How to tell a geek

OK, let's get this straight once and for all...<p>Saying things like, "All geeks..." "Every geek..." "Geeks will always..." is just wrong.<p>Makes no more sense than saying, "All lefthanders..." "Every woman..." or "Nebraskans will always..."<p>There are as many kinds of geeks as there are geeks (NbrOfGeekCategories == NbrOfGeeks). Sure, there are a lot of generalizations, but we are all unique.<p>I bathe regularly, socialize often, have never watched Star Trek, don't play video games, and enjoy sports.<p>OTOH, I plot out every trip on Google maps before leaving home, schedule my day out in half hour increments, and place my things out in the morning to be picked up in the proper order. I have to go through the supermarket counter-clockwise to optimize filling the cart. If I learn a new fact, I'm looking for the general rule about 6 seconds later, and am plotting out use cases within an hour. I'll probably have some code written, too.<p>Is there anyone out there just like me? I didn't think so. (Thank goodness.)

Came across this already today. In order for the creative director to view the site on my local machine he asked for the IP address. I decided instead to install a local DNS server. Am I crazy? Also, anyone else know of an easy way to get PCs to recognize the computername.local address that Mac's have? Otherwise, I'll just keep configuring the DNS.

The notion that a geek will always write a program instead of doing something manually is becoming a cliche.

"I've heard it said that a good geek is lazy, but I think it's more precise to say that a geek dreads boredom above all else. We'll move mountains to accomplish a task, as long as it's interesting."<p>In my opinion, this is the largest problem with unit tests and TDD. Much of it (though not all) is the type of boring work that lazy programmers dread. Calling it "professionalism" and saying it's what good developers are supposed to do doesn't help.<p>I'm not sure what the answer is for overcoming this. Dynamic languages help by cutting down on the amount of code. However, it still seems like we need better tools. Perhaps a way to convert a stack trace into a test? Or maybe a repl-to-unit-test generator?

I can agree (and this is not only for GEeks), simply here's why<p>Creating an application is fun, there's no monotony on it, in fact you don't repeat code, if you need it again, you can recall it.<p>Grease ebowl tasks are annoying and boring so no one wants them.