Re: Math challenge

| >During job interviews, Microsoft used to present brain | >twisters to candidates (maybe still do), looking for | >ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc. | >

| >One item: "How would you move Mt. Fuji?" | >

| >You are an interviewee. How do you answer? | | BTW, the *correct* answer is: | | "Why would I want to move it again?" | | This answer demonstrates that the applicant has a positive attitude | about his/her abilities and feels they can do anything.

This answer demonstrates that the psychotic egomaniac has a positive attitude about his/her abilities and feels they can do the impossible.

Engineering is teamwork, no one person can design a plane, a car or a cruise liner. A primadonna like that would be disruptive and upset the other team members.

Everyone knows that ant can't move a rubber tree plant! (but the entire colony can). Don't call us, we'll call you. Next, please.

Microsoft were not the only company supplying a market, they were the FIRST company supplying software to the domestic and small business markets. IBM had OS2 but it arrived on the scene too late; Apple were busy playing space invaders.

Same with VHS and Betamax VCRs. Phillips had a superior 4-head recorder but the market was swamped with VHS movies, people were not interested in freezing frames. Now VCRs are dead, replaced by DVDs and freezing frames is no problem. DVDs won't last long, they'll be replaced with non-mechanical technology.

Ford sold cars that were rubbish compared to Rolls Royce, but they worked and were cheap and acceptable to the domestic and small business markets.

The current interest in HDTV isn't really working, it only has novelty value. The current definition (resolution) is acceptable for watching any old movies. News broadcasts where people are recording events on mobile phones are scarcely "high definition TV" but better than no images at all. We can expect to see improvements in that.

There is a threshold of acceptability which Microsoft meets for the domestic and accountancy markets, although the purists will always demand better quality. That costs money and I don't need a Rolls Royce or a Formula One racing car to go grocery shopping. I do need groceries, a Ford is acceptable and so is Microsoft Windows.

You mean over-the-air HDTV (ATSC)? That's probably true... in fact, as Joerg likes to point out occasionally, in some ways it's worse than NTSC was.

But HDTVs (the physical televisions) have been phenomenally successful -- back in the '80s and much of the '90s television sales were pretty stagnant, and in the '00s LCD and plasma TVs really re-ignited the market, and high-definition has just added to it.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people ready and willing to get out their wallets to new technologies that they find *preferable*. Especially on a big-screen, very few people would *prefer* to watch, e.g., a VHS taped copy of a movie over the Blu-Ray version! :-)

The thing is, it's not really clear-cut that the Mac OS, Linux, etc. *are* truly better quality. Linux has a lot of attraction, though, because at least by being "open" anyone can go and take a look and decide for themselves just what the quality level is if they care to. But the fact of life today is that

Yep, agreed. Outside of, "PC or Mac?," the vast majority of people don't even what the other options *are*, and they do just fine.

---Joel

Yes, but that has more to do with the volume of room space the old tube sets took up than the image quality. It may be great to see someone's eyelash in detailed closeup the first time you see it, but that novelty soon wears off.

| > The current definition (resolution) is acceptable for watching | > any old movies. | | Yeah, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people ready and willing to | get out their wallets to new technologies that they find *preferable*. | Especially on a big-screen, very few people would *prefer* to watch, e.g., a | VHS taped copy of a movie over the Blu-Ray version! :-)

Sure, and I'd have a better car/computer if had more money and wanted one, but I can't honestly say I NEED a better car. As it is I have twin screens, a GeForce 9800 video card, a TV card, an X-Box 360 gamepad, a joystick, steering wheel and pedals, plus the usual printer/scanner, mouse and keyboard, and it all works just fine. I get the occasional glitch by playing Leisure Suit Larry Box Office Bust and the TV card doesn't work afterwards without a reboot, but so what? I just turn the computer off and go to bed instead of leaving it in standby as I usually do. Then there is always the standby computer, and the old standby computer out in the shed. The darn things are so cheap nowadays anyone can have several, but I won't buy a laptop on the principle that I spill coffee or vodka and coke on £6.95 keyboards regularly. The vodka is more expensive and Coca Cola isn't cheap.

| > There is a threshold of acceptability which Microsoft meets | > for the domestic and accountancy markets, although the purists | > will always demand better quality. | | The thing is, it's not really clear-cut that the Mac OS, Linux, etc. *are* | truly better quality. Linux has a lot of attraction, though, because at least | by being "open" anyone can go and take a look and decide for themselves just | what the quality level is if they care to. But the fact of life today is that | *all* major operating systems now provide regularly (weekly or monthly)

I stopped worrying about that when I retired and swore never to write code again. Nowadays the most I do is the occasional spreadsheet.

| | > That costs money and I don't | > need a Rolls Royce or a Formula One racing car to go grocery | > shopping. I do need groceries, a Ford is acceptable and so is | > Microsoft Windows. | | Yep, agreed. Outside of, "PC or Mac?," the vast majority of people don't even | what the other options *are*, and they do just fine. | | ---Joel | |

