The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

CShzalle3ntge Accdeptytfed!!Q!Q

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

Paul:
Free market: everyone goes off and gathers their own stuff. If you like my coconuts and I like your oranges, we trade. Everyone lives. Except the one lazy ass who is still working on his tan.

You're making the classic error of assuming that everyone is able to gather their own coconuts, and that anyone who doesn't is just lazy.

Now let us assume a more realistic scenario, where, say, one of those ten is too old or disabled to go foraging, one is a child under 5, etc.

Free market: The oldster dies. The child's mother is unable to pick enough coconuts on her own to feed both of them, so the child dies too. That's just what you get for not being a healthy young adult.

Socialism: All the able-bodied put a proportion of what they pick towards feeding the non-able-bodied. Some people have to work a little harder, but at least nobody dies unnecessarily.

No 'Europe' (did you have any particular countries in mind?) is not a workers' paradise and never will be. Up side, we can all access healthcare and nobody loses their home because they can't pay the hospital bills for an unanticipated illness or accident. The US system just scares me.

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

ceiswyn:
Paul:
Free market: everyone goes off and gathers their own stuff. If you like my coconuts and I like your oranges, we trade. Everyone lives. Except the one lazy ass who is still working on his tan.

You're making the classic error of assuming that everyone is able to gather their own coconuts, and that anyone who doesn't is just lazy.

Now let us assume a more realistic scenario, where, say, one of those ten is too old or disabled to go foraging, one is a child under 5, etc.

Free market: The oldster dies. The child's mother is unable to pick enough coconuts on her own to feed both of them, so the child dies too. That's just what you get for not being a healthy young adult.

Socialism: All the able-bodied put a proportion of what they pick towards feeding the non-able-bodied. Some people have to work a little harder, but at least nobody dies unnecessarily.

All you're doing here is assigning altruism to the participants in the socialist model, but not in the free market model.

It's like the agile vs waterfall debate: agilistas assume developers are diligent and competent, always follow the processes, magically know how to refector effectively etc. They then say waterfall must fail because there's no way anyone could ever get an up-front design right.

If you want to compare systems, you need a consistent model of human behaviour. It doesn't need to be complete, but it must inject the all of the good, bad and ugly aspects into each of the models you are contemplating.

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

ceiswyn:
Paul:
Free market: everyone goes off and gathers their own stuff. If you like my coconuts and I like your oranges, we trade. Everyone lives. Except the one lazy ass who is still working on his tan.

You're making the classic error of assuming that everyone is able to gather their own coconuts, and that anyone who doesn't is just lazy.

Now let us assume a more realistic scenario, where, say, one of those ten is too old or disabled to go foraging, one is a child under 5, etc.

Free market: The oldster dies. The child's mother is unable to pick enough coconuts on her own to feed both of them, so the child dies too. That's just what you get for not being a healthy young adult.

Socialism: All the able-bodied put a proportion of what they pick towards feeding the non-able-bodied. Some people have to work a little harder, but at least nobody dies unnecessarily.

No 'Europe' (did you have any particular countries in mind?) is not a workers' paradise and never will be. Up side, we can all access healthcare and nobody loses their home because they can't pay the hospital bills for an unanticipated illness or accident. The US system just scares me.

Ummm ... no. Nothing about the idea of free markets says that people cannot or should not take care of their own families, or provide charity to those in need. The difference is that in a free market each individual decides what charities to support and with how much, while under socialism the government makes this decision for everyone.

At this point, of course, the socialist always say, "Yes, but what happens if private charitable contributions are not sufficient to meet the need?" The answer is, of course, that the poor people starve.

But you could ask such a question of any system. What happens if in a socialist society the people are unwilling to vote for sufficiently high taxes to support the poor? What happens if the people vote for ample taxes, but then corrupt politicians and bureaucrats steal the money, or give it all to members of favored interest groups, or on "contracts" to companies that gave big campaign contributions, rather than to the truly needy?

In a free market, if I donate to a local homeless shelter, and then I find out that the people who run it are corrupt and are stealing the money that generous people gave to help the poor, I can stop giving to them and redirect my contributions to a more worthy charity.

But in a socialist society, if I discover that a government agency that is supposed to help the poor is, in fact, siphoning money off to Senator Smith's brother-in-law, or is simply incompetent and wastes huge amounts of money, what can I do? I can't refuse to pay my taxes, not and stay out of jail. I can protest, but you can be sure that Senator Smith and his political supporters will fight back -- probably using my tax money for the lawyers and public relations firms etc that they use to justify getting more of my tax money. And he surely has political allies who may fully recognize how corrupt he is, but will overlook it because they need his political support. Or who are as corrupt as he is and are in on the whole scam.

Can you honestly tell me that the above scenario does not happen every day in real life?

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

Coyne:
It's amazing, the duality of some of the arguments that plutocrats make:

Companies should have the right to spend any amount of money they want publishing anything they want in support of any political position they wish but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to terminate any worker at any time, penalize them in any way, pay them any amount and should have the right to seek legal redress if those are inadequate but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to associate in any way they wish in order to form any kind of trust they choose, in order to set prices for the most profit but workers should not.

Isn't it amazing how plutocrats get all the rights, but hold the opinion that the workers should not? That workers should take what they get, like what they get, and shut up?

I don't know any right-winger who says that workers should not be allowed to speak out on political issues, should not be allowed to seek legal redress for breach of contract by their employers, and/or should not be allowed to freely associate with other workers (or anyone else). I'd be interested to see any quotes or other evidence you have of such positions. Perhaps there are a few truly extreme people out there who say such things.

But what I think you mean is that right-wingers say that UNIONS should not be allowed to do these things. But of course "unions" is not the same thing as "workers" at all. Just because unions claim to speak for workers does not mean they really do. I could stand up and say, "I speak for all white people when I say ..." That wouldn't make it true. For starters, unions are not "free associations" of workers. Peole are forced to join unions whether they want to or not, and are forced to pay dues to those unions, which in many cases the unions use to pursue political objectives with little or no relation to employment contracts, and which the employees may or may not agree with.

Unions today are big, powerful organizations. Right-wingers routinely say that the unions are run for the benefit of the leaders of the unions, not the workers. Whether it's true in any given case or not, it's surely true in some cases, and it's certainly a danger to be dealt with.

The issue is not whether employees should be ALLOWED to form a union to bargain with their employer, but whether unions should have special legal privileges that other individuals and organizations do not.

no laughing matter · 2012-07-12 Reply Admin

Bartholemew Taps:
All you're doing here is assigning altruism to the participants in the socialist model, but not in the free market model.

In the model? It does not exist in the model! To the contrary: the claim is that everyone acts egoistically, but still everyone benefits (see Adam Smith: Invisible Hand ... well, others believe in Santa Clause, so why should economic "science" not believe in invisible hands.)

Bartholemew Taps:
It's like the agile vs waterfall debate: agilistas assume developers are diligent and competent, always follow the processes, magically know how to refector effectively etc. They then say waterfall must fail because there's no way anyone could ever get an up-front design right.

The waterfall model requires that requirements and specifications are complete and correct upfront.

Requirements and specifications are given by PHB. So guess what is to be expected?

Bartholemew Taps:
If you want to compare systems, you need a consistent model of human behaviour. It doesn't need to be complete, but it must inject the all of the good, bad and ugly aspects into each of the models you are contemplating.

It does need to be consistent, but it does not need to be correct?

It does "not need to be complete", but it must cover "all of the good, bad and ugly aspects"?

In any case the "model of human behaviour" i see presented in the island example in this thread is neither.

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

Jay:
Ummm ... no. Nothing about the idea of free markets says that people cannot or should not take care of their own families, or provide charity to those in need. The difference is that in a free market each individual decides what charities to support and with how much, while under socialism the government makes this decision for everyone.

How else would you ensure that funds went where they were needed most? I mean, the individual could look at the population demographics and the balance sheets of every single charity and check where every other individual was sending their money to make sure all the bases were covered and one charity wasn't getting all the money by chance, but this individual certainly doesn't.

a free market, if I donate to a local homeless shelter, and then I find out that the people who run it are corrupt and are stealing the money that generous people gave to help the poor, I can stop giving to them and redirect my contributions to a more worthy charity.

You can. Of course, you may be giving your money to a homeless shelter when actually the major problem in society is lack of healthcare, but them's the breaks. And of course, people are generally not nearly willingly generous enough with their money to cover the genuine needs of the unfortunate.

Would I voluntarily give several hundred pounds a month to charities providing for the old or the sick or the purely unable-to-find-jobs? Probably not. I'd have no idea that much was needed. But since that is the cost, I'm glad that there's an external disciple that makes me pay it.

And given that in my country people don't go bankrupt because of unforeseen illness or accident and the overall cost of healthcare is lower than in the US I gotta say the evidence isn't convincing me of the superiority of the pure free market model.

2012-07-12 Reply Admin

In a certain Midwest state on a certain US Gummint installation in a certain WWII era building we were running at 150% of the rated electrical capacity of the building using it for software development.

During the summer most folks had a heater at their desks; in the winter I would open the very large window during a blizzard, sitting next to it very comfortably.

2012-07-13 Reply Admin

no laughing matter:
Bartholemew Taps:
All you're doing here is assigning altruism to the participants in the socialist model, but not in the free market model.
In the model? It does not exist in the model! To the contrary: the claim is that everyone acts egoistically, but still everyone benefits (see Adam Smith: Invisible Hand ... well, others believe in Santa Clause, so why should economic "science" not believe in invisible hands.)
Bartholemew Taps:
It's like the agile vs waterfall debate: agilistas assume developers are diligent and competent, always follow the processes, magically know how to refector effectively etc. They then say waterfall must fail because there's no way anyone could ever get an up-front design right.
The waterfall model requires that requirements and specifications are complete and correct upfront.
Requirements and specifications are given by PHB. So guess what is to be expected?

Bartholemew Taps:
If you want to compare systems, you need a consistent model of human behaviour. It doesn't need to be complete, but it must inject the all of the good, bad and ugly aspects into each of the models you are contemplating.
It does need to be consistent, but it does not need to be correct?
It does "not need to be complete", but it must cover "all of the good, bad and ugly aspects"?

In any case the "model of human behaviour" i see presented in the island example in this thread is neither.

Adam Smith describes the wealth-generation process. He does not say that particpants in a free market do not act altruistically. That is your invention.

You appear to believe that PHBs who write software requirements always get it wrong, but the PHBs who run socialist states always get it right. How curious.

And nobody, not even you, fully understands the human condition.

2012-07-13 Reply Admin

lame story. at least is what short. there's some progress, congrats to you rémy.

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2012-07-13 Reply Admin

ceiswyn:
How else would you ensure that funds went where they were needed most? I mean, the individual could look at the population demographics and the balance sheets of every single charity and check where every other individual was sending their money to make sure all the bases were covered and one charity wasn't getting all the money by chance, but this individual certainly doesn't.

<sarcasm>I'm sure bureaucrats and politicians would do a better job of this.</sarcasm> Did you know that there are private organizations that specialize in this sort of thing?

ceiswyn:
Would I voluntarily give several hundred pounds a month to charities providing for the old or the sick or the purely unable-to-find-jobs? Probably not. I'd have no idea that much was needed. But since that is the cost, I'm glad that there's an external disciple that makes me pay it.

At least you're honest about it.

ceiswyn:
And given that in my country people don't go bankrupt because of unforeseen illness or accident and the overall cost of healthcare is lower than in the US I gotta say the evidence isn't convincing me of the superiority of the pure free market model.

We don't have a free market for health care and haven't for at least a hundred years. We have a partially free market. What products and services can be offered and who can offer them are strictly limited.

2012-07-13 Reply Admin

The obvious issue with that massively over simplistic scenario is that all the people are equal, in terms of opportunity, to begin with so hey Socialism has already triumphed.

