 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not
>>> uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
>> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]
>
> Possibly.
Drawing from what I heard from someone studying scattering of light in
the eye. People with less pigment had more light coming in from all
sides than people with more pigment. i.e. blue eyed people having more
problems with headlight of cars approaching.
>
>
>>> but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the distance
>>> of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as a
>>> result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to
>>> catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure
>>> out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it,
>>> while those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it.
>>> According to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up
>>> correctly between the optics and the brain.
>> Makes sense. With the two images far away in disjoint parts of the
>> visual cortex it would be hard to combine the information. Hmm, I wonder
>> if the condition is more severe in man. IIRC the two halves of the brain
>> do communicate more in women.
>
> From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men that
> don't affect women.
That's not what I meant. I meant that if the image of the left eye ends
up in the right visual cortex and vice versa, you need to communicate
between the two brain halves to match them. BTW I see now that the
problem with the optic nerve is only mentioned somewhere low on the
page. For some reason I remembered it as being quite common.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had
> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you
> adjust and still have depth perception.
Binocular vision really doesn't help much past about 15 or 20 feet.
After that, it's size and relative velocities.
I read about this (supposedly true) tribe of natives that lived in the
Amazon jungles forever. When taken out onto the plains, they thought the
explorers were magicians, because they could make the cows the size of
flies. Apparently, they'd never learned how perspective works as they'd
never been able to see more than 20 feet thru the jungle in a straight
line. (Couldn't say whether the story was true, but it's supposed to be.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 03 May 2008 00:39:27 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>>>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>>>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's
>>>> not uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>>>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
>>> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]
>>
>> Possibly.
> Drawing from what I heard from someone studying scattering of light in
> the eye. People with less pigment had more light coming in from all
> sides than people with more pigment. i.e. blue eyed people having more
> problems with headlight of cars approaching.
Yes, I can vouch for that (I have blue eyes). My wife's eyes are sort of
a grey/hazel colour, but the pigment is not uniform, which creates the
spoke pattern.
>> From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men
>> that don't affect women.
>
> That's not what I meant. I meant that if the image of the left eye ends
> up in the right visual cortex and vice versa, you need to communicate
> between the two brain halves to match them. BTW I see now that the
> problem with the optic nerve is only mentioned somewhere low on the
> page. For some reason I remembered it as being quite common.
Oh, yes, I see what you're saying now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:18:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had
>> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you
>> adjust and still have depth perception.
>
> Binocular vision really doesn't help much past about 15 or 20 feet.
> After that, it's size and relative velocities.
Yes, I thought I'd remembered hearing that somewhere as well. But for
those of us who have "normal" depth perception, just closing one eye
doesn't reproduce the effect because our brains "fill in the blanks".
But as you relate down below here, perhaps with a total change in
environment, that might change the cues enough that the disorientation
could create that effect.
> I read about this (supposedly true) tribe of natives that lived in the
> Amazon jungles forever. When taken out onto the plains, they thought the
> explorers were magicians, because they could make the cows the size of
> flies. Apparently, they'd never learned how perspective works as they'd
> never been able to see more than 20 feet thru the jungle in a straight
> line. (Couldn't say whether the story was true, but it's supposed to
> be.)
On the one hand, that makes some sense to me, but on the other hand,
surely they would have recognized that they were moving away from the
cows....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> ... that someone pulled a power cord for only $10, or that the "Super
>> hacker" is a fraud ...
>
>> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Super-Hacker.aspx
>
> What bothers me about that story is that it's not at all clear whether
> the "super hacker" was indeed a competent security analyst or just some
> opportunistic fraudster.
>
> In theory it could be either way: Sometimes hacking into a "secure"
> system is easier than people realize, and this experienced security
> analyst demonstrated in practice how it happens. Or maybe he was just
> an incompetent opportunist who got lucky.
>
Either way, doesn't management need to be aware of the possibility of
social engineering hacks? I recall reading that most security exploits
at major corporations involve social engineering.
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> Shapeshifting.
>
> Dude, what would you *use* that for? Really?
To shift shape :p.
