I find it funny that you consider North and South America to be a single continent, but that you consider Europe and Asia to be two, considering how much more "attached" Europe is to Asia.
I realize there is some difference of opinion on what the continents of the world are, and that some consider Eurasia to be one continent. Though I don't imagine that is a popular view.
Being Canadian, I dislike the appropriation of America as well. Although I refer to the citizen of the U.S. as Americans (for lack of a better term), I *never* refer to the country as America. Frankly, I don't know anyone (here) who does. I usually refer to the country as the U.S. or "the States".
In Canada, I don't beleive that there are any aspects of computer programming that are better taught at college than at university. The only things (I think) that aren't explicilty taught at universities that you do get in college is practical stuff (like using a particular language or IDE). At university it is not taught because it is expected that you learn this on your own in order to complete assigments, etc.
It depends, theory and practice don't always agree. While 90% of the time a CS major would be better than a programmer, there may be instances where theory doesn't translate.
You can make that type of argument about anything. Sure I knew some people in 4th year CS that were terrible coders, just as I'm sure that there are bright people in college programs. But perhaps those bright people in college should have gone to university, because I don't think they'd learn anything in college that they wouldn't get in univ. or couldn't learn quickly on their own.
Anyways, let's try to ignore the exceptions and stick to the core of each group. Which, according to your statement above (90%...), you seem to think that CS grads make better programmers.
You can find excellent programmers who are more problem solving oriented, so can write tight maintainable code. While a CS may have a more elegant design that isn't suitable for a real application.
While a CS may only have theoretical knowledge of how each one works. Especially at graduate levels, where you don't necessarily need to write a line of code to be a CS.
Again, exceptions are everywhere. Do you beleive these to be typical in any respect?
You can also find instances where the CS may not even have the skills to fill the role of a programmer. Programmers typically will be skilled in many languages, as their role is to code.
I simply don't beleive a new college programmer grad is going to be skilled in many languages. Exposed, maybe, but not skilled. I think (depending on the school) that a CS grad would be exposed to more languages and have more experience in those language than the college grad.
Basically my opinion is:
Take 2 people, one that can handle a univ. cs program and the other not. Send them through their respective educational machines. When they come out the other end, the cs grad will be the better programmer.
Also, take another two people, more or less equal in ambition, skill, etc.. that can both handle a university level cs program. Send one through univ and one through college. I still think the university grad will be a better programmer. However, this difference would diminish as years of experience is added.
I don't think the whole mechanic/engineer analogy fits so well for programming. I think there is a
much closer relationship between compter science and programming than for mech eng and being a mechanic.
Programming well requires a good deal of abstract thought, so I'd expect that a typical CS grad from
a university is probably a better programmer than a typical computer programmer college* grad.
*I live in Canada, where there is a distinction between college and universtiy. Colleges can only
give out diploma's, not bachelor's degrees, and programs are typically 2-3 years, not 4. Colleges
are also more skills oriented/practical.
Regarding the second film, what's so intellectual about too many fight scenes that were boring and too long?
Just because you either enjoyed that crap (I call it crap, that's just my opinion) or were able to filter it out in order to enjoy the underlying story does not mean it was a good film.
As far as I'm concerned, the second film was a stupid action movie, nowhere near as complex and stimulating as the first. Maybe there was a story there, but it was buried under all the ho-hum action. Too concerned with being slick, and not enough substance.
In some occassions, teams I've put together have included Masters and Phd's... and while very bright they often tend to lack the ability to see "the entire picture".
While being bright is almost certainly a quality required by graduate work, graduate work certainly does not preclude real-world programming skills. This says nothing of the more code intensive areas of graduate research either, such as graphics. Maybe the people you worked with were just not good programmers, independent of the fact that they had graduate degrees.
Keep 'em away from the code layer because they have LITTLE practical experience designing REAL-WORLD applications. They often don't understand time-frames - since they havn't experienced real-world programming conditions and requirements (e.g., shitty management decisions;).
Really? How long does it take to do graduate work? Maximum 2 years on a masters, and around 5 years for a PhD? Does something irreversible happen in that time frame that prevents one from being aware of real-world issues? Is the first 2-5 years of experience you get after a bachelors degree somehow unattainable once you get a graduate degree?
So it comes down to what you want to do... do you LOVE programming for the joy of programming? If so, get out of college and get to work! On the other hand, do you enjoy thinking about possible concepts and pushing the boundries of understanding? If so... than a masters or phd might be perfect for you.
What about those of use who like both? Obvioulsy, if someone's considering the option of grad school, then they have some interest in academics. Should they give that up for fear that it may harm their chances at a non-academic career? Grad school may be the last opportunity to persue a topic for sake learning more about it. It may also be the only opportunity to push the boundaries of what is known, even if only in a small way.
That being said, most employers I've had (co-op and post-undergrad -- telecom, financial, and a small internet statrt-up) appreciate the effort and focus it takes to get these degrees and would not assume any incompetance in practical skills simply because you also have an interest in academics.
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
I disagree with people needing to understand how the technology works.
I think, the learning experience you're relaying is appropriate for someone who wants to work in computers, but I don't believe it should be necessary for someone who wants to work with computers.
I think the problem lies in the fact that we haven't figured out how to make computers easy enough to use yet. MS tries to hides the details, but because they haven't got their shit together, things go wrong and the user is faced with a problem they have no clue how to deal with. The thing is, it shouldn't be failing in the first place.
Now, I'm not really blaming MS, making an easy-to-use, fault-tolerant system is difficult. I mean, in this industry it's just accepted that things breakdown occasionally (or even always). And it's that way because it's difficult to cost-effectivly make it otherwise. We just don't know how to build complex systems well enough yet.
Take a look at edonkey, lots of stuff there. New stuff too.
There are even websites popping up that attempt to catalog what is available on edonkey, tell you what's fake and what's real and provide links so that you don't even have to search if your too lazy.
And like I mentioned in another post, there are plenty of people grabbing from irc and usenet and then sharing on p2p.
What? Are you clinging to the past? Who the hell needs bbs's and ftpsearch when you have p2p?
Sure usenet is still big as a distribution channel, but there's enough people shuttling stuff between it and the p2p networks that it's hardly required anymore. I've found everything I've ever needed on the p2p networks.
Why do people bitch about or badmouth things getting easier? How the hell are we supposed to do anything constructive with computers if we keep f***ing around with the details?
What skills are you taking about? Along with the web being easier to use, it's also a tremendous amount easier to find pirated, software, music and movies.
If I can explain to my girlfriend's dad, in under 10 minutes, how to find nearly anything he desires, then I'd say that it doens't take much skill.
The Simpsons SUCK now. I used to love the show. I thought it was the best thing on televison, by far. Around season 8 I started to get worried, but they still put out a funny episode now and again.
Now the Simpsons is completely repetative. Homer is dumber than ever, and now so is Marge. The show can't go for 5 minutes without doing something that doesn't make ANY sense, mistaking retarded weirdness for offbeat witt.
I can't even bare to watch the show now, it's such a formulaic product.
I agree, I think the Simpsons should have been dropped long ago and they should have given that timeslot to Futurama, instead they jerked the show (Futurama) around and never let it build a solid fanbase.
Most people would probably prefer to spend money on a brand with an established name in car audio. To a lot of people, features (in this case mp3 playback) aren't as important as performance, especially those who are willing to spend $1000 on a deck.
Now if they made a player unit for under the seat, one that could plug into the aux input of a good deck, that might be a better idea.
Re:Still waiting for a hardware solution
on
DivX;) Goes Legit
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Really though, it's probably the same group of companies, more or less.
I don't know where to begin with this statement. Their whole idea is idiotic. There are maybe, what, literally maybe 1000 people in the US who would be willing and able to do this. But see below for an alternate explanation.
Why do you feel the whole idea is idiotic? Can you not imagine any online movie rental service that you would pay for? I can. Sure the bandwidth and technology are not quite there for what I would be willing to pay for, but they do have to start somewhere.
Now I might be inclined to call their expectations idiotic, but I can only imagine what those are.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it funny that you consider North and South America to be a single continent, but that you consider Europe and Asia to be two, considering how much more "attached" Europe is to Asia.
I realize there is some difference of opinion on what the continents of the world are, and that some consider Eurasia to be one continent. Though I don't imagine that is a popular view.
Being Canadian, I dislike the appropriation of America as well. Although I refer to the citizen of the U.S. as Americans (for lack of a better term), I *never* refer to the country as America. Frankly, I don't know anyone (here) who does. I usually refer to the country as the U.S. or "the States".
In Canada, I don't beleive that there are any aspects of computer programming that are better taught at college than at university. The only things (I think) that aren't explicilty taught at universities that you do get in college is practical stuff (like using a particular language or IDE). At university it is not taught because it is expected that you learn this on your own in order to complete assigments, etc.
It depends, theory and practice don't always agree. While 90% of the time a CS major would be better than a programmer, there may be instances where theory doesn't translate.
You can make that type of argument about anything. Sure I knew some people in 4th year CS that were terrible coders, just as I'm sure that there are bright people in college programs. But perhaps those bright people in college should have gone to university, because I don't think they'd learn anything in college that they wouldn't get in univ. or couldn't learn quickly on their own.
Anyways, let's try to ignore the exceptions and stick to the core of each group. Which, according to your statement above (90%...), you seem to think that CS grads make better programmers.
You can find excellent programmers who are more problem solving oriented, so can write tight maintainable code. While a CS may have a more elegant design that isn't suitable for a real application.
While a CS may only have theoretical knowledge of how each one works. Especially at graduate levels, where you don't necessarily need to write a line of code to be a CS.
Again, exceptions are everywhere. Do you beleive these to be typical in any respect?
You can also find instances where the CS may not even have the skills to fill the role of a programmer. Programmers typically will be skilled in many languages, as their role is to code.
I simply don't beleive a new college programmer grad is going to be skilled in many languages. Exposed, maybe, but not skilled. I think (depending on the school) that a CS grad would be exposed to more languages and have more experience in those language than the college grad.
Basically my opinion is:
Take 2 people, one that can handle a univ. cs program and the other not. Send them through their respective educational machines. When they come out the other end, the cs grad will be the better programmer.
Also, take another two people, more or less equal in ambition, skill, etc.. that can both handle a university level cs program. Send one through univ and one through college. I still think the
university grad will be a better programmer. However, this difference would diminish as years of experience is added.
I don't think the whole mechanic/engineer analogy fits so well for programming. I think there is a
much closer relationship between compter science and programming than for mech eng and being a mechanic.
Programming well requires a good deal of abstract thought, so I'd expect that a typical CS grad from
a university is probably a better programmer than a typical computer programmer college* grad.
*I live in Canada, where there is a distinction between college and universtiy. Colleges can only
give out diploma's, not bachelor's degrees, and programs are typically 2-3 years, not 4. Colleges
are also more skills oriented/practical.
Actually, it uses maple.
Actually though, the average rating is sitting at 5.9/10. So that 38% is probably not as bad as it could be.
Regarding the second film, what's so intellectual about too many fight scenes that were boring and too long?
Just because you either enjoyed that crap (I call it crap, that's just my opinion) or were able to filter it out in order to enjoy the underlying story does not mean it was a good film.
As far as I'm concerned, the second film was a stupid action movie, nowhere near as complex and stimulating as the first. Maybe there was a story there, but it was buried under all the ho-hum action. Too concerned with being slick, and not enough substance.
I use xvid too. However, ffdshow was only suggested as an alternative to the once free divx decoder.
There never was an ad-free encoder for divx5.
ffdshow works fine for my xvid decodes.
While being bright is almost certainly a quality required by graduate work, graduate work certainly
does not preclude real-world programming skills. This says nothing of the more code intensive areas
of graduate research either, such as graphics. Maybe the people you worked with were just not
good programmers, independent of the fact that they had graduate degrees.
Really? How long does it take to do graduate work? Maximum 2 years on a masters, and around 5 years
for a PhD? Does something irreversible happen in that time frame that prevents one from being aware
of real-world issues? Is the first 2-5 years of experience you get after a bachelors degree
somehow unattainable once you get a graduate
degree?
What about those of use who like both? Obvioulsy, if someone's considering the option of grad school,
then they have some interest in academics. Should they give that up for fear that it may harm their
chances at a non-academic career? Grad school may be the last opportunity to persue a topic for sake
learning more about it. It may also be the only opportunity to push the boundaries of what is known,
even if only in a small way.
That being said, most employers I've had (co-op and post-undergrad -- telecom, financial, and a
small internet statrt-up) appreciate the effort and focus it takes to get these degrees and would
not assume any incompetance in practical skills simply because you also have an interest in academics.
from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: irregardless
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
If it was PG-13, your 11-year old still wouldn't be able to see it, unaccompanied.
I disagree with people needing to understand how the technology works.
I think, the learning experience you're relaying is appropriate for someone who wants to work in computers, but I don't believe it should be necessary for someone who wants to work with computers.
I think the problem lies in the fact that we haven't figured out how to make computers easy enough to use yet. MS tries to hides the details, but because they haven't got their shit together, things go wrong and the user is faced with a problem they have no clue how to deal with. The thing is, it shouldn't be failing in the first place.
Now, I'm not really blaming MS, making an easy-to-use, fault-tolerant system is difficult. I mean, in this industry it's just accepted that things breakdown occasionally (or even always). And it's that way because it's difficult to cost-effectivly make it otherwise. We just don't know how to build complex systems well enough yet.
Take a look at edonkey, lots of stuff there. New stuff too.
There are even websites popping up that attempt to catalog what is available on edonkey, tell you what's fake and what's real and provide links so that you don't even have to search if your too lazy.
And like I mentioned in another post, there are plenty of people grabbing from irc and usenet and then sharing on p2p.
I sympathize with this. And, yes, in a lot of ways it sucks, but when you consider the "big picture" I think it's better.
Also, I'm not going to complain that I can get a hold of tonnes of movies and television shows without having to be "in the loop".
What? Are you clinging to the past? Who the hell needs bbs's and ftpsearch when you have p2p?
Sure usenet is still big as a distribution channel, but there's enough people shuttling stuff between it and the p2p networks that it's hardly required anymore. I've found everything I've ever needed on the p2p networks.
Why do people bitch about or badmouth things getting easier? How the hell are we supposed to do anything constructive with computers if we keep f***ing around with the details?
What skills are you taking about? Along with the web being easier to use, it's also a tremendous amount easier to find pirated, software, music and movies.
If I can explain to my girlfriend's dad, in under 10 minutes, how to find nearly anything he desires, then I'd say that it doens't take much skill.
My God! You wanna talk flamebait?
The Simpsons SUCK now. I used to love the show. I thought it was the best thing on televison, by far. Around season 8 I started to get worried, but they still put out a funny episode now and again.
Now the Simpsons is completely repetative. Homer is dumber than ever, and now so is Marge. The show can't go for 5 minutes without doing something that doesn't make ANY sense, mistaking retarded weirdness for offbeat witt.
I can't even bare to watch the show now, it's such a formulaic product.
I agree, I think the Simpsons should have been dropped long ago and they should have given that timeslot to Futurama, instead they jerked the show (Futurama) around and never let it build a solid fanbase.
I can see why someone may want multiple inheritance, but operator overloading, I dunno...
I can't think of a good reason why someone would really need it. Except maybe to make things more confusing.
I think this type of humour trasnlated just fine into ASCII. It was pretty clear to me that it was humour.
It's also quite available on eDonkey.
Most people would probably prefer to spend money on a brand with an established name in car audio. To a lot of people, features (in this case mp3 playback) aren't as important as performance, especially those who are willing to spend $1000 on a deck.
Now if they made a player unit for under the seat, one that could plug into the aux input of a good deck, that might be a better idea.
Really though, it's probably the same group of companies, more or less.
I think this whole thread should be modded up and marked funny.
BTW, N.R.S., nice sig.
media server - divx movies, mp3 audio
I don't know where to begin with this statement. Their whole idea is idiotic. There are maybe, what, literally maybe 1000 people in the US who would be willing and able to do this. But see below for an alternate explanation.
Why do you feel the whole idea is idiotic? Can you not imagine any online movie rental service that you would pay for? I can. Sure the bandwidth and technology are not quite there for what I would be willing to pay for, but they do have to start somewhere.
Now I might be inclined to call their expectations idiotic, but I can only imagine what those are.