If you want a comparison to reality then one of the guys owns half the coconut and orange trees on the island. He also got given a ton of coconuts and oranges by his Daddy along with a step ladder to make it easier for him to collect coconuts. He see it as completely fair that he has all this stuff and doesn't want to share it. Everyone else has to beg him for access to his land to pick their coconuts. He charges them for access. etc etc.

no laughing matter · 2012-07-13 Reply Admin

Bartholemew Taps:
Adam Smith describes the wealth-generation process. He does not say that particpants in a free market do not act altruistically. That is your invention.

So he does say it and it is part of his description of the wealth-generation process (which underlies the free-market model)?

Could you point me to a source?

Bartholemew Taps:
You appear to believe that PHBs (...) the PHBs who run socialist states always get it right.

Where did i write so?

Bartholemew Taps:
And nobody, not even you, fully understands the human condition.

So you finally understand why economic models that use simplified models of the human behaviour will fail?

2012-07-13 Reply Admin

Agreed. I had a pair of "hobo gloves" I used specifically for typing. The fingertips were cut off of them. It wasn't not perfect, but it kept my hands from locking up and still allowed me to type accurately.

2012-07-14 Reply Admin

Computers generate more heat when all parts of the hardware are actually being used. Just looping an instruction, doesn't use much of the hardware.

Most computer manufacturers also publish programs called "diagnostics", that are designed to exercise every part of the hardware and report any errors that they find. The random seek test on the disk drives, might be a good one to run during the winter.

Coyne · 2012-07-14 Reply Admin

Jay:
Coyne:
It's amazing, the duality of some of the arguments that plutocrats make:

Companies should have the right to spend any amount of money they want publishing anything they want in support of any political position they wish but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to terminate any worker at any time, penalize them in any way, pay them any amount and should have the right to seek legal redress if those are inadequate but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to associate in any way they wish in order to form any kind of trust they choose, in order to set prices for the most profit but workers should not.

Isn't it amazing how plutocrats get all the rights, but hold the opinion that the workers should not? That workers should take what they get, like what they get, and shut up?

I don't know any right-winger who says that workers should not be allowed to speak out on political issues, should not be allowed to seek legal redress for breach of contract by their employers, and/or should not be allowed to freely associate with other workers (or anyone else).

Oh, yes, you're probably right about that. Instead, right wingers simply speak out for the unrestricted right of corporations to punish any worker that speaks out or seeks redress.

An example I saw yesterday was a comment related in this article (page 7) by an employee of Apple that, "Finally, when you are a full-fledged employee [of Apple], you are absolutely restricted from representing Apple in any way outside the store. If you post an identifiable comment as an employee, you will be fired immediately." (You should understand this clearly: According to this article, that means, "If you identify yourself as an Apple employee or are known to be one..." So if you say on your FaceBook profile you work for Apple and then make a "inappropriate comment" on TDWTF...terminated!) Should a company be allowed to restrict an individual's freedom of speech in that way? A right winger would instantly assert that Apple is within its rights; and its rights should not be abridged, regardless of whether Apple's actions are fair or not.

Sometimes, silence on an issue is as expressive as outright speech: When right wingers defend corporate rights to all exclusion of employee rights, their silence on employee rights is expressive indeed.

Jay:
But of course "unions" is not the same thing as "workers" at all. Just because unions claim to speak for workers does not mean they really do.

Do you really assert that any corporation would be fine with employees creating an entirely new union that was representative? Of course not: a corporation would resist that just as strongly as employees trying to organize with an existing union.

So it isn't just about "non-representative" unions; the corporation has issue with collective negotiation in itself. The "unions don't represent employees" argument is therefore exposed as a red herring; as an issue between employees and unions, not between companies and employees.

Addendum (2012-07-14 18:25): I should have read a bit more from the second-link in the Apple discussion above. This is at the bottom of the article, quoted from their employment policy: "This applies whether you engage in these activities in or outside of work, and whether or not you identify yourself as an Apple employee."

Which is even more odious than I thought.

2012-07-15 Reply Admin

Gloves + Keyboard does not work. Put on some well insulated gloves and try to post a response on this thread.

