>> year doesn't necessarily make it any good, or popular, or used.
>
> I'm not saying you are this kind of person, but I have noticed that
> there are many people who, for whatever reason I cannot really comprehend,
> vehemently oppose Apple and its innovations by principle.
It has less to do with Apple itself than with its fanboys. I've known a
couple of Apple fanboys and girls, and while they're adorable, they'd make
anyone want to bash Apple by principle. Apple is just another company making
hardware and software, certainly good and innovative, but the way the
fanboys talk it sounds like a freaking religion with Jobs as a prophet, and
the Apple marketing plays right into that. There was one Apple commercial
that compared Apple to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for instance, and my
Apple friends just loved it in spite of the appalling stupidity of the
comparison. Linux fanboys are a different kind of annoying and somehow
cultish too, but at least they don't swoon over buttons and colour schemes.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible a écrit :
>
> I'm curios about Apple hardware and software. [Altough I've never
> actually met any.] I'm aware their current OS is based on Unix, and that
> their hardware was originally M68k, then PPC, and now plain Intel Core
> 2. [But with custom chipsets, BIOS, etc.] And I'm aware that Apple is
> rare but has a niche following in some parts. I just don't know who this
> Steve Jobs person is... (Does it matter?)
Yes, it matters. Having read a (rather neutral, it seems) biography of
Steve Jobs some time ago, I can tell you that his own personality explains
a lot about Apple's products, and a lot about people who use these.
Might have very practical implications.
I have a biography of Bill Gates waiting on my bookshelf to be read :-)
(I buy many books on flea markets, and I'm especially interested in
"computing history" items)
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> I have a biography of Bill Gates waiting on my bookshelf to be read :-)
I bet Gates is not such an evil person as most people want to depict
him. While he does have some opinions which grinds the gears of some
people (especially open source software advocates), I don't remember
ever hearing anything nearly as bad as for example from Steve Ballmer
(who, for all I know, is psychotic).
If I'm not mistaken, Gates was a 70's - early 80's programming nerd
who had some talent and some business ideas, and who, along with a few
others, won the jackpot with his company, by being in the right place at
the right time (and, perhaps, sometimes using some slightly dubious tactics).
I really don't know how much he advocates the "you will be assimilated,
OSS is a cancer" ideology Ballmer does. Perhaps he just silently concedes,
while Ballmer does all the antics.
Speaking of programmer nerds, there's one person in that field who
I admire: John Carmack.
How many famous programmers (pure programmers, not people who are for
example computing scientists and who do some programming along the way)
can you remember? I can only list two right now: John Romero and John
Carmack. From those two the former is remembered only by his fiascos
with Ion Storm, while the latter is well known from his successes at ID.
The vast majority of computer programmers are more or less anonymous.
You never hear, for example, *who* was the lead programmer of the team
who developed, let's say, the Source engine or the Unreal engine. You
just hear the company which developed it. Carmack is rather unique in
this regard, as he is quite well known for his role in the ongoing
development of the doom/quake engines. Not many programmers reach that
level of celebrity.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:31:30 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Actually I do, and by that measure making the iPhone the invention of
>> the
>> year doesn't necessarily make it any good, or popular, or used.
>
> I'm not saying you are this kind of person,
Thank you
> but I have noticed that
> there are many people who, for whatever reason I cannot really
> comprehend, vehemently oppose Apple and its innovations by principle.
Apple do some really good things, and some really dumb things. Unlike with
Microsoft though it seems you're supposed to ignore the dumbness, look at
the shiny shiny.
You may recall a thread a while back where I pointed out one show that
listed the plus points of the Macbook being that all the software (movie
editing etc.) came with and was integrated into the OS, which were all
points that Microsoft have been beaten over the head with time and time
again.
I'm with Gilles in that the fanboys annoy; hell the fanboys of any product
annoy, but the Macboys seem to combine that aura of worship and smugness
more.
I just wonder how many people bought the iPhone because of its
functionality and how many people bought it because it's an iPhone?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:29:28 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
>> I have a biography of Bill Gates waiting on my bookshelf to be read :-)
>
> I bet Gates is not such an evil person as most people want to depict
> him. While he does have some opinions which grinds the gears of some
> people (especially open source software advocates), I don't remember
> ever hearing anything nearly as bad as for example from Steve Ballmer
> (who, for all I know, is psychotic).
