xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 Jun 2010 02:35 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: [snip] > > > Out of interest, what makes you think you're the target for RFCs? Heck, > > > I'm a coder and work in IT and I don't consider -myself- to be the > > > target, generally, of RFCs. > > > > Rather a lot of the technical information I need is only available in > > the form of RFCs, and I get pointed at them as the source for the > > information I need as a matter of routine. > > Then learn to read the fuckers and you'll be sorted. If you can't > understand the RFC, then you didn't need the information. Yes, that's the usual bad attitude expressed by the common or garden hostile unreasonable aggressive shits one finds in the technical forums these days. `If you can't understand it, you don't need it' - well, let's just throw away the very concept of education, shall we? Why not. Of course education is a mistake - if you don't understand it, and can't learn it without assistance, then of course you don't need it. Of course, of course. The problem is not so much that your opinions have any validity such that they need arguing with, but more that you suffer from a morbid obsession with pouring scorn upon me. You really ought to see your doctor about this mental health problem you suffer from. It can't be good for your blood pressure. You really should stop it - this newsgroup was set up to discuss technical matters, not for the purposes of permitting you to behave badly with impunity. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 Jun 2010 02:35 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > Is this the official manufacturer's guide, or just some incomplete and > > > only partially-successful outcome of various attempts at > > > reverse-engineering it by a succession of different investigators who > > > always found that they'd never quite uncovered its secrets? > > > > Oh, official manufacturer's guide, to be sure. And I omitted all the > > other end-user guides included, for the metallurgy of the case (or > > failing that nuts and bolts), chemistry (plastic case, circuit board, > > rubber feet), ... > > The official manufacturer's guide to quantum physics will explain all > that anyway. Just so long as it doesn't say `It's all just a wind-up, actually I really did create it all in 4004 BC', I'll be content. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: D.M. Procida on 1 Jun 2010 03:00 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > So if you could build a quantum-isolated book that had no quantum > interactions with the rest of the universe until a person picked it up, > I'd say you'd worked a blinder because not many people can pick up a > book in a quantum isolated system - which generally speaking can only > exist in a very hard vacuum, rather close to absolute zero. Generally > speaking (again), such regions on Earth are a wee bit too small for a > person to fit their hand. If anyone's ever managed it on anything > bigger than a molecule (which has been done and is impressive), I've not > heard about it. I can think of someone who will be along in a minute to claim he's done it. Daniele
From: Jim on 1 Jun 2010 04:48 On 2010-06-01, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> > Rather a lot of the technical information I need is only available in >> > the form of RFCs, and I get pointed at them as the source for the >> > information I need as a matter of routine. >> > >> >> Example? Purely out of interest. > > Can't think of any off the top of my head. > > It's been a some years since I looked at anything like that. > > So many times, I've been pointed at the source code and/or the RFCs as > the documentation that I am *expected* to use... > > Of course, if one should point out that such sources of information are > not really a lot of use, being almost impossible to understand for > anyone except a fully immersed geek, one gets informed that he is a > lamer and shouldn't be trying to use the software. > > Either that, or you get told to write the manual yourself - which seems > like an odd response to someone pointing out that they can't figure out > what's what. How is a person in that sort of position supposed to write > the bloody manual? <shrug> I tend to look at RFCs as being more blueprints than manuals. That is, they don't tell you _how_ to do something but rather how something should perform should you decide to try and write it. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "If you have enough book space, I don't want to talk to you." Terry Pratchett
From: Peter Ceresole on 1 Jun 2010 04:57
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > If anyone's ever managed it on anything > > bigger than a molecule (which has been done and is impressive), I've not > > heard about it. > > I can think of someone who will be along in a minute to claim he's done > it. Well of course. I had an indeterminate motorbike. -- Peter |