JI dsoknj';tr kjnmioew wehjastr yuoiiu;'re cvopnmopklsaiomniomngf asbvoiuytr,.

2012-07-15 Reply Admin

We have thermostats with no controls. To adjust one you plug in an RL-45 cable to a handheld device, adjust the temperature and unplug. When facilities refused to adjust it until a specific seasonal date; The office staff took a plastic cup full of ice and used an elastic band to attach it directly of the sensor. This caused the heat to engage.

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

[quote user="PedanticCurmudgeon"][quote user="ceiswyn"]How else would you ensure that funds went where they were needed most? [/quote]<sarcasm>I'm sure bureaucrats and politicians would do a better job of this.</sarcasm> Did you know that there are private organizations that specialize in this sort of thing?[/quote]

And unlike every other organisation in the world, which is (according to you) possibly/probably corrupt, biased, error-prone and mired in bribery and graft, these particular organisations are shining beacons of ethics and accuracy because...?

[quote][quote user="ceiswyn"]Would I voluntarily give several hundred pounds a month to charities providing for the old or the sick or the purely unable-to-find-jobs? Probably not. I'd have no idea that much was needed. But since that is the cost, I'm glad that there's an external disciple that makes me pay it.[/quote]At least you're honest about it.[/quote]

Of course I am. That's the entire problem with both an extreme free market ideology and with communism. They both rely on people being far more self-sacrificing, helpful and generous than people actually tend to be. Have you ever heard of 'social loafing'?

[quote][quote user="ceiswyn"]And given that in my country people don't go bankrupt because of unforeseen illness or accident and the overall cost of healthcare is lower than in the US I gotta say the evidence isn't convincing me of the superiority of the pure free market model.[/quote]We don't have a free market for health care and haven't for at least a hundred years. We have a partially free market. What products and services can be offered and who can offer them are strictly limited.[/quote][/quote]

And if you had a completely free market, do you think more or fewer people would have trouble affording healthcare...?

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

...what the flip happened with my tags there? Oh well, never mind, you get the idea.

Or not.

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

PiisAWheeL:
You ever try to use gloves with a keyboard? (Gloves that are worth a shit anyways?)
I have a bent piece of medal designed specifally for the box in our office.

Paperclip used to work just fine for me - took them months to figure it out (since they assumed that no-one could change it, they never checked to see if someone did).

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

Loren Pechtel:
XXXXX:
In the future, mankind will develop ways to spin and weave wool from sheep into torso-shaped wrappings. These wrappings (I'll call them sweaters) will insulate jackasses. Others will build on this innovation with hand-shaped wrappings (call them gloves). At such a time, jackasses who whine about the thermostat can regulate their own bodies' temperatures.
Until then, this seems like a reasonable substitute.

Good luck being a decent typist with gloves on!

If you need gloves at 55 degrees, you're probably not capable of working outside of a bubble to begin with.

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2012-07-16 Reply Admin

ceiswyn:
And unlike every other organisation in the world, which is (according to you) possibly/probably corrupt, biased, error-prone and mired in bribery and graft, these particular organisations are shining beacons of ethics and accuracy because...?

I never said that every other organization is corrupt, biased, etc. What does it say about you that you think I did? Anyway, to answer your question, the fact that they have to rely on voluntary contributions makes a difference.

ceiswyn:
At least you're honest about it.

Of course I am. That's the entire problem with both an extreme free market ideology and with communism. They both rely on people being far more self-sacrificing, helpful and generous than people actually tend to be. Have you ever heard of 'social loafing'?

No, I haven't, but apparently you've never heard of the United Way, so I guess we're even. But you miss my point, which is that you believe you need to be forced at gunpoint to do the right thing. That should tell you something.

ceiswyn:
And if you had a completely free market, do you think more or fewer people would have trouble affording healthcare...?

Given that the prohibited alternatives tend to be a fraction of the cost of the allowed treatments, and that part of the restriction is on the number of healthcare providers, probably fewer.

BTW, the preview button is your friend.