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Gates was a 70's - early 80's programming nerd
> who had some talent and some business ideas, and who, along with a few
> others, won the jackpot with his company, by being in the right place at
> the right time (and, perhaps, sometimes using some slightly dubious
> tactics).
> I really don't know how much he advocates the "you will be assimilated,
> OSS is a cancer" ideology Ballmer does. Perhaps he just silently
> concedes,
> while Ballmer does all the antics.
>
> Speaking of programmer nerds, there's one person in that field who
> I admire: John Carmack.
>
> How many famous programmers (pure programmers, not people who are for
> example computing scientists and who do some programming along the way)
> can you remember? I can only list two right now: John Romero and John
> Carmack. From those two the former is remembered only by his fiascos
> with Ion Storm, while the latter is well known from his successes at ID.
Warren Spector?
> The vast majority of computer programmers are more or less anonymous.
> You never hear, for example, *who* was the lead programmer of the team
> who developed, let's say, the Source engine or the Unreal engine. You
> just hear the company which developed it. Carmack is rather unique in
> this regard, as he is quite well known for his role in the ongoing
> development of the doom/quake engines. Not many programmers reach that
> level of celebrity.
But as you mention that's not always a good thing, if you take the recent
example of Jade Raymond as a case in point.
http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2007/07/how-to-identify-jade-raymond-assassins.html
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> a écrit dans le message de
news: op.t44wadiyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> I'm with Gilles in that the fanboys annoy; hell the fanboys of any product
> annoy, but the Macboys seem to combine that aura of worship and smugness
> more.
>
True story: some time ago a person was showing me one very specialised
program he had been developing for almost 20 years. He had 2 gorgeous Macs
and a non-descript Windows machine. During all the time I was there, he'd
rant non-stop against Microsoft. Macs were fantastic, Microsoft incompetent
and evil, yada yada.
Indeed, his XP machine could barely start and kept crashing. I could see
however that
the machine was underpowered and, as usual, preloaded with OEM crapware
(including Norton): a thorough clean-up and some RAM would have fixed it,
but for him that was all Microsoft's fault. He didn't even run updates for
fear of getting viruses.
So why did he work on the crappy Windows machine instead of his magnificent
Macs?
Well, he used to develop his software for Macs, using Hypercard. People
started asking for a Windows version so he had to develop this also. In
2000, Apple stopped supporting Hypercard, and when OSX appeared, he
discovered that his software could no longer run on modern Apple machines.
Basically, he had just gotten shafted big time by Apple. His little business
was able to survive thanks to the Windows version.
But that didn't stop him from praising Apple and calling Microsoft lots of
dirty names. Yeah, fanboys.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 479008ec$1@news.povray.org...
>> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>> Of course if you want to keep saying the darnest things, just do it.
>> It can be helpful to learn how to BS on a topic you know virtually nothing
>> about. Then you spend an hour reading a half-dozen wikipedia pages, and
>> now you can sound like an expert in them too. ;-)
>
> It sometimes happens that I have someone on the phone asking me stuff that
> I'm mostly ignorant about, while I'm frantically googling about it in real
> time and providing answers as they appear on screen. There's no point trying
> to hide it (people can hear the clicking anyway) but as a rule, answering
> "uh, dude, what are you talking about, never heard about that" is not an
> option.
IMHO this is not a good example. People know that you are exceptionally
good with google. Given the choice of either calling a real expert (that
might be unable to communicate) or calling Googles Tran I'd know what I
do. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> "STALLMAN!!"
>>
>>> Having just looked this up on Wikipedia, it appears they're talking
>>> about a Richard Stallman
>>
>> I still can't believe you are a computer nerd and don't know even
>> the most basic things about computers.
>
> You what?
>
> So if you know what a Polish reversed list is, you should also be
> familiar with various political figures? How does that work?
>
I returned home late last night and did not check p.o-t before going to
bed, it seems I missed a lot of fun.
Only two things to add.
1) apparently you see yourself as a pure mathematician, but that is not
your current job, nor the most likely next one.