>> Built-in cash printer.
>
> Yeah. Try that one. Now watch the value of your cash plummet. ;-) Life
> isn't that simple...
Yes, but... It would still be fun, right?
>> Telekinetics.
>
> Now _that_ would genuinely be useful. And also make crime detection
> essentially impossible...
Damn crime detection. Forget it, if it's the only power stopping me to
get new drinks from the fridge without getting up from this chair.
Wait... it isn't. Damn.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases the
> amount of gain when there are low levels of light.
>
Yes, but it comes on after using the full set of the iris, so DOF is
already suppressed to minimum.
> > Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors.
>
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my
> eyes on command.
Partly yes, but automation shoots in with really slight bit of
distortion. Also notice that the basic setting possibility would
radically reduce the need for glasses in humanity.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I think until it becomes impossible to use the magnetic cards with a
> signature, having chip & PIN won't help.
>
It makes a familiar clerk very useful (though not absolutely necessary)
;). If the card has a chip and it's overridden the system will make an
on-line check for the card.
OTOH, if you *do* have the familiar clerk (you know, one that's "in" the
operation with you) he (or she, naturally) can just write in the number
of the card and be ok as your false signature, if the bank account just
holds enough money to buy the stuff, in case of possible on-line check.
Like I said, only the number of the card is actually needed (though I
need to withdraw what I said - PIN is no use with just the card number).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <481b7864$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> >> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage.
> >> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressi
ve
> >> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after
> >> fairly serious injury.
> >>
> > Well, actually, the brain can grow new cells, it just doesn't do so
> > much, and it wouldn't help in some cases, since the *data* is encoded
> > into the existing cells. It might, in theory, repair itself with new
> > tissue, but the result would tend to be a blank slate, with no means to
> > relearn the correct responses. Its likely that there is some genetic
> > markers that strongly inhibit new growth, precisely due to how it could
> > destabilize the existing pattern.
>
> I find it interesting that every single person's brain appears to be
> organised in roughly the same way. As in, there's a specific part of the
> brain that does function X, and it's in the same place in [almost]
> everybody's brain. Clearly much of the brain's structure must be
> hard-coded genetically or something.
>
> Anyway, as I was saying, apparently the brain has the capacity to move
> those functions of other regions in case of damage. To an impressive
> degree...
>
It can also retask those regions to other things, which is the cause of
phantom limb effects. Touch on the cheek is very "close" to where the
motor cortex for an arm is located, so lose the arm, the tissue retasks
to touch, and you get the "feeling" that your nonexistent arm is
touched, when your cheek is touched. Wackier bugs show up in people like
one women who went into uncontrollable sneezing every time she hit...
well, lets just say got real happy. More minor mis-wiring can cause
anything from minor auditory halucinations, vision errors, transposition
of colors with letters and words, and a whole list of other wacky stuff.
So yeah, there is a *general* framework that says X *should be* tasked
to motor skills, and linked via nerve networks to Y body part, but
beyond that, anything goes, and sometimes the diagram for which parts
connect to what, and how separated they are, get coffee spilled on it by
the Darwinian architect, and things get damn blury in those spots. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It can also retask those regions to other things, which is the cause of
> phantom limb effects. Touch on the cheek is very "close" to where the
> motor cortex for an arm is located, so lose the arm, the tissue retasks
> to touch, and you get the "feeling" that your nonexistent arm is
> touched, when your cheek is touched. Wackier bugs show up in people like
> one women who went into uncontrollable sneezing every time she hit...
> well, lets just say got real happy. More minor mis-wiring can cause
> anything from minor auditory halucinations, vision errors, transposition
> of colors with letters and words, and a whole list of other wacky stuff.
