Prev: It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
Next: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
From: Irwell on 8 Jun 2010 18:34
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:09:43 -0500, C. Werner wrote:



>
> If ever bored in a mall go to the Radio Schmuck store and play this LBL and
> LRF game with the sales staff. Reserve your laughter until you exit their
> store You don't want to ruin it for the next person that plays it on them.
> :-)

Did you receive your GAL certificate?
From: C. Werner on 8 Jun 2010 18:34
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:13:10 +0100, Pete
<available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:

>On 2010-06-08 17:06:53 +0100, Peter said:
>
>> "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:201006081442567571-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid...
>>> On 2010-06-08 13:11:55 +0100, Peter said:
>>>
>>>> "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two
>>>>> paragraphs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another new word hits the group. <G>
>>>
>>> I've heard the word before so I totally missed its significance here.
>>>
>>> I'm still highly amused by imagining the Redtons and Blueyons not sticking
>>> to the Greenons hence colour fringing, furthermore, the possibility of
>>> explaining it to someone then hearing them say "That makes sense. I'd
>>> always wondered what caused it."
>>>
>>>> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to
>>>> comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the
>>>> SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the
>>>> subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected
>>>> it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is actually
>>>> fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But that topic
>>>> too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority here.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in your conclusion. Not because I know much about it,
>>> rather, I would like to understand a little about it. I watch a
>>> documentary on quantum cryptography and have been interested to learn
>>> about quantum computing ever since.
>>
>>
>> I will try to over simplify for reasons of brevity, at the risk of the
>> trolls thinking food.
>> My reasons are more business than technical. With quantum we are
>> manipulating particles smaller than bits. At the current state of
>> technology much work needs to be done. The actual machines are
>> presently nothing more than sophisticated toys. There is nothing in the
>> current SIP algorithms that would prevent their application in quantum.
>> While in the future more efficient algorithms will be developed, it is
>> a complete waste of time and money to work on initiation protocols,
>> when the current one will work. The time and money is better spent on
>> developing machines and networks. I also think that the concentration
>> on cryptology is a waste of effort that could be more socially
>> beneficial.
>
>Thanks for that. I hadn't even considered the business/technical side
>at all, let alone your other views.
>
>My opinions on the subjects of quantum computing and cryptography were
>strong, but realizing they were without proper foundation gives me the
>chance to learn and change.
>
>I'm still holding onto the idea of "Why change a current protocol if it
>is sufficient." I've seen the result of making changes for change's
>sake so many times, not only in photographic equipment.

That's because the universe itself works on this principle (fractally).
Reflected in common phrases as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or
"K.I.S.S. -- keep it simple stupid!" or

"Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." -
Albert Einstein

There's a good reason that the construct and mechanism of DNA/RNA hasn't
changed in the millions of years (or billions if you consider comet
seeding) since its accidental random-act of inception. It works. Just as H2
+ H2 = 2He + E works at the core of every star in the sky.

Then again, experimenting with random acts of change is also part of the
equation. That's how DNA/RNA even came into existence. It's also why all
the dinosaurs successfully fly today. (Minus emus, ostriches, penguins and
other assorted flightless birds.)

Some of the greatest discoveries of mankind were found by accident when
trying to change something, just for the hell of it.

From: Bruce on 9 Jun 2010 07:30
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:00:30 +0100, Pete
<available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>
>If I worked in any retail store I'd spend every spare moment learning
>about the products. The time would pass more quickly, I'd have pride in
>my work, and have a better chance of promotion and/or finding an
>alternative employer.


People in retail who have much better product knowledge than their
peers (and/or superiors) tend to get overlooked for promotion. You
would have to look for an alternative employer, because they wouldn't
want you there for long.

From: SMS on 9 Jun 2010 10:07
On 09/06/10 3:00 AM, Pete wrote:

> If I worked in any retail store I'd spend every spare moment learning
> about the products. The time would pass more quickly, I'd have pride in
> my work, and have a better chance of promotion and/or finding an
> alternative employer.

I worked in a department store (similar to Macy's, actually it is now a
Macy's) when I was 16. The manager _required_ us to open the boxes of
products and learn about them so we would be able to know the features
when talking to customers.

If you go to the B&H store in NY, you'll often find that knowledgeable
employees.

From: Peter on 9 Jun 2010 19:48
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o9uu06dg9m3lqstbjtgsqkv44p2o8k4p3j(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:00:30 +0100, Pete
> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>If I worked in any retail store I'd spend every spare moment learning
>>about the products. The time would pass more quickly, I'd have pride in
>>my work, and have a better chance of promotion and/or finding an
>>alternative employer.
>
>
> People in retail who have much better product knowledge than their
> peers (and/or superiors) tend to get overlooked for promotion. You
> would have to look for an alternative employer, because they wouldn't
> want you there for long.
>


And the basis for your statement?

--
Peter

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
Next: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes