›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 080310 - What is Information Technology?

RymRym
edited March 2008 in Technology
Tonight on GeekNights, we answer the age-old question: what is Information Technology? In the news, Tim Couch is a Luddite moron, vaccines save the day in Uganda, and a bad article raises an interesting question.

Scott's Thing - Brickarms
Rym's Thing - The Cuban USB-Stick Underground
«1

Comments

  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    Scott's Thing -Brickarms
    That is awesome and wrong at the same time.
  • ZakoSoldierZakoSoldier
    edited March 2008
    I guess I'm going to start the governor-off

    New Jersey-- Jon Corzine
    Let's see how long he lasts
    Post edited by ZakoSoldier on
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    Texas - Rick Perry
  • BantaBanta
    Religious Jews - Jews
    Cultural/Ethnic Jews - Hebrew
  • AprecheApreche
    Religious Jews - Jews
    Cultural/Ethnic Jews - Hebrew
    That doesn't work. Hebrew already refers to the language, Hebrew. It is also used to refer to ancient Hebrews.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    "It is ok to discriminate against someone for their thoughts and actions but not for something that they have no say in." is a quote you needed to around 25:00.
  • am_dragonam_dragon
    edited March 2008
    Missouri - Matt Blunt - possibly corrupt, under investigation.

    I find it most difficult not to discriminate against people that are lazy and/or disrespectful.

    Wow, that was short. IT is the department that provides and maintains technological resources required by an organization. That's my definition anyway. I agree that to many companies try to use CS guys to build an IT infrastructure. IT is a cost center for business. IT like a car, you spend money and while the value may not increase, you always get to work on time. In other words the level of service you provide your customers (internal and external) will remain the same or get better.
    Post edited by am_dragon on
  • RymRym
    Wow, that was short.
    There's too much to cover. I'll be covering simply "helpdesk" next time.

    (Also, my throat hurt, so I was trying to cram a bunch in and then go to bed ^_~)
  • am_dragonam_dragon
    edited March 2008
    Posted By: am_dragon(Also, my throat hurt, so I was trying to cram a bunch in and then go to bed ^_~)
    Is that code for "play SSBB"?
    Post edited by am_dragon on
  • RochelleRochelle
    Is that code for "play SSBB"?
    I think it is.
  • VigaViga
    Is that code for "play SSBB"?
    I think it is.
    *places a bet on it*
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2008
    Religious Jews - Jews
    Cultural/Ethnic Jews - Hebrew
    That doesn't work. Hebrew already refers to the language, Hebrew. It is also used to refer to ancient Hebrews.
    How about "The Awesomians"?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    Maryland- Martin O'Malley.
  • jccjcc
    edited March 2008
    People often don't know who their governor is because the Federalists won the war. :) There was a time when the United States were a bit like the European Union is today, and Georgia and Massachusetts were essentially different countries that had favorable trade agreements and shared expenses on certain things of importance to the region as a whole. Nowadays most people don't care. They follow jobs like herds of wandering buffalo across the nation, and watch the same TV, buy the same products, eat the same foods, no matter where they are. All that's left of state individualism is a set of sort of loose-knit regional cultures that make the West Coast somewhat different from the South, even if Oregon and Washington or North Carolina and South Carolina are more or less the same.

    New York's governor did do some positive things during his run. These shouldn't be ignored in addressing his character. However, a governor who breaks his own laws shouldn't be condoned in his behavior.

    The "don't take real medicine, it's bad for you!" people sometimes get it right, so it's important to consider each case on its own merits. Although it was marketed more as a health food than a medicine, if someone had said, "Don't eat margarine, it's bad for you!" they would have been laughed at at one time. However, study into trans-fat (which margarine is largely made up of) have proven that they were correct.

    Your biology teacher was probably just cheap. :) If a person can grow their own vaccine, I could see them wanting to skirt the doctor's fees. Not sure how good of an idea it would be, though... did he ever do this to himself?

    I'm still convinced that you guys would enjoy Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    Are you sure those USB sticks aren't just full of porn? :)
    Post edited by jcc on
  • AprecheApreche
    The "don't take real medicine, it's bad for you!" people sometimes get it right, so it's important to consider each case on its own merits.
    When?
  • jccjcc
    edited March 2008
    Note the trans-fat example. The "don't take real medicine, it's bad for you!" people are typically the same people as the "don't eat this high-tech food, it's bad for you!" people. :)

    Also, IT sounds a lot like being a reference librarian, only with collections of technology replacing collections of books.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited March 2008
    Note the trans-fat example. The "don't take real medicine, it's bad for you!" people are typically the same people as the "don't eat this high-tech food, it's bad for you!" people. :)
    Trans-fat isn't medicine. Also, nobody ever said to eat trans-fat. They said to eat less fat overall, and to avoid saturated fat. Margarine was the suggested alternative because it had unsaturated fats. They didn't know about trans-fat at the time.

    The reality of the world is this. We will most likely never know everything there is to know. However, we can know some things. Through science, evidence-based medicine, etc. we can make decisions based on real things which we observe. Nothing will ever be 100% perfect because there will always be something else you do not know. Regardless of that, I would much rather go with a decision based on the knowledge we do have, than to go with something that is just made up.