> So yeah, there is a *general* framework that says X *should be* tasked
> to motor skills, and linked via nerve networks to Y body part, but
> beyond that, anything goes, and sometimes the diagram for which parts
> connect to what, and how separated they are, get coffee spilled on it by
> the Darwinian architect, and things get damn blury in those spots. lol
Heh. I was just thinking, you know... I've played with artificial neural
networks. [Which, admittedly, are pretty *loosely* based on biological
ones.] What the network does depends on how you train it. The same
network can carry out basically any possible task given the right
training, limited only by the number of neurons in the network. (That
puts an upper limit on how complicated the possible tasks can be.) But
human brains all seem to gravitate towards the exact same mode of
functioning. So it can't be a "blank sheet" to start with. Some of it
must be hard-wired somehow, otherwise each brain would configure itself
in a random way.
BTW, I find it amusing how they figured out how the brain works.
Apparently you can remove a living person's skull and prod their brain
with a small electrode, and see what it does to them. 0_0 Apparently
this isn't fatal, or even painful, since the brain itself is insensitive
to pain. [Surely your skull would hurt though??] Who the ****
volunteered for that one?!
(Perhaps it was the same person who volunveered for the study into the
common cold. They took a control group, and a group who had their feet
submerged in cold water for 4 hours a day. The latter group suffered
from more colds than the control group. WHY WOULD YOU VOLUNTEER FOR
THIS?!?!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> BTW, I find it amusing how they figured out how the brain works.
> Apparently you can remove a living person's skull and prod their brain
> with a small electrode, and see what it does to them. 0_0 Apparently
> this isn't fatal, or even painful, since the brain itself is insensitive
> to pain. [Surely your skull would hurt though??] Who the ****
> volunteered for that one?!
They do that with patients that they operate on for brain tumors. Apart
from scientific reasons they do that because they don't want to damage
functional brain tissue. Basically what they do is stimulate a point and
if the patient says he feels his feet or his thumb starts to move or he
suddenly remembers his mother, you know you should keep that part.
(depending of course on his relation with his mother).
>
> (Perhaps it was the same person who volunveered for the study into the
> common cold. They took a control group, and a group who had their feet
> submerged in cold water for 4 hours a day. The latter group suffered
> from more colds than the control group. WHY WOULD YOU VOLUNTEER FOR
> THIS?!?!)
>
money?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> They do that with patients that they operate on for brain tumors. Apart
> from scientific reasons they do that because they don't want to damage
> functional brain tissue. Basically what they do is stimulate a point and
> if the patient says he feels his feet or his thumb starts to move or he
> suddenly remembers his mother, you know you should keep that part.
> (depending of course on his relation with his mother).
...that last sentence is so full of win! :-D
>> (Perhaps it was the same person who volunveered for the study into the
>> common cold. They took a control group, and a group who had their feet
>> submerged in cold water for 4 hours a day. The latter group suffered
>> from more colds than the control group. WHY WOULD YOU VOLUNTEER FOR
>> THIS?!?!)
>
> money?
Hot Sales Girl asserted that "that's because they're all students". And
she used to be a nurse, so I guess she'd know.
[Hmm... Hot Sales Girl as a nurse... yum!]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ....that last sentence is so full of win! :-D
"Did anyone give you anything unknown to carry aboard the plane?"
"My mother-in-law gave me a wrapped present."
".... Does she like you?"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> (Perhaps it was the same person who volunveered for the study into
>>> the common cold. They took a control group, and a group who had their
>>> feet submerged in cold water for 4 hours a day. The latter group
>>> suffered from more colds than the control group. WHY WOULD YOU
>>> VOLUNTEER FOR THIS?!?!)
>>
>> money?
>
> Hot Sales Girl asserted that "that's because they're all students". And
> she used to be a nurse, so I guess she'd know.
>
> [Hmm... Hot Sales Girl as a nurse... yum!]
>
Yeah, sure, I'll take the hundred grand, just crack my cranium open and
prod around a bit, please!
No. Not only no, but ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> "Did anyone give you anything unknown to carry aboard the plane?"
> "My mother-in-law gave me a wrapped present."
> ".... Does she like you?"
>
"I can't remember ... By the way, does this airport smell blue, to you?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> On the one hand, that makes some sense to me, but on the other hand,
> surely they would have recognized that they were moving away from the
> cows....
