Well, particularly since the image says something different now, I'd hinder a guess that it's dynamically generated. I'd be assuming too much if I told you it would be trivial for them to put the numbers in text form on the front page.. they might just automate taking a screenshot from the client or something weird.
Images don't always = static. Like I said though, I'm still a bit skeptical just because of the lameness factor in the way they word things on the site:
Search for whatever you want and maybe stumble across some of the thousands of private erotic files which are only distributed in this way.
(Their boldness) Puhleaaaze:) Reminds me of the "free nude britteny picz LOL!#@*$" links and fake FTP directories with "SpearsNippleShot.avi" links on warez sites. And, if for no other reason than to counter the AC insults, I click on all of them, view them regularly, and have them all saved to my desktop.
Because then I can't get screwed over in the end by the MP3 people, whoever they end up being at the time, to pay for my pirated music using their format.
Seriously though, there are a couple people (5, or 6) using MP3 for legitimate purposes.. and it would be bad to see the GIF phenomenon take place a year or two down the road with audio instead of images.
Nice try in making me out to be a hypocrite, or something. I'm not going to lie to you, I pirate as much music as the next guy (and buy the CDs when they deserve my money.) However, it's comparing apples to oranges when you're talking about the standard way of transporting audio over the net being a proprietary standard. It expands beyond just music, and even where it applies to music it is important. You can yell at the guy in the next cube for pirating Windows from Microsoft (and getting IE,) but you can't use that to invalidate his opinion that the web needs to be an open standard. When the Borg comes and takes him away in shackles at the next audit, they'll be sure to ask for input about Windows before they lock him away.
(I can never hold off the inherent CS geek need to make analogies. Damn program abstraction methods ingrained in my brain.)
Someone who sneaks into a movie can still form a valid judgement about the quality of the film, even though they cheated the creators out of their money. If you discredit their opinion in deciding what movie you'd like to see this weekend, simply because they didn't pay, you're being ignorant.
To the AC equating proprietary standards with Communism - Um. I thought that Communism was regarded as a good thing on here by the OSS (Open Source Socialists).. I could be wrong though.
I just checked it out.. if it wasn't for your comment I wouldn't take them seriously. Offering a "Insiders Secrets Guide" to getting free hotel rooms if you sign up someone for free isn't the most reputable style of convincing people to sign up:) It's also very loud about the porn aspect of it on the front page, which also makes it seem more ghetto:)
I might try it though anyway, just for kicks. $4 is nothing:)
The music revolution IS over. We won. I can get any music I want still.. the record companies think they've won by killing Napster or whatever, but unfortunately their narrow-sightedness has made them be oblivious to the fact that you can get tons of MP3s on
and so on. 0 Day albums on IRC anyone? In fact, the MP3s I get are usually named better, categorized better, and easier to find then they were on Napster, since Napster has a very primitive interface and backend.
I feel bad for Napster as they keep getting nailed up to the cross.. but it's a good thing overall since the record companies can spend their time and money to crucify Napster while everyone else is just using other means. Until cops start arresting lots of people for pirating MP3s, the "piracy" of music will continue.
Something I was recently thinking about is starting a new channel of getting music along the lines of Napster's interface for simplicity (perhaps using the Gnutella protocol or whatever so there's no legal issues) which only distributed Ogg Vorbis format files. It would have to include a database backend like audiogalaxy and be smart about recognizing filenames and such. If Ogg were used exclusively in a new easy to use client for trading files, many college kids would probably jump on it and maybe, just maybe, we would have a standard open format for digial music.
Regardless, despite all the depression and pessimism by the small companies looking to make a buck off the music revolution, the end user hasn't had it better, and there's still places to innovate independently as long as you're not trying to get rich quick.
Having a MSCE or an A+ does mean shit in the grand scheme of things. You're a fool to think it simply has no significance. You may argue that someone without a MCSE, for example, may be more qualified for a position than someone with.. but you cannot say it doesn't mean "shit" if you have one.
Would you prefer nobody was formally trained, tested, and certified in professional practices? Perhaps we should all just drop out of school and jump on the 'net to learn the things we need to know.
Besides, I'd bet old Marcus would never be able to hold his own in court. It takes more than just knowledge of the law to be a good lawyer, just like it takes more than C++ knowledge to be a good coder. It comes down to not just knowledge, but experience. It comes down to not just experience in the thing you're doing (law, C++ coding) but also in life in general. This could mean how to interact with people, how to work as part of a team (which involves knowing your and your coworkers limitations and expertise) among other things. A 15 year old has no experience and no education in the finer points of law, and that is exactly what you're paying for.
