 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:07:26 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 06:59 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> Seriously. You realise I'm never more than 17 feet from a computer,
>>> right? What do I need a phone for?
>>
>> Some people have friends who are not always 17 feet from a computer.
>
> Oh, sure, I'm not saying it's a useless device. I'm saying it's useless
> *to me*.
I'm curious how you manage to be within 17 feet of a computer when you're
skiing. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Some people have friends who are not always 17 feet from a computer.
Or they are within 17 feet, but it's not turned on. Since I was able to
access email/web from a phone I went from having my home PC on every
evening to it being quite unusual to turn it on in the evenings.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/10/2012 08:07 AM, scott wrote:
>> Some people have friends who are not always 17 feet from a computer.
>
> Or they are within 17 feet, but it's not turned on. Since I was able to
> access email/web from a phone I went from having my home PC on every
> evening to it being quite unusual to turn it on in the evenings.
I can see how that might be useful. My PC, of course, has not been
turned off for several months now. I've got 4 copies of POV-Ray running
24 hours a day ATM.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I'm curious how you manage to be within 17 feet of a computer when you're
> skiing. ;)
He has a smartphone, of course...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:35:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I'm curious how you manage to be within 17 feet of a computer when
>> you're skiing. ;)
>
> He has a smartphone, of course...
#REF
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Surely that is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE! You're one of the 6 people in the
>> world working on cryptography!
>
> I'm not designing cryptographic methods - just employing existing ones.
> (Maybe.)
Actually... It turns out all of the cryptography is a 3rd party
commercial library that we purchased. The code we wrote does no
cryptography at all. Oh well...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> In terms of location, the building is literally 2 blocks from my front door.
> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
> I wrote quite a lot of C# code for somebody who doesn't "know" C# yet.
> Obviously it was all exercises. And they were really more interested in my
> problem-solving approach (and social skills) than the actual code produced
> (which was obviously trivial).
Congrats. This sounds like a great job to land.
> that after all this I can actually DO the job! O_O
Of course you can. C# is actually a pretty straight-forward imperative
language unless you start getting into very weird-ass stuff like generating
code on the fly or something like that. It's a pretty big language, most of
which makes sense.
> PS. My quip about Mordor seems tame compared to some of the jokes I heard
> offered in the office. Indeed, that quip may even by why they invited me
> back in the first place... (But that's just speculation on my part.)
I wouldn't be surprised.
Again, congrats!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/8/2012 14:00, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> something called LINQ, which seems to be of very dubious usefulness. (Unless
> you're actually writing database applications, anyway...)
FWIW, LINQ is list comprehensions, except with a vaguely SQL-like syntax.
Now you're good to go. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2012 6:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
>
> TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten
how to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:28:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/10/2012 6:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 3:33, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>> It's almost close enough to /walk/ to work.
>>
>> TIL brits don't go outdoors. :-)
>
> Strange! And here's me thinking that it was Americans who had forgotten
> how to walk. I've heard that you only go outdoors in an automobile.
There are places that can be true, particularly in the colder climes. I
remember days growing up where it was -70F outside (with the wind chill)
- you wouldn't WANT to go outdoors in that if you could avoid it. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