>
> Jim
I'm wondering if the same thing is why someone like me (who lives in an
area where there are basically no hills) sees mountains as so surreal
when I actually see them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:25:38 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> On the one hand, that makes some sense to me, but on the other hand,
>> surely they would have recognized that they were moving away from the
>> cows....
>>
>> Jim
>
> I'm wondering if the same thing is why someone like me (who lives in an
> area where there are basically no hills) sees mountains as so surreal
> when I actually see them.
It might be. I have the opposite trouble, I lose any ability to tell long
distances in flat open areas. I grew up in an area where there were lots
of hills and mountains, and the only flat spots where the valleys in
between. A wide view of flat scenery just seems so vast, things past
about 100 meters just blend together.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 May 2008 10:20:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ykg### [at] SUCKSvtedu>
wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if the same thing is why someone like me (who lives in an
>> area where there are basically no hills) sees mountains as so surreal
>> when I actually see them.
>
>It might be. I have the opposite trouble, I lose any ability to tell long
>distances in flat open areas. I grew up in an area where there were lots
>of hills and mountains, and the only flat spots where the valleys in
>between. A wide view of flat scenery just seems so vast, things past
>about 100 meters just blend together.
Me too, the city that I was born in is in a valley with the Campsie
Fells blocking the horizon. And I am only really comfortable if I can
see a mountain in the distance.
Living in Southern England the scenery seems so flat that I find it
hard to believe people like it.
When I lived in Jamaica, short time, it reminded me of home with the
Blue Mountains above the city. Except for the people being dark, the
weather good and the plants exotic :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hot Sales Girl asserted that "that's because they're all students".
>> And she used to be a nurse, so I guess she'd know.
>>
>> [Hmm... Hot Sales Girl as a nurse... yum!]
>>
>
> Yeah, sure, I'll take the hundred grand, just crack my cranium open and
> prod around a bit, please!
>
> No. Not only no, but ...
Maybe, as a student, it's a good way of confirming that there *is* a
brain there? Not just an alcohol appreciation unit? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:25:38 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> On the one hand, that makes some sense to me, but on the other hand,
>> surely they would have recognized that they were moving away from the
>> cows....
>>
>> Jim
>
> I'm wondering if the same thing is why someone like me (who lives in an
> area where there are basically no hills) sees mountains as so surreal
> when I actually see them.
Well, I've lived in Salt Lake City now for about 13 years (hard to
believe) - kinda the opposite effect for me. When I moved here, the
mountains were fairly surreal, but now when I travel to places without
mountains, I get my directions all mixed up and the plains look extremely
unnatural.
It's actually a bit disorienting, but I think that's more about having
lost a landmark that I'm used to seeing. Except that when the cloud
cover is so bad (or the inversion's in place) that I can't see the
mountains here - that's not a problem for me. *That's* weird, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 17:46:05 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> An enhanced EM sense would be nice,
>
> http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/news/2006/06/71087
>
> You can also add absolute direction sense in a similar way.
Cool From the descriptions they give it sounds similar to what I
experience next to some CRT televisions and powered speakers, only in my
head and not my fingertip.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Personally, I can't imagine anyone who actually works there actually
> pulling the plug on a server for $10.
I once did it for free. Servers were a new thing. I turned it off
along with the lights when I left for the night. My mom always made me
turn off the lights when I left a room. My manager was angry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Personally, I can't imagine anyone who actually works there actually
>> pulling the plug on a server for $10.
>
> I once did it for free. Servers were a new thing. I turned it off
> along with the lights when I left for the night. My mom always made me
> turn off the lights when I left a room. My manager was angry.
...and the Real WTF(tm) is "why would somebody who doesn't know what
they're doing have access to a mission-critical system in the first
place?" ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ...and the Real WTF(tm) is "why would somebody who doesn't know what
> they're doing have access to a mission-critical system in the first
> place?" ;-)
You mean, like most bosses?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> ...and the Real WTF(tm) is "why would somebody who doesn't know what
>> they're doing have access to a mission-critical system in the first
>> place?" ;-)
>
> You mean, like most bosses?
Yes. Exactly like that. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...and the Real WTF(tm) is "why would somebody who doesn't know what
>> they're doing have access to a mission-critical system in the first
>> place?" ;-)
>
> You mean, like most bosses?
Guess it depends where you have worked. At the places I've worked, the
bosses have done the same job as the people below them at some point in the
past, so they have a pretty good idea what is going on. I guess if you're
working for a company that has expanded very quickly then of course you need
to get in people who haven't had that experience, then you risk the bosses
not having a clue what is going on under them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Guess it depends where you have worked. At the places I've worked, the
> bosses have done the same job as the people below them at some point in
> the past, so they have a pretty good idea what is going on. I guess if
> you're working for a company that has expanded very quickly then of
> course you need to get in people who haven't had that experience, then
> you risk the bosses not having a clue what is going on under them.
All I know is that The Daily WTF is *replete* with examples of companies
where the MD or something wrote the original version of the company's
product, but he can't actually code his way out of a paper bag, but he
still likes to "show the beginners how a real expert does it" from time
to time. And the real programmers end up going to extraordinary lengths
to keep the bosses away from the build system.
It's not always due to expansion. There are any number of reasons why a
company can end up with employees who think they know what they're doing
when really they don't. The problem is especially acute when those
people end up in management. (Who's gonna fire them?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> All I know is that The Daily WTF is *replete* with examples of companies
> where the MD or something wrote the original version of the company's
> product, but he can't actually code his way out of a paper bag, but he
> still likes to "show the beginners how a real expert does it" from time to
> time. And the real programmers end up going to extraordinary lengths to
> keep the bosses away from the build system.
Hehe yeh, but it's not like every company where things Just Work write to
the WTF and say "hey, here's one more company that's running fine thanks".
The boss of my department has a PhD and numerous papers published on the
exact subject we work on, and is usually involved directly in some of the
more important customer projects as the expert.
> It's not always due to expansion. There are any number of reasons why a
> company can end up with employees who think they know what they're doing
> when really they don't. The problem is especially acute when those people
> end up in management. (Who's gonna fire them?)
People don't just "end up in management", they either are promoted or
recruited. I presume the sort of people you talk about are directly
recruited, so I guess that's a failing in the recruitment process if they're
not very good. And of course you don't fire them, you just don't give them
any pay rise until they leave ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Guess it depends where you have worked. At the places I've worked, the
> > bosses have done the same job as the people below them at some point in
> > the past, so they have a pretty good idea what is going on. I guess if
> > you're working for a company that has expanded very quickly then of
> > course you need to get in people who haven't had that experience, then
> > you risk the bosses not having a clue what is going on under them.
> All I know is that The Daily WTF is *replete* with examples of companies
> where the MD or something wrote the original version of the company's
> product, but he can't actually code his way out of a paper bag, but he
> still likes to "show the beginners how a real expert does it" from time
> to time. And the real programmers end up going to extraordinary lengths
> to keep the bosses away from the build system.
I have a theory: People with real talent (and experience) for programming
are often very poor at politics and diplomacy, which is the reason why they
seldom end up in high positions in a company. And vice-versa: People which
are good at politics and diplomacy (read: good at speaking BS) are often
not very talented nor experienced in programming.
The typical "boss" is the latter type of person who, for some strange
reason, thinks he is a talented programmer.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:482c400e$1@news.povray.org...
And of course you don't fire them, you just don't give them
> any pay rise until they leave ;-)
True, it would work in the end I guess. :)
Might take some time though as pay rises are not handed out frequently.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have a theory: People with real talent (and experience) for programming
> are often very poor at politics and diplomacy, which is the reason why they
> seldom end up in high positions in a company. And vice-versa: People which
> are good at politics and diplomacy (read: good at speaking BS) are often
> not very talented nor experienced in programming.
>
> The typical "boss" is the latter type of person who, for some strange
> reason, thinks he is a talented programmer.
I agree. The current Director of IT is, IMHO, pretty rubbish with
computers. But DAMN does he know exactly how to play the corporate
politics game.
