This is a good idea, and the combination of a Master's in CS with a Bachelor's in psychology will probably say to a lot of employers, "Here's someone who's really interested in computers, but who's also interested in and knowledgeable about things that aren't computers," which is generally considered a good thing. One note: CS grad programs generally have some specific CS and math requirements for entry, up to about the level of an undergrad minor in both fields, so submitter would probably have to go back and do a couple more years of undergrad work before applying to a CS grad program would be a realistic option.
I'd like to apply for a job as a psychiatrist, but I'm concerned that employers may find my qualifications lacking. Are there any slashdotters out there who have managed to find employment as a psychiatrist with only a bachelors in a hard science?
I can pretty much guarantee you there aren't, because a psychiatrist is a physician who's done a residency in mental health. Psychologists don't have the requirement of an MD, although I believe most states don't allow you to practice clinical psychology without a PhD or PsyD. There are all kinds of other mental health jobs with lesser degree requirements, but all of them, AFAIK, will require some kind of formal education in the field.
Or, do you think my best shot would be to finish up a quick two year psychology degree (I already have the gen ed stuff done from my CS degree), and then go on to get my Masters and PHD in psychology?
Yes, that would probably be the way to go. You may want to consider a Master's program that has a focus on counseling, which would allow you to go into practice once you get the degree if that's what you want to do, or provide the foundation for a PhD if you decide to go all the way with it. But a word of warning: dealing with crazy people is really, really depressing, and it can rub off on you fast. Keep your options open in case you get into the field and then decide, as many do, that it's not your chosen path after all.
This individual was as dumb as the proverbial post, and could not grasp the basic idea that you needed a semi colon at the end of every statement except the last one in a code block.
While it's true that the semicolon at the end of the final statement is unnecessary, it's also true that relying on the final statement you write to be, well, final is a really bad idea. Taking "advantage" of shortcuts like this is IMO a terrible programming practice and ought to be avoided. Honestly, sometimes it's easier to deal with out-and-out idiots like your classmate than "clever" programmers who write unmaintainable code full of traps for the person who inherits it.
You will never be able to cite Wikipedia in a paper without looking foolish... Then again, any paper that only cites encyclopedias (paper or otherwise) isn't a good paper.
These statements are both true, but far too specific -- replace "Wikipedia" with "an encyclopedia" in the first sentence and strike the word "only" in the second, and you've got it. You should never cite an encyclopedia in a paper, period, unless you're writing a paper about encyclopedias. Any encyclopedia is best use as a tool for gaining an initial understanding of a subject and as a starting point for further research; Wikipedia is no different from Britannica in this regard.
You are engaging in ad-hominen [sic] attacks right there dude.
There is a difference between "you are ignorant in this field and therefore what you say on the subject has no merit" and "your ignorance in this field explains why what you say on the subject has no merit." The first is ad hominem, the second is not. Sure, people with business degrees might say something useful about Google. When they say something useless, instead, the fact that they lack technical education or experience may be helpful in understanding why what they said sounds so dumb.
Thanks for providing a perfect example of his point.;)
That's a really neat way to circumvent criticism of... well, anyone you choose, really. "Oh, you're just a hater!" I'm not sure what to call this tactic -- preemptive ad hominem, maybe? In any case, it's pretty dumb.
I can think of lots of ways to hack paper ballots. If you can't, you haven't thought enough.
Oh, you're so clever! Your mommy must be very proud of you.
Jesus H. Christ. Of course there are ways to commit election fraud with paper ballots; as long as there have been elections, there's been election fraud. But none of those ways are as easy or as fast as changing a few thousand votes, invisibly and untraceably, by screwing with all-electronic voting machines and the software used to tabulate the votes.
Making a traditional vote with paper is *very* expensive. Orders of magnitude higher than a security audit that would have patched the backdoor you mentioned.
