|
I can't see how such unrealistic series can be so good?!
I see humans all around all day long, but no sign of intelligent script, good act, better not to mention the direction...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to say I found it unspeakably boring. Despite being in the same room last night as a TV showing the final episode, I have no idea what happened in the end.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: I have no idea what happened in the end
Please do not tell the others, but at the end - it finished...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it was very good; well acted, especially both mums - human and robot! I found myself rooting for the robots over the humans! 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm watching it on AMC in the USA. Very good so far.
|
|
|
|
|
http://xkcd.com/1559/[^]
Randall...that's evil...and a damn good idea... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Given the quality of the drivers in my part of the world, I would say that self-driving cars, once perfected, would probably drive more safely than most of the humans.
At the current state of the art, I would be careful about allowing them onto roads with human drivers or pedestrians.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Given some of the drivers round here, perfection isn't required before self driving cars would be an improvement.
Self driving cars won't drive drunk while texting and trying to moon out the sunroof...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Self driving cars won't drive drunk while texting and trying to moon out the sunroof.
Not until someone writes some malware to do it. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
When a decision drive by making customer centric morale focused a specific example of your contribution which faced significant resistance from an internal stakeholder. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you repeat in plain English please?
|
|
|
|
|
Happens all the time.
The sad reality of life is that your appraisal is written by the internal stakeholder and not by the external customer
|
|
|
|
|
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was a marketing dweeb with no discernible talent or ability; he did however hold a very well paid job.
He felt he needed to justify his existence to the world, and prove his worth to the Company or (in those days of corporate and worldwide downturn) he might be let go, and have to return to living under a bridge with the other hobos.
But (as we have said) he had no discernible talent or ability, so he determined to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to notice. Corporate Jargon was born!
It spread like wildfire - after all, if people had any discernible talent or ability they wouldn't be marketeers - and became the mainstream language of the Business World.
Since then, all decision driven customer centric morale focus has held a specific example of executive contributions will face significant resistance from internal stakeholder when it is run up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
modified 3-Aug-15 3:03am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, when someone posted this on a forum:
yhqoyzuq wrote: When a decision drive by making customer centric morale focused a specific example of your contribution which faced significant resistance from an internal stakeholder.
and I was tempted to answer however due to other CP posters showing hostility towards the post I changed my mind.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, I remember that time. I told the project designer that the documentation was not clear. That went down well.
|
|
|
|
|
One of those days, I guess. I'm sure tomorrow will be better.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Only when you competently revolutionize prospective information and monotonectally maximize an expanded array of supply chains.
Trust me, we've all been there
|
|
|
|
|
yhqoyzuq wrote: a decision drive by
I once took part in a decision drive by. There we were, thinking we were bad ass gangsta's in our gang colours (a rather nice looking pinstripe, with silk ties). When the fuzz showed up, we lawyered up faster than you can say "multiple layer transparency protocol, with internal focus on key deliverables".
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: a rather nice looking pinstripe, with silk ties
in Fuchsia
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Err, just a minute. I, I've got it written down 'ere on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds suspiciously like another interview question. I took a look at your history and you complained, the last time you posted a question like this, that people told you that you had to answer things for yourself rather than looking for others to give you homework or interview answers. Now, this sounds like one of those questions where the interviewer is trying to find out how YOU have managed conflict, internal politics and project demands. Why do you think that my (or others) experiences will have any relevance for you? What happens when the interviewer attempts to drill deeper into your answer? How will you cope? This is all about YOUR experiences, and YOUR projects. As you don't work for me, our client experiences are wildly different so my answers would be meaningless in your situation. You might as well answer with details about what I had for breakfast (2 hi-fi bars), that's how relevant my experiences would be for you.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the wrong forum. You should this at Buzzword Bingo.[^] 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
This is how I understand how the RSA algorithm works. I'd like to know if this is accurate.
- Entity A wishes to receive coded messages, and so generates a pair of prime numbers P & Q of a certain size (an easy task for that size), multiplies them together to get a composite prime N = P * Q and as well uses P & Q to derive (via a certain algorithm) another number E (both also easy tasks), and publishes these numbers N & E while keeping P & Q secret.
- Entity B wishes to send Entity A a coded message, and so uses the published numbers N & E to code the message (also an easy task).
- Entity A receives the message, and because A has knowledge of the secret numbers P & Q, the decryption is an easy task.
- Entity C nefariously intercepts and wants to decode the message. However, to decode the message, P & Q must be known - but the only way to uncover these numbers from N is to do a prime factorization on N, which for the size of N is an astronomically difficult task.
- When Entity B sends Entity A the coded message, the veracity of Entity B being the sender is proven in the same way, albeit as the converse.
I welcome any comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you read this...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman_key_exchange
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
