Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25575
Show key headers only | View raw
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:24:13 +0800, Peter Duniho wrote: > On 2/8/11 7:17 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: >> [...] >> Sure I could have tried mucking about with assorted google queries. I >> just plain didn't feel like it. Satisfied? > > Yes. That's all I wanted: your admission, even absent an apology, that > you were lazy. But you didn't get it. I don't agree that it is "lazy" to ask someone instead of googling. What do you usually do if you're talking to someone and they mention the name of something you're unfamiliar with, but in a manner that strongly implies that they know exactly what it is? Do you a) ask them or b) jump up, run off to the public library, and start poking about in their card catalog? Or even c) pull out your smartphone and start searching the net? I'm guessing the answer is a. The same applies if the conversation itself is online. It's much more natural to respond where you are rather than switch tasks (and mental gears) to something else entirely (such as from usenet to web surfing) for a while. Furthermore, consider what happens if a number of people read a post and, say, wonder what J is. What happens if one asks almost immediately? The others see the question posted, mostly wait unless they really need to know quickly, and eventually may see an answer posted. The human effort involved: 1 question typed and, a bit later, 1 answer typed, with no research since the answerer is presumed to have already known the answer (the original mentioner of J presumably knows). What happens if nobody asks, say because they know they're likely to get flamed if they do? All of the people who want to know each go to google and start trying various queries. Maybe they get a likely definitive answer after three queries on average. Assume each query involves the same amount of human effort as posting a question or a brief answer on the same topic. As soon as there are just 2 people wanting to know the answer, break-even is achieved. The effort querying equals the effort for q&a. Once there are three or more, the effort is lower for q&a than for querying; and with even more people, there is quite a wasteful duplication of effort with their respective google searches. What you call laziness, therefore, I call efficiency. And I shouldn't need to remind you that efficiency is a virtue. > Now, was that so hard? I categorically refute the negative implications regarding my character and personality that you have insinuated here and in your other recent posts, via loaded words such as "lazy" and via condescending language such as lmgtfy and "now, was that so hard?". Christ, this is ridiculous. I'm starting to sound slightly like Twisted. If this newsgroup is usually this hostile to people that ask innocuous, not-in-the-group-FAQ questions, I begin to understand how he got the way he is!
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Why “new”? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 16:23 +0100 Re: Why “new”? Jerry Gerrone <scuzwalla@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 22:12 -0800
csiph-web