Prev: polling / interrupt
Next: Big OOO, SpMT, and possible designs (Was Re: Free/Open x86 Sim)
From: Robert Myers on 13 May 2010 14:52
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.06.html#subj12

I'd recommend it to every technical weenie posting to comp.*, but I
regard the situation as essentially hopeless.

<quote>

This despite the fact that many nasty things were said about Dijkstra,
such
as "ivory tower theorist"; for in fact, "speaking truth to [group/
collective] shibboleth" is a good way to become real unpopular, at
warp
speed today on the Internet; this explains the childish regression to
adolescent bullying: if you're filled with anger and afraid for your
job,
it's much safer to attack an individual, whereas if you talk about
ideas,
you may offend some corporation who's invested in its negation.

</quote>

I'll readily admit that comp.arch has been an open-minded refuge. If
I go to other plausible lists, I'll inevitably encounter people who
would prefer to respond with a hot soldering iron or at least a very
sharp pencil aimed at, say, an eye to responding with ideas of their
own.

I hope that comp.arch will continue in that tradition and not become
the private preserve of individuals who, like so many here, will only
ever see their best ideas in the rear view mirror.

Robert.
From: Ken Hagan on 14 May 2010 05:30
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:52:50 +0100, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

> <quote>
>
> [...] if you're filled with anger and afraid for your job,
> it's much safer to attack an individual, whereas if you talk
> about ideas, you may offend some corporation who's invested
> in its negation.
>
> </quote>

Whilst sympathetic to the original rant, I think it is wrong on this point.

If you are afraid for your job, the safest approach is to post under
another name. The real reason we see so much childishness on the internet
is that the people with most free time to post are children. They *love*
wikipedia, because it is worldwide exercise in vanity publishing and they
all just *know* that they are god's gift to mankind and so their wise
words *ought* to be in print. Happily, most haven't discovered newsgroups
yet, so comp.arch is probably safe. (Well, there's me, obviously, but...)
From: Robert Myers on 14 May 2010 11:49
On May 14, 5:30 am, "Ken Hagan" <K.Ha...(a)thermoteknix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:52:50 +0100, Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
> > <quote>
>
> > [...] if you're filled with anger and afraid for your job,
> > it's much safer to attack an individual, whereas if you talk
> > about ideas, you may offend some corporation who's invested
> > in its negation.
>
> > </quote>
>
> Whilst sympathetic to the original rant, I think it is wrong on this point.
>
> If you are afraid for your job, the safest approach is to post under  
> another name. The real reason we see so much childishness on the internet  
> is that the people with most free time to post are children. They *love*  
> wikipedia, because it is worldwide exercise in vanity publishing and they  
> all just *know* that they are god's gift to mankind and so their wise  
> words *ought* to be in print. Happily, most haven't discovered newsgroups  
> yet, so comp.arch is probably safe. (Well, there's me, obviously, but...)

One obvious difference between a newsgroup and wikipedia is that
wikipedia offers the lure of a declaration of victory (my words/
opinion ultimately prevailed). In a functioning newsgroup, there is
only an ongoing conversation where no one really wins.

At the instigation of a private correspondent, I looked into the
discussion surrounding the wikipedia post in question. I was
fascinated.

As with any technical discipline, there are those possessed of deep
understanding of, say, c, and those who know only enough tricks and
formulas to get by. So long as people are in the "only enough tricks
and formulas to get by" category and know it, there is no problem.

It's when people with purportedly deep understanding that is actually
superficial clash that there is a problem. One of the problems with
computer technology is that it is easy to confuse a knowledge of lots
of tricks/details/history with deep understanding.

Robert.
From: Terje Mathisen "terje.mathisen at on 14 May 2010 14:16
Robert Myers wrote:
> On May 14, 5:30 am, "Ken Hagan"<K.Ha...(a)thermoteknix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:52:50 +0100, Robert Myers<rbmyers...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>
>>> [...] if you're filled with anger and afraid for your job,
>>> it's much safer to attack an individual, whereas if you talk
>>> about ideas, you may offend some corporation who's invested
>>> in its negation.
>>
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Whilst sympathetic to the original rant, I think it is wrong on this point.
>>
>> If you are afraid for your job, the safest approach is to post under
>> another name. The real reason we see so much childishness on the internet
>> is that the people with most free time to post are children. They *love*
>> wikipedia, because it is worldwide exercise in vanity publishing and they
>> all just *know* that they are god's gift to mankind and so their wise
>> words *ought* to be in print. Happily, most haven't discovered newsgroups
>> yet, so comp.arch is probably safe. (Well, there's me, obviously, but...)

Me too!!!!

> At the instigation of a private correspondent, I looked into the
> discussion surrounding the wikipedia post in question. I was
> fascinated.
>
> As with any technical discipline, there are those possessed of deep
> understanding of, say, c, and those who know only enough tricks and
> formulas to get by. So long as people are in the "only enough tricks
> and formulas to get by" category and know it, there is no problem.
>
> It's when people with purportedly deep understanding that is actually
> superficial clash that there is a problem. One of the problems with
> computer technology is that it is easy to confuse a knowledge of lots
> of tricks/details/history with deep understanding.

"Quantity is no substitute for quality, but it is the only thing we
have." (I can't find a source for the quote in this form.)

OTOH, I do feel that deep understanding ("grok'ing something") mostly
consists of the combination of lots and lots of details with the
understanding of how they all fit together. :-)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
From: nmm1 on 14 May 2010 16:15
In article <vlg0c7-op21.ln1(a)ntp.tmsw.no>,
Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote:
>
>OTOH, I do feel that deep understanding ("grok'ing something") mostly
>consists of the combination of lots and lots of details with the
>understanding of how they all fit together. :-)

I disagree, and it is the reason that I have spent so much time
beating my head against the brick walls of some language standards
and similar organisations.

Deep understanding is far more knowing the area around the topic,
and its deeper underpinnings, and why certain things are fundamental,
others are superficial and others are just plain idiotic.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: polling / interrupt
Next: Big OOO, SpMT, and possible designs (Was Re: Free/Open x86 Sim)