So you admit that you're full of shit. You're right about that, anyway.
"Scarcely relevant"? You're someone to talk, Slowman. You've a never has been, as has everyone you've ever been associated with.
Correct, as usual.
dn't have a clue about that. He used to work late, and the more junior engi neers working with him had to spend their mornings documenting (or - freque ntly - undoing)the undocumented changes he'd made to the gear they were wor king on.
that project, but I had been so rude about the technical idiocy of the whol e project that he'd got me thrown off (to my enormous relief). I note that I posted about this in here in 2012.
A remarkably silly claim, even for Jamie.
Jamie's untrammelled imagination can produce six impossible images before b reakfast. Quite why he sees any point in sharing them with us escapes me.
After I'd been in a job for about two years I did tend to know more about i t than most of the people I was working with, including some who'd been the re longer. This could be embarrassing, and I did what I could to make it le ss painful. This obviously didn't extend to tolerating designs that incorpo rated obsolescent integrated circuits because "that was what had been used before". Oddly enough, the one guy explicitly I picked on for doing that wa s a very good engineer indeed, but a little too willing to accept existing designs. We stayed friends despite the comment, and are still on good terms - he has always known that I think highly of his skills.
It sums you up. You've obviously never been in that position, nor had to co pe with being in that position.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ey
ers ...
ing
/yr
ccessful at being something else is fine, but scarcely relevant.
Only krw could be stupid enough to make that claim, or to think that making it doesn't show him up as a total moron.
Whereas krw is something else.
he wrong kind of engineering,
aBy which krw means that his claim is something that he believes. He has no concept of connecting what he "knows" with anything going on in the world o utside his head.
What does krw need to read for? He knows everything already. Quite a bit of what he knows is wrong, but he lacks a functional error-correcting mechani sm. He's got the first bit - he can scan incoming data and test whether it agre es with what he knows - but he lacks the other half, which would set a "les s than perfectly reliable" flag on what he knows when it starts showing fre quent conflicts with incoming data.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I only put what you said into context, Slowman. You said it.
Putting something "into context" involves demonstrating it's relationship with some other aspect of reality. Krw's claim was of a rather lower order, and had no more relation to reality than anything else krw ever posts.
The poor fool doesn't know what words mean and post cliches in contexts where they don't actually fit. It's ironic when you think about it - which is a trick krw can't manage.
>
means that I've carved off all of your obfuscation.
e:
involves demonstrating it's relationship with some other aspect of reality. Krw's claim was of a rather lower order, and had no more relation to reali ty than anything else krw ever posts.
It may strike you as obfuscation, but that would be because you don't want to understand the point involved (and probably couldn't have if you had wan ted to). Snipping the "obfuscation" without marking the snip is text-chopping, anoth er of your less-than-charming habits. If you had really thought that what I wrote was intentionally over-complicated (which, as I probably need to rem ind you, is what "obfuscation" means) you could have proved the point by ex pressing the same though more concisely, always assuming that you had the w it to understand the point in the first place
>
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.