A chain (or team) is only as strong as its weakest link!

| >| >During job interviews, Microsoft used to present brain | >| >twisters to candidates (maybe still do), looking for | >| >ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc. | >| >

| >| >One item: "How would you move Mt. Fuji?" | >| >

| >| >You are an interviewee. How do you answer? | >| | >| BTW, the *correct* answer is: | >| | >| "Why would I want to move it again?" | >| | >| This answer demonstrates that the applicant has a positive attitude | >| about his/her abilities and feels they can do anything. | >

| >This answer demonstrates that the psychotic egomaniac has a | >positive attitude about his/her abilities and feels they can do | >the impossible. | >

| >Engineering is teamwork, no one person can design a plane, a car | >or a cruise liner. A primadonna like that would be disruptive and | >upset the other team members. | >

| >Everyone knows that ant can't move a rubber tree plant! (but | >the entire colony can). | >Don't call us, we'll call you. Next, please. | >

| | A chain (or team) is only as strong as its weakest link! | Correct, which is why the interview weeds out the weak links. "How would you move Mt. Fuji?" Hire lawyers, get a contract signed by the Japanese government and payment arranged for the feasibility study. Hire geologists to estimate the difficulties... yada yada yada... just as it is done in normal business. Moving Mt. Fuji is just another engineering project, much less difficult than reaching the Moon. One presumes the Japanese want it moved for a reason and have some idea where they want it moved to, but it will not be cheap; it could be a lucrative contract, so there will be competition for it. Your facetious answer will not win the contract, you are a weak link.

| >They're not really "horrible," though -- I've certainly had cars that broke | >down more often than Windows does these days. :-) | | Odd. I certainly wouldn't have a car that crashed as often as Windows does.

Weird. I certainly wouldn't have a computer that crashed as often as your driving does. Perhaps if you didn't fit Ford, Toyota, GM and Zil parts together in your car you wouldn't crash so often.

Your brain is on Windows.

| >| >They're not really "horrible," though -- I've certainly had cars that | >broke | >| >down more often than Windows does these days. :-) | >| | >| Odd. I certainly wouldn't have a car that crashed as often as Windows | >does. | >

| >

| >Weird. I certainly wouldn't have a computer that crashed as often as your | >driving does. Perhaps if you didn't fit Ford, Toyota, GM and Zil parts | >together in your car you wouldn't crash so often. | | Your brain is on Windows. | Your neuron is on car crashes. Drive your car for one hour a day, leave it parked for the other 23 hours, do you? Maybe two hours tops? That's wreckophobia (fear of fender-bender). I leave my computer running 24/7. I certainly wouldn't have a computer that wrecked as often as your driving does.

IKWYABWAI, is about all you can manage, I know.

My car doesn't crash once a month, or once a year, or once a decade (or three).

You're an idiot, too. No surprises today.

| >| >| >They're not really "horrible," though -- I've certainly had cars that | >| >broke | >| >| >down more often than Windows does these days. :-) | >| >| | >| >| Odd. I certainly wouldn't have a car that crashed as often as Windows | >| >does. | >| >

| >| >

| >| >Weird. I certainly wouldn't have a computer that crashed as often as | >your | >| >driving does. Perhaps if you didn't fit Ford, Toyota, GM and Zil parts | >| >together in your car you wouldn't crash so often. | >| | >| Your brain is on Windows. | >| | >Your neuron is on car crashes. | | IKWYABWAI, is about all you can manage, I know. | | >Drive your car for one hour a day, leave it | >parked for the other 23 hours, do you? | | My car doesn't crash once a month, or once a year, or once a decade (or | three).

Well, if you drove it at 50 mph for 100,000 miles it would be worn out in 2,000 hours. At 24 hours at day that's 83 days, a little short of 3 months. Maybe you'll get 200,000 miles out of it driving for 6 months or no miles out of it in 20 years by not driving it. Look after it, do you? Polish it? Change the oil every 100 running hours (5,000 miles)? I don't change the oil in my computer every 4 days, but I do blow the dust out every 6 months. Don't get much use out of your car, do you? Expensive status symbol, is it? What did you pay for it? $20,000? My computer cost £500.

| >Maybe two hours tops? That's wreckophobia (fear of fender-bender). | >I leave my computer running 24/7. I certainly wouldn't have a computer | >that wrecked as often as your driving does. | | You're an idiot, too. No surprises today. | You are a babbling, whining cretin but I'm not complaining. I certainly wouldn't have a $500 computer that wore out in three months as your $20,000 car does. Fuck off, moron.

Money talks, bullshit walks, losers.

============================ You have that right, Richard. What we are seeing from Koltner and " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" (a clear s*****ad with that name) is plain old jealousy and miserable bitching.

That's the answer*: Delegate the task to my team.

A chain takes the strain in series, a team spreads the load!

you win.