DAST Chat

2012-11-04 18:43:21

#7901

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5569|London, England

Trust me, I deal with professional stuff all day long. Engineers love love love to write in acronyms and couple that with the fact that most of them can't spell or write clearly and it's a nightmare to get through a lot of the stuff. It just seems to me that too many people equate opaqueness of writing with intelligence, which circles us back to the article which began this discussion in the first place...

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-04 18:53:23

#7902

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6900|Tampa Bay Florida

13rin wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
sending gun ships and soldiers into an unknown, fluid situation, in a country that we aren't trying to wreck, yeah, nothing even more horrible than losing 4 americans could come of that. This ain't some movie. shit happens fast and tends to quickly spiral out of control. fuck, they rehearsed the Abbottobad raid and still crashed a goddamned helicopter.

none of us know exactly what was going on, so speculating that it's some secret muslim capitulation plot is just fucking dumb.
That's funny... So what was that whole Arab spring, our Air Force over Lybia in helping the "freedom fighters" not us trying to wreck a country about then?

From your comments it's obvious that you haven't followed this, at all. A 7 hour long assault isn't an "unknown, fluid situation". As a matter of fact it was being watched live in the WH sitroom. Also stories are now breaking that the WH received intel and was aware that there were several terrorist training sites that were established in Benghazi for months. During this assault our guys requested numerous times for assistance and even had targets lased. Don't be a retard. I know it isn't a movie, but tell that to the guy that had the power to end it that sat there and watched Americans dying in real time. A General was removed from command who moved to intervene. One of the Seals who died disobeyed direct orders, left the safe house and returned to aid his countrymen. He fought for several hours and watched while mortar explosion were walked in on his position and ultimately killed him. A single C130 over that area could have neutralized that assault.

Do you really think the CIA likes the attention the Republicans are giving them?

You guys can be unbelievable sometimes. "Ya dude I totally know all about the AC-130's firepower blah blah so the President's wrong"

Was it a fuck up? Yes. Did people die? Yes. Is it a political issue? No. The "diplomat" was caught with his pants down, meeting with the CIA. It's part of the job. Did you guys honestly blame Bush everytime a sniper took a potshot at our troops in Iraq?

2012-11-04 19:31:08

#7903

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Technical writers quite often do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms. That's why classes on technical writing exist--to help scientists who often pay no attention to the rules or aesthetics of a language get their points across.
If technical writers do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms because of flow, they're not very good technical writers. If it's a matter of vocabulary, that's the reader's fault.

Technical writing also has more applications than documenting science.
I do agree that vocabulary issues can be laid at the readers feet, but that doesn't mean that writers need to throw every million dollar word they know into every sentence in an effort to impress. It's exhausting reading that crap. It's especially exhausting when they continuously reuse the same word. I got a near perfect verbal score on my SATs and consider myself to have an extensive vocabulary, but if I have to read your work with a dictionary at my elbow just because you think running to a thesaurus every third sentence makes you sound more intelligent, you are a failure as a writer.

On the other hand, in the fields I have most experience with, certain words have a very strict and specific meaning with very little ambiguity or potential for overlap. So the jargon there really is necessary, otherwise you're obfuscating the material to make it more "digestible" which actually has the exact opposite effect. Jargon is not the problem here. The best quantum mechanics and EM textbooks I know - both by Griffiths - have complete and full technical detail but are written in an eminently readable, lucid way. The result: it's easy to understand!

But as an example, from the section I'm trying to get through now:

Therefore, instead of considering one big field, we shall from now on restrict our attention to fields that destroy only a single type of particle (dropping the label n) and create only the corresponding antiparticle, and that transform irreducibly under the Lorentz group (which as mentioned above may or may not be supposed to include space inversion), with the understanding that, in general, we shall have to consider many different such fields, some perhaps formed as the derivatives of other fields.

That is an obscenely complicated way of putting across what are several fairly basic ideas.

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-04 19:36:22)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-04 19:32:53

#7904

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6708

people are the problem. always have been, always will be.

2012-11-04 19:45:22

#7905

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5569|London, England

Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If technical writers do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms because of flow, they're not very good technical writers. If it's a matter of vocabulary, that's the reader's fault.

Technical writing also has more applications than documenting science.
I do agree that vocabulary issues can be laid at the readers feet, but that doesn't mean that writers need to throw every million dollar word they know into every sentence in an effort to impress. It's exhausting reading that crap. It's especially exhausting when they continuously reuse the same word. I got a near perfect verbal score on my SATs and consider myself to have an extensive vocabulary, but if I have to read your work with a dictionary at my elbow just because you think running to a thesaurus every third sentence makes you sound more intelligent, you are a failure as a writer.
On the other hand, in the fields I have most experience with, certain words have a very strict and specific meaning with very little ambiguity or potential for overlap. So the jargon there really is necessary, otherwise you're obfuscating the material to make it more "digestible" which actually has the exact opposite effect. Jargon is not the problem here. The best quantum mechanics and EM textbooks I know - both by Griffiths - have complete and full technical detail but are written in an eminently readable, lucid way. The result: it's easy to understand!

But as an example, from the section I'm trying to get through now:

Therefore, instead of considering one big field, we shall from now on restrict our attention to fields that destroy only a single type of particle (dropping the label n) and create only the corresponding antiparticle, and that transform irreducibly under the Lorentz group (which as mentioned above may or may not be supposed to include space inversion), with the understanding that, in general, we shall have to consider many different such fields, some perhaps formed as the derivatives of other fields.
That is an obscenely complicated way of putting across what are several fairly basic ideas.