But hey, these people must get into management some how. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hehe yeh, but it's not like every company where things Just Work write
> to the WTF and say "hey, here's one more company that's running fine
> thanks". The boss of my department has a PhD and numerous papers
> published on the exact subject we work on, and is usually involved
> directly in some of the more important customer projects as the expert.
Oh thank God - you mean there *are* companies that work properly? I
truly hope to end up working for one. Preferably soon!
> People don't just "end up in management", they either are promoted or
> recruited. I presume the sort of people you talk about are directly
> recruited, so I guess that's a failing in the recruitment process if
> they're not very good.
My thoughts precisely.
If the people doing recruitment don't know anything about computers, how
the hell are they supposed to hire good people?
OTOH, some get there through promotion [or being the person who
originally founded the company]. These people are typically rubbish with
computers, but excellent at politics...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:15:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Hehe yeh, but it's not like every company where things Just Work write
>> to the WTF and say "hey, here's one more company that's running fine
>> thanks". The boss of my department has a PhD and numerous papers
>> published on the exact subject we work on, and is usually involved
>> directly in some of the more important customer projects as the expert.
>
> Oh thank God - you mean there *are* companies that work properly? I
> truly hope to end up working for one. Preferably soon!
Well, people have a tendency to complain rather than praise, so yeah. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> All I know is that The Daily WTF is *replete* with examples of companies
> where the MD or something wrote the original version of the company's
> product, but he can't actually code his way out of a paper bag, but he
> still likes to "show the beginners how a real expert does it" from time
> to time. And the real programmers end up going to extraordinary lengths
> to keep the bosses away from the build system.
I wonder if Bill Gates can code his way out of a paper bag nowadays?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I wonder if Bill Gates can code his way out of a paper bag nowadays?
You think he could originally??
As I understand it, every product his name has ever been associated with
was actually stolen from somebody or other...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > I wonder if Bill Gates can code his way out of a paper bag nowadays?
> You think he could originally??
Bill Gates was a computer programmer in the 70's and participated in
developing, among other things, a BASIC interpreter.
(However, how *competent* as a programmer he was is another question.)
> As I understand it, every product his name has ever been associated with
> was actually stolen from somebody or other...
Do you have any hard evidence of this? For example on that BASIC
interpreter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <482d4273@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> > > I wonder if Bill Gates can code his way out of a paper bag nowadays?
>
> > You think he could originally??
>
> Bill Gates was a computer programmer in the 70's and participated in
> developing, among other things, a BASIC interpreter.
>
> (However, how *competent* as a programmer he was is another question.)
>
> > As I understand it, every product his name has ever been associated wit
h
> > was actually stolen from somebody or other...
>
> Do you have any hard evidence of this? For example on that BASIC
> interpreter.
>
Not hard to write one of those really. I could manage it, and frankly, I
am not that great a programmer. I know people at age 12-13 that managed
to use Apple IIs to do stuff that blew my mind, and I thought at the
time, while taking the same class, that I was a major hotshot (until I
saw what they managed). But seriously, we do know, from the history of
things, that their first OS was basically gotten from someone else, and
while they had to write a "boot loader" for it at the last minute, its
kind of unclear if Gate or him partner did that, and again, bootloaders
are not that big a deal. I wrote something similar not long ago while
trying to figure out how the hell the encoding worked on "protected"
Apple II disks for a game. I managed to write something that could read
normal disks fine, but never could figure out what differed in the code
for the loader used by the game.
I haven't seen a lot to suggest Gates was extraordinary at all at
programming, or, for that matter, that the people he hired where, for
the most part, great programmers either, instead of just real good at
adapting stuff other people already came up with. Evidence is hard to
come by though, when such a great amount of time has passed, and the
only people that "know" if he was good at it, or bad at it, have no
reason to tell the truth (or even remember correctly). But, I am not
going to give him credit for being a Linus Trivald, given that Gates
didn't even *invent* the first OS he sold to IBM. Compared to even the
stuff Apple II people had to do to crap their code onto a disk and run
it, DOS and the rest didn't need to be well designed, efficient,
complex, or even smart (the BIOS did most of the hard lifting, while on
an Apple II you often had to *code* sections of what would be BIOS on a
PC by hand, to "fit" in the memory you had available, thus the code I
fiddled with to "load" data from disk and decode it.)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Do you have any hard evidence of this? For example on that BASIC
> > interpreter.