The security problem with electronic voting isn't financial, it's political and legal. A proper security audit is impossible when the companies that make the voting machines insist that everything be closed-source and proprietary, and get away with it because they buy the right political friends. This has all been thoroughly documented, and until the problem is resolved (which, frankly, I don't think it ever will be) there will be no electronic voting system which matches the security, transparency, and accuracy of paper ballots counted by hand. If this is more expensive, well, as the saying goes, freedom isn't free. A few days' pay for election judges, every year or two, is a cost we should be more than willing to bear.
"Traditional" voting is as insecure as e-voting, if not more.
Riiight, because it's just as easy to make thousands of ballots disappear, or insert thousands of fake ballots into the count, or have an army of election judges deliberately miscount at the precinct level... as it is to write a script exploiting a software backdoor. No difference at all.
Do you know why people use computers to accomplish tasks that used to be done on paper? Because it's faster, easier, and cheaper.
All it takes is money.
I think here you're talking about how people choose to vote, not whether their votes are accurately counted. These are not the same issue.
The assumption is always that paper ballot voting is secure. Electronic fraud is somehow more important than paper ballot fraud.
Nice straw man you have there. No, the argument is that paper ballot voting is more secure (or less insecure, anyway) because electronic ballot fraud is easier on a large scale than paper ballot fraud. It's true that there is no perfect voting system, but this does not mean that all systems are equally bad.
One the things TFA mentions is how many of the targets wouldn't actually be military, but rather civilian contractors which the military needs to run day-to-day operations. This isn't a computer security problem, it's a cultural problem. The contracting / privatization craze has hit the military in a big way. I know this will sound like old-soldier grumbling, but when I was in (late 80s to mid 90s) we didn't have this problem, much. We had plenty of civilian contractors around, sure, but combat-critical logistics and maintenance functions were handled by people in uniform. Now we have a situation where units engaged in active combat can't function unless civilians who are not under oath and are not trained for the situation (and who are often paid much, much more than soldiers used to be to perform the same jobs; the "privatization saves money" argument is complete bullshit) decide to show up for work that day. The military needs to be able to handle its own operations in a war zone, and right now, it can't do that.
their vision of how people should live, which generally means people renting tiny places in a rat warren, taking public transit to work and walking everywhere else. The private car is anathema to them, as are low-density suburbs and single family homes.
You must have needed a really big truck to haul all the straw to build that man you just beat the shit out of. Did you use the shiny SUV you keep parked at your McMansion, or did you rent a monster pickup truck to make yourself feel even more manly for the occasion?
Any time you find yourself explaining Why People Should Like Your Stuff if they Only Used It Right, it means you have failed Marketing 101 and need to turn in your diploma, because you obviously weren't paying attention in class.
(my first degree was in Marketing, fwiw)
Given that WPSLYSitOUIR is something that marketing people seem to do all the time, at least in the tech industry, I'm forced to conclude that either Marketing 101 is generally teaching the wrong things, or the vast majority of people with marketing degrees failed Marketing 101 and got their degrees anyway, implying that marketing programs have very low standards. Perhaps you can shed some light on this?;)
israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.
That's not really fair; the Israeli military has probably been in more combat over the 64 years since the foundation of the country than has any other army on the planet. It's more like your crazy friend who goes out to the bar with you and gets both of you into fights. Which may be a sign that it's time too say, "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."
Sometimes the ACLU's actions make me roll my eyes, but on this one, they're right.
Why is it that so many posts praising the ACLU in any way contain this kind of ritual disclaimer? Can you give actual examples of some of the eye-roll-inspiring things the ACLU has done, or is it just "I've heard they're a liberal organization, and liberals are icky"?
So what would you suggest the girl and her parents, and the ACLU, do instead? Nobody's going to jail over this (although they damn well should) so the only real penalty that can be imposed is financial, seems to me. And there has to be some real penalty for this -- a "yeah, you shouldn't have done that" isn't nearly enough.
How the involved parties allowed this to escalate into the mess that it is, is beyond me. It must be idiots . . . all the way down.
