Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Misjargonization (Score 1) 366

It might be an archaic term, but they've been in the business for a lot longer than you have (or you would have recognized the terminology).

I recognize the misuse just fine; I've been at this since the 1960's. Front panel toggles, punchcards and paper tape are wholly familiar to me, as are arranging diodes in a matrix and building CPUs out of RTL and TTL. The fact that I recognize the misuse is not motivation to appreciate it, any more than I would if some non-contemporaneous Babbage-era use of "gears" was suddenly thought to be a good idea to use as the go-to word for software, or if someone referred to a modern day stick of RAM as "core", or if someone insisted on referring to computers in general as abaci.

The industry is well centered around particular terminology right now and has been for decades. That's the terminology to use, unless you want people focusing more on what you said, than what you meant. Which tends to lead to the wrong place no matter what you do. Particularly in engineering. Words matter. Being sloppy is costly.

Comment Re: Electric, or Jet? (Score 1) 160

Actually... I knew exactly what he meant.

I think the person being pedantic is you. He might being imprecise. I think you are the one who's being ostentatious about your learning or overly concerned with minute details or formalisms.

----

pedantic
[puh-dan-tik]

adjective
1.
ostentatious in one's learning.
2.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

Comment Misjargonization (Score 4, Interesting) 366

Referring to software and applications as 'codes' is common in many industries (example "here). People that use such terminology are of much higher than average intelligence.

And so they have even less excuse for their mangling of the terminology, and definitely should be smiled at, nodded to, and ultimately, ignored other than when they have some kind of arbitrary coercive power over you, in which case, do it in your head anyway.

If you walk up to a nuclear engineer with your 140 IQ and ask him to "turn up the atumz", he should probably just call security and have your ass thrown out on the street.

Seriously. If you don't know even the basics of an industry's terminology -- it's time to leave off trying to involve yourself until you get that handled. If you do.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 304

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re:Do you code? (Score 1, Interesting) 366

Also you have interface complexity. Adding these features requires some way to use the features, possibly including configuration options, menu items, hotkeys and so on. Prior to the Ribbon, Microsoft tried to fix this in Word by hiding all the menu items you had not used yet, so you'd never know those features were there to be used. My boss constantly asks me to remove menu items and "simplify" but he never has any answers on where he thinks users should go to access those features if they're no longer in the menu. Relevant Dilbert.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 304

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 304

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Slashdot Top Deals

Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert

Working...