> >
> Not hard to write one of those really.
OTOH, it was the 70's. They didn't have fancy multimedia computers,
full-screen text editors with integrated compilers and such back then.
I'm not saying Gates was a talented programmer. I was just doubting
the claim that he has *never* produced anything original.
> But seriously, we do know, from the history of
> things, that their first OS was basically gotten from someone else
DOS 1 may have been based on someone else's code which they bought,
but if I'm not completely mistaken all further improvements to it were
made in house. DOS 7 looks quite a lot different from DOS 1.
Did MS buy Windows 1-3 from someone else, or did they develop it in
house? If I'm not completely mistaken, at least Win95 was purely MS
developed.
(WinXP is probably a bit more complicated because the kernel of NT
was not originally developed by MS, and WinXP is at least partially
based on that old kernel, although probably hugely improved.)
>, and
> while they had to write a "boot loader" for it at the last minute, its
> kind of unclear if Gate or him partner did that, and again, bootloaders
> are not that big a deal.
Again, it's not a question of whether he was competent and talented,
but whether he produced anything original or "stole everything from
others".
> I haven't seen a lot to suggest Gates was extraordinary at all at
> programming
There are some accounts about his talents. For example I faintly
remember a story about a library indexing system he helped to develop
or something like that.
He was definitely a programming nerd back in the 70's. I just am not
sure how competent and talented he really was.
(Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
programming is to take program source code which others have written and
study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
programming.)
> But, I am not
> going to give him credit for being a Linus Trivald
Torvalds.
> given that Gates
> didn't even *invent* the first OS he sold to IBM.
One could argue that Torvalds didn't "invent" linux because he based
its design on an existing OS: Unix. (Torvalds' original motivation was
that basically all usable OSes back then were commercial and he just
wanted to make a free alternative, which was more or less compatible
with Unix operating systems.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:16:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I'm not saying Gates was a talented programmer. I was just doubting
> the claim that he has *never* produced anything original.
According to the wikipedia article, Gates and Allen wrote an Altair
emulator, and then implemented a BASIC interpreter on top of it. That
was in or around 1975. BASIC itself first appeared in computing in 1964.
So Gates didn't invent BASIC, but rather just implemented it as part of a
team. The thing that it seems he was directly involved in at that stage
that was significant was the construction of the emulator for the Altair
8800.
According to the article, he reviewed every line of code written in the
first 5 years of Microsoft's history, and rewrote what he saw fit to
rewrite. He also was responsible for overseeing the business details.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So Gates didn't invent BASIC
I never said he did. I just said that he wrote a BASIC interpreter
(without "stealing" it from anywhere).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
> programming is to take program source code which others have written and
> study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
> programming.)
Yup, there's me when I was 11 years old, looking at JS code from websites
and copying all of the bad practices.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
> programming is to take program source code which others have written and
> study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
> programming.)
Doesn't this rather depend on whether the examples you're studying are
good or bad?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not hard to write one of those really. I could manage it, and frankly, I
> am not that great a programmer.
It's not hard to do it poorly. It can be quite tricky to do it well,
especially on unforgiving hardware (i.e., slow and small) to the point
where it's better than the competition.
> DOS and the rest didn't need to be well designed, efficient,
> complex, or even smart
You *are* aware that DOS was *supposed* to be source-compatible with
CP/M, basically, right?
Not that I'm saying Gates was a great programmer or anything. Just that
saying "evidence he was a bad programmer is that PC-DOS was compatible
with its predecessors" is illogical.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> He was definitely a programming nerd back in the 70's.
It wasn't hard to be a highly skilled programming nerd back in the 70s,
any more than it was hard to be a hot-shot pilot in 1905. :-) What
would be mediocre today could be amazing 35 years ago.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:34:08 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So Gates didn't invent BASIC
>
> I never said he did. I just said that he wrote a BASIC interpreter
> (without "stealing" it from anywhere).
