On 08/09/2012 04:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability to
>> memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>
> The legal system. It's like hacking English.

Not really. Computer systems follow rules. The legal system does not. 
(And neither does English, BTW.)

Post a reply to this message

>>> finance
>> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?
>
> No. The finance guys have extensive knowledge. They rely on technical
> guys to implement their algorithms. I know several mathematicians who
> don't know how to predict stocks, but know how to program computers with
> algorithms to predict stocks. And they use baroque custom languages like
> R, K, etc.

I saw an interesting comment on LinkedIn about this - saying that nobody 
uses Haskell for this kind of thing because it's "non-deterministic", in 
that the calculation might take 10 seconds or 10 years, and there's no 
way to know which. [This is obviously false, but I can see where 
somebody might get that misconception...]

> It's about getting it there efficiently. Logistics: Customer orders four
> dump trucks of cement. You have to figure out when to send the trucks to
> get it there soon enough after they're ready that they don't waste time,
> but not so soon that it congeals inside the truck. You also have to know
> how they're going to use it, so you can space out the trucks so the
> second is ready before the first has set enough. You have to have
> real-time traffic estimates, knowing how to route around them, including
> rerouting trucks already moving to get them where they're supposed to go
> at the right times. You have to account for days when a truck breaks
> down, a driver is out sick, or a construction company cancels or defers
> an order. And that's just local delivery of fucking *cement*. What do
> you think a company like Amazon or UPS needs?

Hmm, interesting. I assumed they just get it wrong most of the time.

>>> data mining
>> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable middle
>> management buzzword.
>
> That's ... all google does, basically.

Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how Google actually 
obtains any income...

> Not that it's especially complex math, but the complexity is pretty
> astounding, especially when you're talking about the size of databases
> Google deals with.

OK. But does any other company on the planet do that?

>> From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
>> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff
>> around and running cables.
>
> Heh heh heh. So, you already know how to calibrate a cell phone tower
> installation? How to splice optical fiber? How to run 10Kilovolt power
> circuits?
>
> You've only installed stuff that was built for retail installation,
> clearly.
>
> Granted, probably not a whole lot of programming involved.

I've seen a guy splice fiber. He cut the two ends, put them in a 
machine, and pressed a button. It used a digital microscope to align the 
ends in three dimensions, and then weld them together. Freaky as hell. 
Apparently it costs about £8,000. (Which is presumably peanuts compared 
to what the fiber it splices costs...)

Post a reply to this message

On 07/09/2012 03:46 PM, scott wrote:
>> Sure, there are autonomous machines all around us. I don't think that
>> designing or programming them requires a vast amount of technical
>> knowledge - just extensive testing and experimentation.
>
> That's a very bad way to design products, it's expensive and time
> consuming, and liable to create a product with lots of bugs you don't
> find until they're out in the field. Far better to get people with vast
> technical knowledge to properly design the product in the first place,
> the actual product testing should just be a formality, not a tool to
> find the best design.

I take it you don't subscript to "test-driven software development" as a 
methodology either? ;-)

> But don't worry, you're not alone in underestimating the amount of
> design work that goes into everyday products. Once you've been to a few
> conferences on design and simulation software you realise that nothing
> is just designed by trial and error. For example even the part of your
> dishwasher that contains the salt to soften the water has been carefully
> studied, designed and simulated to minimise salt use, pressure drop and
> material costs. Certainly some person didn't just draw it out and say
> "that'll work, let's test it" and then maybe make a couple of tweaks.
> You wouldn't survive 5 minutes if your company worked like that.

I can imagine a lot of design work goes into a brand new product. But if 
you're making a dishwasher, you're not making a brand new product. 
You're making a product which is nearly identical to several hundred 
thousand existing products, but with one or two trivial differences. 
Most of the research has already been done. You just need to 
double-check that your new design doesn't contain any unexpected flaws.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Right. And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?
>>
>> From what I've seen, there are, like, three academics globally who
>> write the vast majority of this stuff. And there are already /way/ more
>> ciphers in existence than anybody actually wants or needs.
>
> Ok. And no one ever needs to implement those algorithms?

Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of 
proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic 
cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.

Post a reply to this message

>> You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff
>> I've seen.
>
> That's because you're not looking at marketing copy for products
> marketed to technical people. Look at some ads for computers on Amazon.

Unfortunately Dell figured out that I'm the head of the UK IT 
department. (Hell, I *am* the UK IT department!) Hence, every single 
frigging month they mail me an A4 pamphlet telling me about all the 
fantastic stuff they can sell me.

No technical detail ANYWHERE! >_<

Seriously, you're telling me your stuff will revolutionise by business, 
but you can't actually articulate WHY?

But wait a minute... I'm not there now. Ah! Now all their junkmail will 
be returned to sender. Oh, this makes me very happy. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 5:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 8:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's not actually how it works.  I know from having worked on DR plans
>> for large and small companies.
>
> Indeed, if it worked that way, you would have just planned to avoid the
> disaster in the first place.
>

O_O

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 5:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 04:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/6/2012 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an
>>> ability to
>>> memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> The legal system. It's like hacking English.
>
> Not really. Computer systems follow rules. The legal system does not.
> (And neither does English, BTW.)

I take it that you don't want to find a job just find reasons that you 
won't get one.

Please listen to the people who have many more years of experience than 
you do. And have worked in more than one place.
That last statement is just troll-ish.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:41:01 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff
>>> I've seen.
>>
>> That's because you're not looking at marketing copy for products
>> marketed to technical people. Look at some ads for computers on Amazon.
> 
> Unfortunately Dell figured out that I'm the head of the UK IT
> department. (Hell, I *am* the UK IT department!) Hence, every single
> frigging month they mail me an A4 pamphlet telling me about all the
> fantastic stuff they can sell me.
> 
> No technical detail ANYWHERE! >_<
> 
> Seriously, you're telling me your stuff will revolutionise by business,
> but you can't actually articulate WHY?

Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do 
technical marketing /correctly/.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:15:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/7/2012 8:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's not actually how it works.  I know from having worked on DR
>> plans for large and small companies.
> 
> Indeed, if it worked that way, you would have just planned to avoid the
> disaster in the first place.

Yup.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do
> technical marketing /correctly/.

Alternatively, Dell has figured out that purchasing decisions are made 
by the pointy-haired boss, not the guy who actually knows about this stuff.

Then again, given what a stellar company Dell isn't...

Post a reply to this message