| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
<0> te
<1> I think the better question is why do so many people have jobs they're not qualified for? (like all the stupid people with IT and CS jobs)
<2> Ok. Here is the inverse proposition: stupid people are less successful than smart ones.
<2> What argument do we have for that?
<0> that just means that you've seen stupid people sucessful (no support as to why they are in fact stupid), and that smart people (again, no support as to why they're considered smart) in 'unsucessful' positions
<2> stupidity is a very broad term. So is smartness.
<2> So is success.
<0> well, you're the one that brought those terms into it
<2> The word generally gives you a further departure from absolutism.
<0> IRR^ you can't have the other side of the argument respond until theres some support for your argument that can be argued against
<2> Therefore my statement isn't in any way axiomatic.
<2> Why do you want me to give you methodical explanation of my statement?
<0> no, I want to see how you go about cl***ifying someone as stupid or smart, then how you cl***ify someone as successful or unsucessful, and then how you've managed to conclude that stupid people are more sucessful than smart people.
<3> Asmodee` Peter Principle ?
<0> then we can pick apart the flaws in your cl***ification, or in your reasoning
<2> rdragon, how many bosses have you had in your lifetime?
<0> in my life? I've had 4 jobs
<2> So 4 bosses?
<0> well, more than 4 bosses
<3> they're not related
<2> Ok, were the majority of them smarter than you?
<3> I've worked for the same boss at more than 1 place
<0> IRR^ - not in my opinion
<2> vawjrwrk what does your experience say?
<3> about what?
<2> Were the majority of your bosses smarter than you?
<0> IRR^ - however, I don't consider any of them particularly sucessful, either
<0> (nor do I consider myself sucessful, though I like to think i'm on the right track)
<2> vawjrwrk must be consulting his long long list of bosses :D
<3> and smarter in what sense? they certainly knew a lot less than I about some things (even some work related things)
<3> and they knew more about other things than I
<2> vawjrwrk a montecarlo integration of all of their smartness vectors
<4> The problem is that it's not talent but age that determines your position in the company
<3> AxeMan sometimes
<4> you don't have 20 year old managers and 40 year old coders
<4> you'll find talented managers and 'stupid' ones
<3> young ones and old ones
<4> just like if you're a programmer there'll be talented ones and crap ones
<3> wise ones and foolish ones (foolish ones are the worst)
<0> this is a defunct argument
<4> if you're in the top 25% then 75% of managers approx will be more 'stupid' as you say
<4> but 25% will be as talented or even more
<2> Why in our society, are stupid people generally more successful than smart people?
<4> this reminds me of office space :D
<0> IRR^ I don't think you've convinced anyone that that situation is actually true
<4> nn
<5> i can give you a counter-example: rdragon
<5> stupid *and* unsuccessful
<0> ;)
<5> this bores me, time to read, work, or play games
<5> which will i do, hmm
<2> stay bored
<2> Where is Ashe these days?
<6> ne1 have any ideas of what would be a good way to generate a random list from 1 to N?\
<3> what are you going to do with it?
<3> "good" is such a vague word here
<7> ves, vawjr's right, you should rethink your design
<8> no!
<8> never rethink anything!
<7> But for that design, you can just build a vector of N size
<8> Just push forward!
<8> always forward! No matter what!
<7> And loop through setting a random value to each iteration
<7> Hiya ni
<8> or, does he mean like shuffle a deck of cards?
<8> ves3454? Hello?
<8> hello?
<8> we can't help if you don't talk!
<0> how can he talk.... when he can't open his mouth
<6> hi sorry
<6> NoideaWRK: i was thinking more along the lines of a unique list of numbers from 1-N
<6> i guess more like a permutation
<3> random_shuffle
<3> probably the easiest to do
<6> hmm
<9> did there is a big differance between visual studio 6 and the new one?
<3> yes
<3> throw away 6
<9> my friend just don't stop telling me that i should change
<9> why?
<9> what the differance
<3> because it's a piece of ****, it doesn't even come CLOSE to the standard for C++
<10> Satan666: Standard compliance
<3> it _was_ released before teh standard was approved
<9> the c++ standart? or the stl?
<3> it's spelled STANDARD !!!!!!
<9> lol
<3> why the **** to all these idiots spell it with a trailing t?
<9> becose it's the way we pronouce it
<8> yup, that's where I was headed too vawjr.
<3> then learn to speak
<9> don't capote man
<8> capote?
<8> the author?
<9> lol, forget that
<8> Truman Capote?
<9> no, it's a french expression
<8> and, what does it mean?
<8> you're not in France.
<9> it's hard to translate
<3> Quebec
<9> no, quebec
<8> yeah, they speak English there too.
<9> yeah, i'm not too bad, but that why i've made mistake sometime
<9> so, what's was so bad with the old VC6 compiler?
<3> we told you
<9> you just say that it's a piece of ****, it's not very precise!
<10> Satan666: It's not standard compliant
<3> it doesn't adhere to the standard....maybe if I say it's doesn't adhere to the standart you'll understand?
<10> what else to say? it should be more than enough to not use it
<3> so what's so hard to understand about that... it lets you write illegal stuff and it tries to compile it... it gives you errors on other legal stuff
<9> but the standard of what? C++? or the STL?
<3> geezus you're ****ing dense
<3> there IS NO STANDARD on the STL
<9> ok, i got it
<3> <3> because it's a piece of ****, it doesn't even come CLOSE to the standard for C++
<11> hy all
<9> where can i find some info 'bout this standard
<3> I see you can't apparently comprehend past the word **** (that was the very first reply to your quesiton)
<3> read any book published since 1998 on C++
<3> well, and at least semi-reasonable book
<9> lol
<3> or get a copy of the standard
<3> not really useful for _learning_ the language
<12> don't capote, heh.
<9> Did the new VC++ compiler need a fast computer to run? I've a Duron 700 mHz. It's enough?
<3> does it matter? your compiler is broken
<9> it matter 'cause i've tried to run the new delphi version on my machine and it was too slow to use it
<9> so i don't want that to happen with visual studio too
<3> ok, if you want to continue to use a broken piece of software, that's your choice
<13> hello wheri is bibl of strcpy
<3> xlinux why not go ask in #C
<9> what do you mean, i'm talking of the newer VC stuff
<13> bu ti wan tuse his in c++ windows
<14> bibl?
<9> the new 2005 compiler
<13> bibliotek
<3> Satan666 then I don't understand your quesiont about "fast computer"
<9> it's cannot be a piece of ****!
<12> indeed it's cannot
<3> Satan666 what are you babbling about
<9> i'm just asking if the new VC stuff work well on an 700 mHz
<3> if you have it, why don't you tell us? my comment was that your current compiler is broken
<3> so it doesn't matter how well it works.... VC++6.0 is broken
<3> i.e. it doesn't work at all
<9> don't exagerate! i'ev made zillion thing with it!
<12> it works when you write as broken code
<15> "<9> don't exagerate! i'ev made zillion thing with it!" <- great quote
<14> lol
<3> Satan666 why don't you just go away before you REALLY piss me off and I ban you for life
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
wshaper asus
lovelymale
tintreda
#chatzone
how to get install FFVIII
turn off beagled-helper
#london
yast man page
what does works toilet cleaner contain
bicca mil bibbja
|
|