Sounds like you're lumping in the family with the school administrators and the cops, which is one whopper of a false equivalence. The idiots are pretty clearly on one side of the issue.
Years and years of political pressure for "zero tolerance," a.k.a. "zero intelligence." The idea that most of the things kids get up to are individual incidents and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis is anathema to this mentality. But it sells well to parents (until their kids get caught up in it, anyway), to legislators, and to voters in school board elections.
So is that where someone puts a gun to your head and says "develop in my new language or else," or where you sit down to try out a new language only to discover that it's changed you into a completely different type of developer?
So what evidence do you have that there are actual GInger Haters out there, besides some people who are asses to red haired people while putting them down for having red hair?
"So what evidence do you have that there are actual ___ haters out there, besides some people who are asses to ___ people while putting them down for being ___?" You can write off any prejudice this way, if you choose. The link I posted contains years' worth of evidence; if you choose to ignore it, that's your business.
... are a tiny minority. Always have been, always will be. The submitter seems to think the average 10-year-old should be interested in programming because he was at that age. Well, good for him, and I guarantee there are still 10-year-olds interested in it, but they're going to be awfully thin on the ground -- and this was just true back then as it is now.
I'm surprised at seeing a few people get their panties in a bunch over this.
Probably because you weren't aware that it exists. Trust me, it does.
At least red-haired women have some positive stereotypes to go along with the negative ones. We red-haired men pretty much get our pick between "stupid and violent" (probably related to anti-Irish stereotypes) and "ineffectual dweeb." But trust me, any redhead, of either sex, has had to put up with some truly astonishing crap because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good idea, and the combination of a Master's in CS with a Bachelor's in psychology will probably say to a lot of employers, "Here's someone who's really interested in computers, but who's also interested in and knowledgeable about things that aren't computers," which is generally considered a good thing. One note: CS grad programs generally have some specific CS and math requirements for entry, up to about the level of an undergrad minor in both fields, so submitter would probably have to go back and do a couple more years of undergrad work before applying to a CS grad program would be a realistic option.
I'd like to apply for a job as a psychiatrist, but I'm concerned that employers may find my qualifications lacking. Are there any slashdotters out there who have managed to find employment as a psychiatrist with only a bachelors in a hard science?
I can pretty much guarantee you there aren't, because a psychiatrist is a physician who's done a residency in mental health. Psychologists don't have the requirement of an MD, although I believe most states don't allow you to practice clinical psychology without a PhD or PsyD. There are all kinds of other mental health jobs with lesser degree requirements, but all of them, AFAIK, will require some kind of formal education in the field.
Or, do you think my best shot would be to finish up a quick two year psychology degree (I already have the gen ed stuff done from my CS degree), and then go on to get my Masters and PHD in psychology?
Yes, that would probably be the way to go. You may want to consider a Master's program that has a focus on counseling, which would allow you to go into practice once you get the degree if that's what you want to do, or provide the foundation for a PhD if you decide to go all the way with it. But a word of warning: dealing with crazy people is really, really depressing, and it can rub off on you fast. Keep your options open in case you get into the field and then decide, as many do, that it's not your chosen path after all.
This individual was as dumb as the proverbial post, and could not grasp the basic idea that you needed a semi colon at the end of every statement except the last one in a code block.
While it's true that the semicolon at the end of the final statement is unnecessary, it's also true that relying on the final statement you write to be, well, final is a really bad idea. Taking "advantage" of shortcuts like this is IMO a terrible programming practice and ought to be avoided. Honestly, sometimes it's easier to deal with out-and-out idiots like your classmate than "clever" programmers who write unmaintainable code full of traps for the person who inherits it.
You will never be able to cite Wikipedia in a paper without looking foolish ... Then again, any paper that only cites encyclopedias (paper or otherwise) isn't a good paper.
These statements are both true, but far too specific -- replace "Wikipedia" with "an encyclopedia" in the first sentence and strike the word "only" in the second, and you've got it. You should never cite an encyclopedia in a paper, period, unless you're writing a paper about encyclopedias. Any encyclopedia is best use as a tool for gaining an initial understanding of a subject and as a starting point for further research; Wikipedia is no different from Britannica in this regard.
You are engaging in ad-hominen [sic] attacks right there dude.
There is a difference between "you are ignorant in this field and therefore what you say on the subject has no merit" and "your ignorance in this field explains why what you say on the subject has no merit." The first is ad hominem, the second is not. Sure, people with business degrees might say something useful about Google. When they say something useless, instead, the fact that they lack technical education or experience may be helpful in understanding why what they said sounds so dumb.
So how did the lawsuit turn out? I'd like to think Redflex was laughed out of court ...
Thanks for providing a perfect example of his point. ;)
That's a really neat way to circumvent criticism of ... well, anyone you choose, really. "Oh, you're just a hater!" I'm not sure what to call this tactic -- preemptive ad hominem, maybe? In any case, it's pretty dumb.
Very classy.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it, kiddo.
Bullshit.
Wow, what a convincing, well-thought-out, and thoroughly supported refutation you have there.
I can think of lots of ways to hack paper ballots. If you can't, you haven't thought enough.
Oh, you're so clever! Your mommy must be very proud of you.
Jesus H. Christ. Of course there are ways to commit election fraud with paper ballots; as long as there have been elections, there's been election fraud. But none of those ways are as easy or as fast as changing a few thousand votes, invisibly and untraceably, by screwing with all-electronic voting machines and the software used to tabulate the votes.
Making a traditional vote with paper is *very* expensive. Orders of magnitude higher than a security audit that would have patched the backdoor you mentioned.
The security problem with electronic voting isn't financial, it's political and legal. A proper security audit is impossible when the companies that make the voting machines insist that everything be closed-source and proprietary, and get away with it because they buy the right political friends. This has all been thoroughly documented, and until the problem is resolved (which, frankly, I don't think it ever will be) there will be no electronic voting system which matches the security, transparency, and accuracy of paper ballots counted by hand. If this is more expensive, well, as the saying goes, freedom isn't free. A few days' pay for election judges, every year or two, is a cost we should be more than willing to bear.
"Traditional" voting is as insecure as e-voting, if not more.
Riiight, because it's just as easy to make thousands of ballots disappear, or insert thousands of fake ballots into the count, or have an army of election judges deliberately miscount at the precinct level ... as it is to write a script exploiting a software backdoor. No difference at all.
Do you know why people use computers to accomplish tasks that used to be done on paper? Because it's faster, easier, and cheaper.
All it takes is money.
I think here you're talking about how people choose to vote, not whether their votes are accurately counted. These are not the same issue.
The assumption is always that paper ballot voting is secure. Electronic fraud is somehow more important than paper ballot fraud.
Nice straw man you have there. No, the argument is that paper ballot voting is more secure (or less insecure, anyway) because electronic ballot fraud is easier on a large scale than paper ballot fraud. It's true that there is no perfect voting system, but this does not mean that all systems are equally bad.
One the things TFA mentions is how many of the targets wouldn't actually be military, but rather civilian contractors which the military needs to run day-to-day operations. This isn't a computer security problem, it's a cultural problem. The contracting / privatization craze has hit the military in a big way. I know this will sound like old-soldier grumbling, but when I was in (late 80s to mid 90s) we didn't have this problem, much. We had plenty of civilian contractors around, sure, but combat-critical logistics and maintenance functions were handled by people in uniform. Now we have a situation where units engaged in active combat can't function unless civilians who are not under oath and are not trained for the situation (and who are often paid much, much more than soldiers used to be to perform the same jobs; the "privatization saves money" argument is complete bullshit) decide to show up for work that day. The military needs to be able to handle its own operations in a war zone, and right now, it can't do that.
their vision of how people should live, which generally means people renting tiny places in a rat warren, taking public transit to work and walking everywhere else. The private car is anathema to them, as are low-density suburbs and single family homes.
You must have needed a really big truck to haul all the straw to build that man you just beat the shit out of. Did you use the shiny SUV you keep parked at your McMansion, or did you rent a monster pickup truck to make yourself feel even more manly for the occasion?
Any time you find yourself explaining Why People Should Like Your Stuff if they Only Used It Right, it means you have failed Marketing 101 and need to turn in your diploma, because you obviously weren't paying attention in class.
(my first degree was in Marketing, fwiw)
Given that WPSLYSitOUIR is something that marketing people seem to do all the time, at least in the tech industry, I'm forced to conclude that either Marketing 101 is generally teaching the wrong things, or the vast majority of people with marketing degrees failed Marketing 101 and got their degrees anyway, implying that marketing programs have very low standards. Perhaps you can shed some light on this? ;)
Well, yeah, there is that.
Iran has been at war with us since the revolution. Its time Americans started recognizing that fact and speak/act accordingly.
I hope you're posting that from your barracks, tough guy. Since you're so eager for us to "act accordingly" and all.
israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.
That's not really fair; the Israeli military has probably been in more combat over the 64 years since the foundation of the country than has any other army on the planet. It's more like your crazy friend who goes out to the bar with you and gets both of you into fights. Which may be a sign that it's time too say, "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."
Probably persecuting poor, defenseless churches for Christmas displays on their private property, for one.
Give examples of this actually happening.
Sometimes the ACLU's actions make me roll my eyes, but on this one, they're right.
Why is it that so many posts praising the ACLU in any way contain this kind of ritual disclaimer? Can you give actual examples of some of the eye-roll-inspiring things the ACLU has done, or is it just "I've heard they're a liberal organization, and liberals are icky"?
So what would you suggest the girl and her parents, and the ACLU, do instead? Nobody's going to jail over this (although they damn well should) so the only real penalty that can be imposed is financial, seems to me. And there has to be some real penalty for this -- a "yeah, you shouldn't have done that" isn't nearly enough.
How the involved parties allowed this to escalate into the mess that it is, is beyond me. It must be idiots . . . all the way down.
Sounds like you're lumping in the family with the school administrators and the cops, which is one whopper of a false equivalence. The idiots are pretty clearly on one side of the issue.
Years and years of political pressure for "zero tolerance," a.k.a. "zero intelligence." The idea that most of the things kids get up to are individual incidents and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis is anathema to this mentality. But it sells well to parents (until their kids get caught up in it, anyway), to legislators, and to voters in school board elections.
So is that where someone puts a gun to your head and says "develop in my new language or else," or where you sit down to try out a new language only to discover that it's changed you into a completely different type of developer?
So what evidence do you have that there are actual GInger Haters out there, besides some people who are asses to red haired people while putting them down for having red hair?
"So what evidence do you have that there are actual ___ haters out there, besides some people who are asses to ___ people while putting them down for being ___?" You can write off any prejudice this way, if you choose. The link I posted contains years' worth of evidence; if you choose to ignore it, that's your business.
... are a tiny minority. Always have been, always will be. The submitter seems to think the average 10-year-old should be interested in programming because he was at that age. Well, good for him, and I guarantee there are still 10-year-olds interested in it, but they're going to be awfully thin on the ground -- and this was just true back then as it is now.
Is anyone in the world actually a Ginger hater?
Yes.
I'm surprised at seeing a few people get their panties in a bunch over this.
Probably because you weren't aware that it exists. Trust me, it does.
At least red-haired women have some positive stereotypes to go along with the negative ones. We red-haired men pretty much get our pick between "stupid and violent" (probably related to anti-Irish stereotypes) and "ineffectual dweeb." But trust me, any redhead, of either sex, has had to put up with some truly astonishing crap because of it.