    Homeopathy, Chiropractic, Acupuncture, the whole lot of them are just made up. They are no different than any other work of fiction. The works of science and technology may not be 100% perfect all the time, but nothing is. And just because they are not perfect does not mean you should side against them, or give any credence to made up horse shit.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    Note the trans-fat example.
    Trans-fat was conflated with saturated fat in many studies, and its negative effects were thus obscured and largely unknown. As soon as the truth was discovered, action was taken. That's how science works. If someone says everything new is bad for you, then they're bound to be "right" when the occasional thing is found to be bad for you, regardless of the countless things that are straight-up improvements.
  • jccjcc
    edited March 2008
    If I understand correctly, your take is that although there are occasional mistakes, the benefits to humankind outweigh the risks of taking an aggressive stance in the sciences. This is a reasonable viewpoint.

    However, as the lag time between invention and widespread adoption decreases the severity of impact one little mistake can have also increases. Nowadays one ought to spend more time on the issues involved, not less. If the duty of questioning the potential impact and risk of scientific or technological developments has been yielded to nutjobs, the blame should lie with the intelligent individual who has complacently decided to drop the torch more than with anyone else.

    Skepticism should never be one-sided.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • NeitoNeito
    Massachusetts - Deval Patrick.
  • BantaBanta
    Religious Jews - Jews
    Cultural/Ethnic Jews - Hebrew
    That doesn't work. Hebrew already refers to the language, Hebrew. It is also used to refer to ancient Hebrews.
    It may not be the correct term but it is the one I use, I have Jewish heritage on my mothers side of the family but I ascribe to the cultural more than the religious aspects of it.

    Considering how interconnected the religion of Judaism and the culture/ethnicity of "Jews" is there is no specific word to describe a person is religiously Jewish or ethnically Jewish besides "Religious Jew" or "Ethnic Jew", at least officially.
  • Mr. EricMr. Eric
    North Carolina- Mike Easly. That's all I know.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    It is amazing how fast the Spitzer story went from being about the money transfers to, "it's just about sex". I guess the Democrats feel that defense worked fine when Clinton lied under oath about sex so why not try it again?
  • laiklaik
    Minnesota-Tim Pawlenty
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2008
    It is amazing how fast the Spitzer story went from being about the money transfers to, "it's just about sex". I guess the Democrats feel that defense worked fine when Clintonlied under oathabout sex so why not try it again?
    Where were the conservatives when Scooter Libby lied under oath about national security?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    It is amazing how fast the Spitzer story went from being about the money transfers to, "it's just about sex". I guess the Democrats feel that defense worked fine when Clintonlied under oathabout sex so why not try it again?
    Where were the conservatives when Scooter Libbylied under oathabout national security?
    Once again you miss the point.

    Democrats took a case of committing one crime (perjury) and framed it as being about sex. Now they are doing the same thing. It does not matter what the crime is.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2008
    Democrats took a case of committing one crime (perjury) and framed it as being about sex. Now they are doing the same thing. It does not matter what the crime is.
    Without the sex, there would have been no deposition. The "perjury" supposedly took place in the deposition about the sex scandal. How can you say it wasn't about sex?

    And you know what? Clinton was never indicted for perjury, much less was he tried or found guilty. It's not for you to say he committed a crime. In fact, since he was never charged, it never happened, criminally speaking. No indictment = no crime. Furthermore, your saying that he lied under oath shows how un-patriotic you are for criticizing our president.

    Scooter, on the other hand, was indicted and found guilty by a jury. He lied. Not about sex, but about matters of national security. He was also found guilty of obstructing justice in an investigation concerning matters of national security.
    Once again you miss the point.
    Miss the point? I'm not stupid, Steve. Between the two of us, I'm NOT the one who cut a stupid hole in his stupid wall to hold his stupid projection screen TV and then admittted to doing it in public.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why are you so hung up on Libby?

    What? You think I cut a hole in my wall for my TV? Are you really that blind? I got those pics from a site about redneck architecture, check the source code on the links.

    You still miss the point that when a scandal hits a Democrat (with any mention of sex) Democrats circle the wagons and turn the whole thing into "who cares, it's only about sex".
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2008
    Why are you so hung up on Libby?
    Why are you so hung up on Clinton?
    What? You think I cut a hole in my wall for my TV? Are you really that blind? I got those pics from a site about redneck architecture, check the source code on the links.
    Odd that you didn't say so in that thread . . . and even if the photographs come from a "redneck architecture" site, that doesn't prove it wasn't you. You have more websites than anyone I've ever "met" and you're the biggest redneck I know.
    You still miss the point that when a scandal hits a Democrat (with any mention of sex) Democrats circle the wagons and turn the whole thing into "who cares, it's only about sex".
    Oh, I'm sorry. The Republicans never protect their own. It's just those gosh-darned Democrats. Whatever, man. Notice which side of the aisle likes buttsex and pedophilia the most . . .
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    edited March 2008
    It is amazing how fast the Spitzer story went from being about the money transfers to, "it's just about sex". I guess the Democrats feel that defense worked fine when Clintonlied under oathabout sex so why not try it again?
    Its more than a bit silly to pin the shift in this story on a group of shadowing Democratic Party masterminds who are responsible for every possible damage control spin over the past twelve or so years. The media spins it this way because it sells. Free market journalism is simplest explanation here. Bringing up Clinton out of nowhere, just demonstrates that you have an axe to grind and are looking for the flimsiest excuse to do so.
    Post edited by J.Sharp on
Sign In or Register to comment.