I never said you said that. Don't be so touchy. Sheesh. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > (Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
> > programming is to take program source code which others have written and
> > study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
> > programming.)
> Doesn't this rather depend on whether the examples you're studying are
> good or bad?
It doesn't matter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
>> programming is to take program source code which others have written and
>> study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
>> programming.)
>
> Yup, there's me when I was 11 years old, looking at JS code from websites
> and copying all of the bad practices.
At least you had websites! When I was learning to program I was too young to
afford many books, the library only had 1 programming book on generic BASIC,
so the *only* way was to hack apart programs from magazine discs etc to see
what OS functions they were calling to do stuff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> (Another tidbit says that he once has said that the best way to learn
>>> programming is to take program source code which others have written and
>>> study them. IMO this is approximately the *worst* possible way to learn
>>> programming.)
>>
>> Yup, there's me when I was 11 years old, looking at JS code from websites
>> and copying all of the bad practices.
>
> At least you had websites! When I was learning to program I was too
> young to afford many books, the library only had 1 programming book on
> generic BASIC, so the *only* way was to hack apart programs from
> magazine discs etc to see what OS functions they were calling to do stuff.
I thought you were another Acorn veteran? IIRC the BBC Micro series, as
well as the Archimedes, all shipped with full manuals, including a BASIC
programming guide and a full list of BASIC-accessible OS calls. I think
you had to buy the assembly-language stuff and the complete OS reference
manual separately, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought you were another Acorn veteran? IIRC the BBC Micro series, as
> well as the Archimedes, all shipped with full manuals, including a BASIC
> programming guide and a full list of BASIC-accessible OS calls.
They all had the BASIC manual, but IIRC not the accessible OS calls (all OS
calls were accessible from BASIC, weren't they, isn't that what SYS did?).
The manual did not tell you how to swap screen buffers, create Windows, read
from template files, create icons etc - all pretty important for more than
text based programs.
Later on, !StrongHelp came along, which was a vast reference of all OS
calls.
> I think you had to buy the assembly-language stuff
I picked up a 2nd hand copy of an assembly programming book at some computer
show, it was more of a reference manual, but I still taught myself assembler
from it.
> and the complete OS reference manual separately, though.
Unfortunately yes, and they were very pricey, like 100 pounds I think. Way
too much for someone at school to spend. Maybe if I had bought them I would
have got on my feet much quicker with programming.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I thought you were another Acorn veteran? IIRC the BBC Micro series,
>> as well as the Archimedes, all shipped with full manuals, including a
>> BASIC programming guide and a full list of BASIC-accessible OS calls.
>
> They all had the BASIC manual, but IIRC not the accessible OS calls (all
> OS calls were accessible from BASIC, weren't they, isn't that what SYS
> did?).
I think so; on the Arc, I think any SWI could be called using SYS from
BASIC, but I was also thinking of the graphics commands and VDU
statements and things like that (some of which were equivalent to SYS
calls, I think).
> The manual did not tell you how to swap screen buffers, create
> Windows, read from template files, create icons etc - all pretty
> important for more than text based programs.
Yes, true, I think there was a separate guide again for desktop
programming. Although building applications (as well as the icons etc)
was something you could do just by looking at existing programs; almost
no programming necessary except for setting system variables etc. As you
say, the magazines were also very helpful explaining these concepts.
>> I think you had to buy the assembly-language stuff
> I picked up a 2nd hand copy of an assembly programming book at some
> computer show, it was more of a reference manual, but I still taught
> myself assembler from it.
Ditto. Hardly remember any of it now though ;)
>> and the complete OS reference manual separately, though.
> Unfortunately yes, and they were very pricey, like 100 pounds I think.
> Way too much for someone at school to spend. Maybe if I had bought them
> I would have got on my feet much quicker with programming.
I've still got a copy of the four-volume version (RO 3.1 I think, so
that wouldn't cover the extensions in RO 3.5+), but I can't remember
where I got it - hardly used it either!
Happy days... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
