Folding Forum

wow. even when you have a geniune response, people still assume you're a troll. Nice.

You have exhibited every tendency. People only judge what you put out there for them to see.

As an old materials engineer, let me just pass on this unsolicited advice.
A very few, very, very few; exceptionally talented people become highly successful despite their abrasive and condescending people skills.
Steve Jobs, comes to mind.

The vast majority spend their lives wondering how they are working for obviously their intellectual inferiors.

You are obviously hard working and exceptionally gifted.
You will however get further in life working with your peers rather than looking down at them.

Best luck.

I think alpha's random question has been answered on pg 1 and the rest of this topic doesn't contribute to the original question.

Requesting thread lock or its split to the non-FAH forum.

mdk777 wrote:

wow. even when you have a geniune response, people still assume you're a troll. Nice.

You have exhibited every tendency. People only judge what you put out there for them to see.

As an old materials engineer, let me just pass on this unsolicited advice.
A very few, very, very few; exceptionally talented people become highly successful despite their abrasive and condescending people skills.
Steve Jobs, comes to mind.

The vast majority spend their lives wondering how they are working for obviously their intellectual inferiors.

You are obviously hard working and exceptionally gifted.
You will however get further in life working with your peers rather than looking down at them.

Best luck.

"You will however get further in life working with your peers rather than looking down at them."

I fully concur. But I've also come to realize, you can't carry an effective ddx with people who don't know their material. You REALLY do need someone that's at the very least, as competent as you are in the relevant subject areas (or have complimentary specialities).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a very fond and profound appreciation for programmers because I can't program if my life depended on it. I despise programming but I admire programmers for the very simple fact that they are able to do what I'd never be able to do. Not in a hundred years. Not in a million years. That, to me, automatically commands respect.

If I asked (as I have) someone to write a program using OpenMP (referring back to an old example) and they came back to me and said that it can't be done and then asked me "how would you split this function/command/algorithm" -- it's a heck of a lot easier for me to accept that. Or if they said, "we tried it. We split it, and stitched it/coupled it, and the results were that was a 56% slow down due to synchronization overhead." I'd be like..."ok. No OpenMP then." Then, it's a well supported answer (and I'm sure that if I ask for the actual numbers, they'd be able to produce it and show it to me.)

That's fine. I would have absolutely NO problems with that.

But that isn't necessarily the case here. While I also agree that first hand experiences are important, but suppose you ran the benchmarks that I did recently and you came back and be like..."we already did that kind of benchmarking back in like...2004. And here are our findings." (where upon request, you'd be able to send and/or publish the spreadsheet of the results.) I'd have no problems with that either. Cuz then you'd be able to stay what you tested, what you were testing FOR, and how you tested it.

I have to do that for my work when we run into problems. If my boss agrees with the methodology, and he agrees with how I am conducting my simulations, than if there are error in the results, then he has to go chase the bug in the code. My boss does the whole "you're an idiot" thing to me a fair bit. So, I just zip up the entire simulation run, pack it up, and send it to him and tell him "here. You run it then." and 9 times out of 10, there was something wrong with it which is what I've been telling him all along.

- * - * - * -

From what I can recall, I don't think that I've ever actually gotten one perfectly straight, honest, well support, well researched answer to some of the questions that I've asked. I could be wrong (and I probably am), but I don't think that there was ever an answer that was given where I didn't or couldn't follow up with a question asking for a further explanation or some kind of citation or referencing that wasn't inherent in it. Granted, there are a number of questions that I had asked where the answers referred me to another thread which contained or addressed with a similiar (or identical) question, but in others, they lacked substantive evidence.

So how is it that I am the troll if the answer is weak to begin with? You wouldn't lay siege on Fredericksburg with tofu, so why would anyone defend their point of argument with it? That just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever.

All of my points of arguments is there to defend against the very attacks, followed by a counter attack. And people ASK for my justification, and I let 'em have it. Yet, when I ask for theirs, after defending mine, I'm the troll. *shrug* (Personally, I don't care either way.) Only further validates the point a la Paris Geller "You don’t realize how unqualified most of America’s youth is until you gather them all up in a room and make them speak." (lol. gawd she's awesome.)

P5-133XL wrote:OK guys, Alpha's acting as a troll to bait you. You all have the knowledge and experiance to recognize and deal with people like that.

Alpha, if you ever wish to be taken seriously here, you really need to stop this type of behavior immediately. You are alienating the very people that you may need someday. So don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Don't worry, I'm not going to get stuck here replying to anything here. I know what to do and am executing troll defenses immediately. So, there's no need to reply to this message (I won't be back).

