Hear, hear! Thank you for the appropriate and physically literate statement of what I would have liked to tell GP.

Sorry son, it is you who have been defeated by your own ignorance and closed-mindedness. You threw out one (dumb, totally invalid and irrelevant) analogy, somebody came back with a very proper analogy to something actually *related* to magnetism, and you shrugged it off as him not understanding magnetism. In fact, your narrow understanding of magnetism with your little coin analogy has been a convenient way to understand the concept for many years...until today. That's the point. Scientists have been researching monopoles for a long time, quite simply because the coin analogy never quite added up - there was no good reason why they *always* came as dipoles, besides that monopoles had never been observed. Now they have been, everything you know about magnets will probably be wrong once more data is gathered, and you will either have to take the scientists' word for it, or you will have continue using inaccurate mental models to make sense out of it for yourself.

Watch this - Games like NHL, Madden, and MLB The Show aren't quality games. I did it! You said I couldn't and yet I did! It wasn't even that hard. Furthermore, I didn't even have to lie - those games suck, they are derivative, mindless, and boring. Plus, making the same game every year with slightly better graphics and an updated roster is brutally unimpressive. Why do the graphics even matter in sports games? You could see plenty enough detail to know what was going on in Tecmo Bowl for NES, let alone Madden around 98. All these enhancements are just icing, except even less filling.

tested rigorously != formally proven

Sounds impressive, but "part of the first Orange-book A1 level certification" != "formally proven".

Are you sure it was a "tip"? Are you sure it wasn't *nothing*?

That sucks! Where do you live? I'll make sure not to move there...

No...this is my point, even for small things like that, insertion is still better. Same small code size, same memory footprint, much better best and average case performance. no point using bubble sort as far as I can see.

Woah! ADD my friend. Apply that intellect of yours to one thing at a time!

I dunno, I think that's why you learn insertion (is there really a case for bubble in some cases? Would be interesting news to me). You learn bubble as a basis for understanding other algorithms. Both are important.

Bah! Well first, thank you for a real response backed up by knowledge in the field, but still, bah! This is exactly the type of thing we don't like! Isn't it obvious that "assholes" are poison to a workforce? Was all this studying really necessary for that conclusion? If not, then the relevant portion of the study is how to "detect" assholes. So what's the answer from management types (I'm not trying to offend, just give a perspective) - paperwork! We'll make everybody take the same impersonal test asking dumb, subjective questions for which most people will just throw out whatever answer they think management is looking for. And this is astounding? Color me unconvinced. Everybody knows who the assholes are...or is the goal of these new-fangled psychological techniques to remove the necessity of a manager to actually interact with their employees and know who they are?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I also don't understand what you mean. You say that managers need "constant training" but you don't say what kind of training. If you're talking about a willingness to keep learning about your employees and growing your leadership skills by analyzing which things you do that work and which that don't, then I understand. But this is more on par with building skill in a single technology, learning all the little quirks slowly. What I'm interested to know is if there is any analogue in management to a techie learning something completely new - we do it all the time to stay relevant, but what about managers?

Hi! (I'm trying to start with a friendly vibe because otherwise I'm afraid my comment might come off as sarcastic.) I think that the reason the slashdot community generally considers management to be a no-brainer (as evidenced very recently by your extremely underrated post) is that we all believe, often from first-hand experience, but also from hear-say, speculation, and exaggeration, that many of the "skills, techniques, and tools" that managers try to stay up on are merely bullshit to make them managers seem busy and justify their continued employment. I'm curious (seriously) what things you think managers need to keep up with that don't fall into that category.

We don't know what people would do if piracy weren't an option. It very well might be that the sales of games and movies might be significantly lower.

I'm not gonna say "fixed that for you" because it could be either your way or my way based on the evidence in your post. If you're going to say something like "we have no idea", you can't then posit that one thing "might very well be" without recognizing that the other thing could also very well be. If you think one way is more likely than the other, then you have to say why that is.

Pardon, what I meant was, the should *just* be using Matlab - what does FORTRAN do that Matlab can't?