2) Some ten years ago we wanted to throw a big party and a son of a
colleague of ours proposed to organize the music. He had played DJ at
many (school)parties, was interested in various kinds of music, had some
equipment and could easily arrange for the rest. We talked a bit to him
while organizing the party. It turned out that he had never heard of the
Beatles (he was about 17 years old at that time). That resulted in the
same lower jaw movement as your apparent unfamiliarity with e.g.
stallman, jobs and brown.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Except when Wikipedia is wrong... ;-)
Even better!
But seriously, at the level you need to understand something to
convincingly BS someone who *doesn't* understand it, wikipedia isn't
going to be wrong.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How many famous programmers (pure programmers, not people who are for
> example computing scientists and who do some programming along the way)
> can you remember?
Robert Morris? :-)
Met him once, interviewing him for a job. Seemed like he grew up. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Let's quote John Donne, fellow brothers: "No man is an island,
... but some have nice peninsulas.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 2) Some ten years ago we wanted to throw a big party and a son of a
> colleague of ours proposed to organize the music. He had played DJ at
> many (school)parties, was interested in various kinds of music, had some
> equipment and could easily arrange for the rest. We talked a bit to him
> while organizing the party. It turned out that he had never heard of the
> Beatles (he was about 17 years old at that time). That resulted in the
> same lower jaw movement as your apparent unfamiliarity with e.g.
> stallman, jobs and brown.
I can't even imagine how someone who listens and plays music as a hobby
(I assume for several years) has never heard of a music group which
basically every westerner and the majority of the rest of the world has
heard about.
OTOH, it could be explained by really bad memory. There are those people...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 2) Some ten years ago we wanted to throw a big party and a son of a
>> colleague of ours proposed to organize the music. He had played DJ at
>> many (school)parties, was interested in various kinds of music, had some
>> equipment and could easily arrange for the rest. We talked a bit to him
>> while organizing the party. It turned out that he had never heard of the
>> Beatles (he was about 17 years old at that time). That resulted in the
>> same lower jaw movement as your apparent unfamiliarity with e.g.
>> stallman, jobs and brown.
>
> I can't even imagine how someone who listens and plays music as a hobby
> (I assume for several years) has never heard of a music group which
> basically every westerner and the majority of the rest of the world has
> heard about.
Indeed, so at first we assumed he was kidding. He wasn't.
>
> OTOH, it could be explained by really bad memory. There are those people...
>
No not that either. My best guess was and is that he listened to and
played music without ever realizing that contemporary music is
influenced by and a reaction to what was before. Indeed you can listen
to the radio and appreciate it here and now (like Andy does with
computers) but to understand what is going on, how they did it and why
you need some historical perspective. Just reading a magazine now and
then would suffice for that. Or so I though until I met this guy. Andy
might give another part of the explanation. Even if you read about music
you can skip the names of all those medieval musicians (like Bach,
Presley and Beatles), because they are surely not relevant for what is
going on now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The vast majority of computer programmers are more or less anonymous.
> You never hear, for example, *who* was the lead programmer of the team
> who developed, let's say, the Source engine or the Unreal engine. You
> just hear the company which developed it. Carmack is rather unique in
> this regard, as he is quite well known for his role in the ongoing
> development of the doom/quake engines. Not many programmers reach that
> level of celebrity.
I think nowadays most projects tend to be much bigger so it's not usual that
one person gets well-known for a project. In the old days, when one guy
alone could write or port an entire best-selling game, of course he will get
recognition.
I can only think of two programmers that I know:
Geoff Crammond. He wrote the first ever racing game I played frequently
(Revs on the BBC), and then went on to write the Grand Prix series for the
PC.
Eddie Edwards ported some FPS games to the Acorn, I remember reading some
really good articles and interviews.
If you look on some of the game developer websites they often have
interviews with some of the core programmers from certain well-known
projects. Usually very interesting reading.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:24:14 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Gilles Tran wrote:
>> Let's quote John Donne, fellow brothers: "No man is an island,
>
>... but some have nice peninsulas.
That's just wrong. :-p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know POV-Ray. Do you know who Chris Cason is?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:31:06 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Surely you don't even need to know what a computer is to have heard of
> the richest man on Earth.
Do you know who Mukesh Ambani is?
How about Carlos Slim Helu?
Warren Buffett?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