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

Coyne:
Jay:
Coyne:
It's amazing, the duality of some of the arguments that plutocrats make:

Companies should have the right to spend any amount of money they want publishing anything they want in support of any political position they wish but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to terminate any worker at any time, penalize them in any way, pay them any amount and should have the right to seek legal redress if those are inadequate but workers should not.

Companies should have the right to associate in any way they wish in order to form any kind of trust they choose, in order to set prices for the most profit but workers should not.

Isn't it amazing how plutocrats get all the rights, but hold the opinion that the workers should not? That workers should take what they get, like what they get, and shut up?

I don't know any right-winger who says that workers should not be allowed to speak out on political issues, should not be allowed to seek legal redress for breach of contract by their employers, and/or should not be allowed to freely associate with other workers (or anyone else).

Oh, yes, you're probably right about that. Instead, right wingers simply speak out for the unrestricted right of corporations to punish any worker that speaks out or seeks redress.

An example I saw yesterday was a comment related in this article (page 7) by an employee of Apple that, "Finally, when you are a full-fledged employee [of Apple], you are absolutely restricted from representing Apple in any way outside the store. If you post an identifiable comment as an employee, you will be fired immediately." (You should understand this clearly: According to this article, that means, "If you identify yourself as an Apple employee or are known to be one..." So if you say on your FaceBook profile you work for Apple and then make a "inappropriate comment" on TDWTF...terminated!) Should a company be allowed to restrict an individual's freedom of speech in that way? A right winger would instantly assert that Apple is within its rights; and its rights should not be abridged, regardless of whether Apple's actions are fair or not.

Sometimes, silence on an issue is as expressive as outright speech: When right wingers defend corporate rights to all exclusion of employee rights, their silence on employee rights is expressive indeed.

Jay:
But of course "unions" is not the same thing as "workers" at all. Just because unions claim to speak for workers does not mean they really do.

Do you really assert that any corporation would be fine with employees creating an entirely new union that was representative? Of course not: a corporation would resist that just as strongly as employees trying to organize with an existing union.

So it isn't just about "non-representative" unions; the corporation has issue with collective negotiation in itself. The "unions don't represent employees" argument is therefore exposed as a red herring; as an issue between employees and unions, not between companies and employees.

Addendum (2012-07-14 18:25): I should have read a bit more from the second-link in the Apple discussion above. This is at the bottom of the article, quoted from their employment policy: "This applies whether you engage in these activities in or outside of work, and whether or not you identify yourself as an Apple employee."

Which is even more odious than I thought.

I'm not a legal expert, but I've been a working adult for long enough that i'm surprised by your reaction to Apple's policies. Apple is interested in: protecting it's brand, and keeping tabs on it's intellectual property due to their value in the companies success. They do a better job at both than anyone in history, I'd argue.

First: employment is at-will in the United States. You can quit at any time, and you can get fired at any time. In most cases, a contract cannot change that, it can only set terms for how one may quit or be terminated.

Second: "Freedom of speech" does not mean "I can say anything I want, whenever I want, without fear of any punishment". It essentially only protects your GENERAL right to have and express an opinion or pass information without fear of punishment from the government. It does not protect you from other laws you might violate while doing such. We can all think of 100 examples of this, so I won't bother listing any.

Third: A contract that defines a consequence to an action does not take any rights away. In fact, a contract cannot take away your basic rights, and a contract that tries to do so would likely be thrown out in court.

You can still say whatever you want, but Apple will fire you. That's not a violation of your rights -- you don't have a right to a job. You won't be arrested or tried, or killed. No freedom of speech revoked. Similarly, if you sign my NDA, and then go post on the internet about by business secrets, you will be sued for breach of contract.

2012-07-16 Reply Admin

Re: "At such a time, jackasses who whine about the thermostat can regulate their own bodies' temperatures." You've obviously never had to type with gloves on. your choices are either thick gloves or blue fingers. The plus side of thick gloves is that you get to hit multiple keys with each keystroke

2012-07-17 Reply Admin

PedanticCurmudgeon:
ceiswyn:
At least you're honest about it.

Of course I am. That's the entire problem with both an extreme free market ideology and with communism. They both rely on people being far more self-sacrificing, helpful and generous than people actually tend to be. Have you ever heard of 'social loafing'?
No, I haven't, but apparently you've never heard of the United Way, so I guess we're even. But you miss my point, which is that you believe you need to be forced at gunpoint to do the right thing. That should tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that I have an accurate view of human nature, rather than relying on rosy (and demonstrably false) optimism about people's generosity to those in need. You really should look up social loafing and related topics in social psychology.

You might also find Latané and Darley's The Unresponsive Bystander interesting on the general theme of man's basic humanity, albeit tangential to the specific point at hand.

2012-07-17 Reply Admin

My physics teacher in high school had a similar solution. He'd put a wet paper towel over the thermostat in his room, evaporation would cool it.

2012-07-18 Reply Admin

The CPU is actually idling at this point - it's not even running code. An OS that's doing any more than absolutely nothing at input idle isn't a particularly efficient OS.

NOPs actually burn cycles, you need to be stuck at a HALT.

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2012-07-18 Reply Admin

ceiswyn:
PedanticCurmudgeon:
But you miss my point, which is that you believe you need to be forced at gunpoint to do the right thing. That should tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that I have an accurate view of human nature, rather than relying on rosy (and demonstrably false) optimism about people's generosity to those in need.

I seriously hope you're trolling, but just in case you aren't: No, believing others need to be forced to do the right thing is realistic. Believing that you need to be forced to do the right thing says that you have no integrity. Have you considered running for public office? You'd fit right in.

2012-07-18 Reply Admin

Why the torture test when Prime Grid and all the Computation Projects could do the same with a real purpose ?

This idea of a infinite loop or a test is nonsense : I use BOINC and particularly the World Community Grid to keep the room warm during winter.

2012-07-19 Reply Admin

I also had this idea...

-bash-3.00$ cat hot.c

int main(void) { while(1) ; } -bash-3.00$

32 Mar 14 2005 hot.c

some years ago

2012-07-19 Reply Admin

And if it is too hot, you can just change it. while (0.3) {}

:P

2012-07-19 Reply Admin

Be "Green" and full of irony.. Fire up a bunch of desktops to run BOINC ClimatePrediction project. Keep warm while crunching models of global climate change. :)

2012-07-22 Reply Admin

I actually worked in a cold room on a navy base in Hawaii once. I always left a sweater on the back of my chair. From time to time I forgot to take it off when I went out to lunch. Got some strange looks wearing my sweater around in the tropical sun ...

2012-08-28 Reply Admin

Jack:
Where I work, ... I wear a heavy jacket, ski mask, and gloves...

2012-12-19 Reply Admin

It was a distributed heating process.

2013-02-27 Reply Admin

TRWTF 1: why use an empty infinite while loop? You could at least make it do something useful or, failing that, make it do some floating point arithmetic on multiple threads (preferably utilizing all CPU cores) and/or upload some complex processing to the GPU cores. Of course this 'solution' kind of requires that no one's machine is actually doing anything useful... TRWTF 2: quantum mechanics governs all things. The 'bigger' laws of physics inherit from quantum mechanics. The correct turn of phrase here would have been 'his office was governed ONLY by the laws of quantum mechanics'

2013-06-20 Reply Admin

[quote]Aren't we in that universe which is famous for creating bigger idiots? [quote]

Create smaller doorframes. Problem solved(tm)

Capcha: delenit undelete autexec.bat REM some fucker keps DELenit

2016-07-03 Reply Admin

This sounds stolen from catb.

2016-12-03 Reply Admin

reminds me of a story i read somewhere: someone complained about his hands getting cold when he rode his bike...so a bunch of his friends started trying do design HEATED HANDLEBARS (i think they were engineers)...after a few minutes of absurd ideas being tossed around, someone finally suggested gloves...

2018-05-25 Reply Admin

On a UNIX box they wouldn't even heed to write a single line of code $ yes > /dev/null

Just a Warm-Up

Leave a comment on “Just a Warm-Up”