I don't know what a Lorentz group is, but the rest of it seemed fairly uncomplicated. Narrow the scope in order to isolate, yes?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-04 19:51:16

#7906

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

That was just from the page I'm reading, there's worse examples hanging around here. More of a problem for me are the insane logical jumps with almost no justification at all. Just breaking that up into multiple sentences would help infinitely with that example, though.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-04 22:45:43

#7907

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
Therefore, instead of considering one big field, we shall from now on restrict our attention to fields that destroy only a single type of particle (dropping the label n) and create only the corresponding antiparticle, and that transform irreducibly under the Lorentz group (which as mentioned above may or may not be supposed to include space inversion), with the understanding that, in general, we shall have to consider many different such fields, some perhaps formed as the derivatives of other fields.

Thats not really very hard, at all.
Try reading 10 interlinked UL standards and try to make sense of them. (It doesn't matter if you can - UL don't follow them)

More of a problem for me are the insane logical jumps with almost no justification at all.

Which is a problem with the argument, not the quality of the writing.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-05 18:54:10

#7908

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6982|PNW

Jay wrote:
Trust me, I deal with professional stuff all day long. Engineers love love love to write in acronyms and couple that with the fact that most of them can't spell or write clearly and it's a nightmare to get through a lot of the stuff. It just seems to me that too many people equate opaqueness of writing with intelligence, which circles us back to the article which began this discussion in the first place...

That's almost a cultural thing when it comes to engineering, and it's one of the reasons I didn't stick around long enough to get to the point of no return.

I blame school and colleges for encouraging that kind of work to begin with. People get conditioned to write that way to disguise the fact that they don't really know what they're talking about half the time, and it carries over to beyond whatever degree they collect.

2012-11-05 23:22:53

#7909

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Its not just engineering - management, police, military, politicians, medical, hipsters, lawyers - they all love their acronyms and jargon.

Jay wrote:
many people equate opaqueness of writing communication with intelligence

Applies across all fields. Acronyms, jargon, latin, convoluted phrasing, obscure vocabulary - it doesn't make people look clever.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-06 02:39:06)

Fuck Israel

2012-11-06 03:12:59

#7910

PrivateVendetta: I DEMAND XMAS THEME; +704|6402|Roma

I love my TLAs. But if everyone knows what you're talking about when you use them as common usage, i see no problem. It's only when you speak to someone outside the field or are explaining something and you are so used to the acronym that you forget you're using it that it becomes a hindrance.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png

2012-11-07 01:24:24

#7911

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6985|Noizyland

I loathe TLAs with a passion. The military is full of them - needless abbreviations too. Every time I get an e-mail from my battalion I have to send it to a mate of mine to be translated. They wonder why I don't turn up to training...

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2012-11-07 10:51:06

#7912

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6433|Escea

2012-11-07 10:59:54

#7913

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6842|949

Best line from that movie:

"What does three up and three down mean to you?"

"End of an inning?"

Look at any teenager's online/text message chats - it's loaded with acronyms too. It's a natural evolution of language. It's not confined to any demographic, profession, culture, class.

2012-11-09 03:02:20

#7914

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns … vironment/

Please do this, America. Because it would be SO funny for us (for domestic reasons). So funny.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-11 00:12:32

#7915

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6927

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20255904

A recent study says that one in eight Australians are living in poverty. This seems quite high for a developed country, so what's behind it?

Technically I'm in that poverty group since I make an income under 30,000 dollars. lawl.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-11-11 00:58:37

#7916

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6363|what

It's the abos.

2012-11-12 01:06:58

#7917

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Maybe Benghazi would have been less of a mess if Petraeus had been focused on his job?

Fuck Israel

2012-11-12 01:26:28

#7918

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6927

Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe Benghazi would have been less of a mess if Petraeus had been focused on his job?

Maybe 9-11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton took the advice of the CIA.

2012-11-12 02:12:42

#7919

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Or Bush, Clinton at least tried.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-12 02:15:43

#7920

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6363|what

Or if America never fought Iran and armed the Afghanis in the process.

2012-11-12 02:25:02

#7921

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Yeah.

But anyway.

Had Petraeus not been boning two women besides his wife would there have been a better plan in place for security of US interests and citizens in North Africa?

Fuck Israel

2012-11-12 05:17:04

#7922

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6927

Dilbert_X wrote:
Yeah.

But anyway.

Had Petraeus not been boning two women besides his wife would there have been a better plan in place for security of US interests and citizens in North Africa?

I would highly doubt it. Just as much as the Obama administration didn't even try to pass it off as an act of terrorism, but a "reaction" to some shitty film nobody has heard of. Now they're firing Petreaus as the fall guy.

As biggie smalls said, mo money mo problems.

2012-11-15 08:57:33

#7923

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6621|'Murka

Diplomatic security isn't the CIA's function. It never would've come to him. There was plenty of security at the CIA facility...they just weren't authorized to intervene.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-11-15 18:26:58

#7924

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6927

FEOS wrote:
Diplomatic security isn't the CIA's function. It never would've come to him. There was plenty of security at the CIA facility...they just weren't authorized to intervene.

They just want someone to blame anyway.

2012-11-15 23:15:46

#7925

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Diplomatic security isn't the CIA's function. It never would've come to him. There was plenty of security at the CIA facility...they just weren't authorized to intervene.

But in the case of Benghazi the CIA had responsibility did they not?
Security embedded in the consulate, a neighbouring building with more CIA security guys who were expected to provide security.

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums DAST Chat

13rin wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer