Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26090

Re: Why “new”?

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:39:27 -0500, Lew wrote:

> Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> There comes a point when finding out what someone meant is easier by
>>> simply asking them rather than googling. I find that point tends to
>>> come if I'd have to run three or four google queries in a row to get
>>> the answer rather than, say, one.
> 
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> Really? Incredible!
>>
>> Google says it resolves a search in around 2/10ths of a second for me.
>> Even accounting for network latency, I can get a search done in about 1
>> second. Even accounting for the time it takes to type (let's assume
>> you're awful at typing and can manage only 5 words a minute or so, thus
>> making the typing time by far the dominant time-consumer in the
>> activity), you ought to be able to complete a half-dozen three-word
>> queries in a few minutes.

1. You grossly underestimate my latency. I hate waiting for webpages to
   load.
2. Asking is still quicker than messing around trying multiple google
   queries.
3. Asking someone who definitely knows the answer and can rattle it off
   in a couple of seconds flat may well result in less total human labor
   than a moderate amount of googling.
4. I am not under any obligation that I know of to google, or to avoid
   asking such questions.
5. Anyone who disliked my question was perfectly free to ignore it.

I think the nasty responses are clearly less justified than the question 
was.

So your "punishment" is out of all proportion to the alleged "crime".

>> Is that really so much harder than spending all this time complaining
>> that I was "snarky" and trying to defend your laziness?

There was no laziness.

> For him, it is, because he can't troll a Google search.

Unconstructive.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why “new”? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-02-06 09:13 -0400
  Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-08 22:59 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-02-09 12:55 +0000
  Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 05:42 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-08 23:07 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-08 07:39 -0500
      Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 16:14 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-08 20:22 +0800
    Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 11:59 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 19:18 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:03 -0500
  Re: Why “new”? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:01 -0500
    Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 12:33 +0100
      Re: Why “new”? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-08 20:32 +0800
  Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:45 +0100
    Re: Why “new”? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-02-06 20:20 -0800
  Re: Why “new”? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-02-07 11:27 +0800
  Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:17 +0100

csiph-web