Forgot to include this in my original reply to you:

Here's a list of publications that I've been a part of prior to starting grad school:

•  Navaz. H. K., Kehtarnavaz, N., E. Chan, A Comprehensive Study of HD Sessile Droplet Evaporation on Impermeable, Non-Reacting Substrates, Chemical and Biological Defense Conference, Hunt Valley, MD: 2006
  
   Navaz, H., Markicevic, B., Zand, A., Sikorski, Y., Chan, E., and M. McElroy, Scalable Transport Models for Non-Evaporating and Evaporating Sessile Droplets within Porous Substrates, Chemical and Biological Information Agency (CBIS) Conference, Austin, TX: 2007
  
   Navaz, H., Zand, A., Markicevic, B., Sikorski, Y., Sanders, M., and E. Chan, Experimental and Numerical Study of Evaporating Droplet Spread into Porous Substrate: Solution for (HD) and (VX) Spread into UK Sand, DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) Workshop on Computational Chemistry, Maui, HI: 2007
  
   Navaz, H., Markicevic, B., Zand, A., Li, H., Chan, E., Sikorski, Y., and M. Sanders, The Fate of the Agent Droplet Deposited onto Porous Substrates – From Modeling to Operational Field Guide, Chemical and Biological Defense Conference (CBD), Timonium, MD: 2007
  
   Navaz, H. K., Markicevic, B., Zand, A., Sikorski, Y., Chan, E., and T. D’Onofrio, Liquid Sessile Droplet Transport through Porous Substrates – Determination of Capillary Pressure – A Continuum Approach, Submitted to the Journal of Physical Chemistry
  
   Navaz, H. K. and E. Chan, An Evaporation Model for HD Sessile Droplet – Comparison with Wind Tunnel Data, Accepted for the Journal of Thermal Sciences, USA: 2007
  
   Navaz, H.K., Markicevic, B., Zand, A., Sikorski, Y., Chan, E., Sanders, M., Sessile Droplet Spread into Porous Substrate – Determination of Capillary Pressure Using a Continuum Approach Accepted for the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, USA: 2008

alpha754293 wrote:...Then by that theory, why would people try to attempt to answer something that may or may not know the answer to or about (in relation to subject area)?

Besides, you don't have to be EXPERTS in the field. But knowing SOMETHING about it beyond what the website tells us would probably be quite beneficial.

People who don't know the answer to a question tend not to answer to avoid the embarassment of posting the wrong answer. While others drone on for pages at a time in an attempt to show others how smart they think they are to boost their own ego. And just because some of us won't brag about our backgrounds, doesn't mean we don't know WTH we are talking about.

Right, us forum users don't have to be experts, and we do know something beyond what is on the website, and yet you try to rip apart any answers we do give, regardless of credentials. And even when we do answer a question, and back it up with a website or citation, you still question it. You said I wasn't cited, and I showed you a single citation of many, and yet you still said it wasn't enough. So be it.

Part of the responsibility of questioning authority is knowing the right time to do it, and when to STHU.

7im wrote:

alpha754293 wrote:...Then by that theory, why would people try to attempt to answer something that may or may not know the answer to or about (in relation to subject area)?

Besides, you don't have to be EXPERTS in the field. But knowing SOMETHING about it beyond what the website tells us would probably be quite beneficial.

People who don't know the answer to a question tend not to answer to avoid the embarassment of posting the wrong answer. While others drone on for pages at a time in an attempt to show others how smart they think they are to boost their own ego. And just because some of us won't brag about our backgrounds, doesn't mean we don't know WTH we are talking about.

And yet...they're still answering.

It was being questioned, so I just simply provided my credentials. Very interesting when one can't tell the difference between the two. Course, if people had just asked about it in the first place, they probably would have learned something. But they never bothered. That's also very interesting.

7im wrote:Right, us forum users don't have to be experts, and we do know something beyond what is on the website, and yet you try to rip apart any answers we do give, regardless of credentials.

What credentials have you given? From what's been provided so far, mdk777 is a materials engineer, uncle_fungus is a biochemist/computational biologist, and the rest of the science team's credentials are posted on the "About Us" page on the F@H website.

The only thing that you've told me about yourself is that you're a contributing author of the FAQ, and that you've been running it the client for a very very long time. (Although I think that you might have made a brief mention that you were a computer scientists/programmer/networking something-or-other? I don't really remember.)

7im wrote:And even when we do answer a question, and back it up with a website or citation, you still question it. You said I wasn't cited, and I showed you a single citation of many, and yet you still said it wasn't enough. So be it.

Part of the responsibility of questioning authority is knowing the right time to do it, and when to STHU.

I'm just going to defer to what's often attributed to Sir Winston Churchill since clearly, I am engaged in a conversation with an unarmed man.

I would say the original topic seems to be exhausted. Time to close the thread.