The reason Marcus was able to pull off what he did, I'd hypothesize, is not because he has an incredible understanding of the law, but because he is one of the (many) people who have the talent to tell people what they want to hear and inherently understand the psychology of answering questions. I bet Marcus would make a hell of a Slashdot troll. Mix in a little bit of "Court TV" knowledge where it applies, and blammo, instant at-home lawyer. We just see the lawyer and the stock broker, but how many other 15 year olds with Marcus' skill are out there pulling off the alternative life as experts in car maintenence, cooking, and other less jaw-dropping fields? Looking at slashdot, you can see there are many 15 year olds who pass themselves off, occasionally successfully, as DBAs or sysadmins.. though they're weeded out quickly because 1) This is a tech site and 2) The Internet is a tech phenomenon. The same couldn't be said of our 15-year-old online gourmet chef.
Legal advice, cooking advice, programming advice, etc. is one thing.. being in court, making a dish for a crowd of people, or developing a app to be used in the real world is quite another.
To argue that the education system does not teach the finer points of law is a different argument. I'm assuming that certification (be it MCSE, a degree, or membership to the ABA) indicates that you have been trained in a certain field of knowledge, and have picked up all the experiences involved along the way. Coming out of college with a degree doesn't get you a job just because you've been certified to know X, Y, and Z.. it's because having a degree tells an employer that you were able to accomplish all the goals given to you (and in some cases performed better than most all your peers) without getting sucked under by the wave.
Re:Here's the appeal of the Net in a nutshell
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 5
While it is true that stereotypes in regards to race, religion, etc. are very rare on the web, to say that it is the "great equalizer" is wrong. People who are unable to express themselves effectively online using English, either because of a lack of education or because it is not their native language, are taken less seriously. It's not far fetched to have a non-native English speaker trying to present an astute point in a web forum but having their readers take them less seriously due to their grammatical errors.
Also, stereotypes do exist. Linux users. AOL users. Windows users. People who read Slashdot. People who read Stile Project. People who use Netscape. People who use IE. People on a certain forum with a lot of posts. People with a few posts. The list goes on and on. A particularly horrible stereotype seen on the web is that if someone is somewhat computer illeterate (just well versed enough to get online) they are then assumed by many to be uneducated or overall incompetent.
There are less ways for these individual traits to be determined (an @aol.com email, for example, is a dead giveaway for an AOLer,) but they are still used to jump to conclusions about the person expressing themselves, in a fundamentally identical manner to the way people do so IRL based upon race, creed, economic status, etc.
I would agree that this phenomenon is much better on the Internet than IRL, but again the Internet is far from the "everyone is equal" utopia you claim it to be.
That wasn't what I said, at all. I am not saying it is possible to predict where the limit will be, and did not say it was likely there ever would be a limit. What I was implying, however, is that the demand for higher storage media will slow down as we approach the level of storage which will allow our current hardware (sound cards, monitors) to fully use their output bandwidth.
I'm not saying that better hardware won't come along (3d goggles, or whatever) and I'm not saying there won't be a need to store massive amounts of data for processing (the example you gave.) What I *am* saying is that there will be a upper bound for home storage that will slow down dramatically. If it is possible for you to store enough information on your computer to play DivX movies for the next four years, as well as high quality music for the same time, where is the need for more space on a home box? All other things outside of movies and audio are most likely to require less space since the amount of space required is a function of the resolution of output, in whatever form that may be.
The difference being that up until this point, the "XX size is always good enough" argument hasn't been able to be made in reference to the fact that generally standard sizes used today are becoming able to push the output/input limits of our senses on the hardware. For example, the human eye only can distinguish certain refresh rate and a certain resolution in pixel and color size.. a screen with this resolution displaying at this refresh rate (with compression perhaps) is a static number of bytes (don't ask me how many.) Once you have storage space/memory space approaching this size, the question "We'll never need more" takes on a bit more validity since the additional storage will not be used for presentation of stuff but only for internal conputation (ie, a 3d universe has a ton of internal information.) Even in a huge 3d game, the amount of space used for the media of presentation will never go beyond a certain resolution (visually or audiably) both in space and time, since our senses can't make the distinction.
Not that I'm saying we're quite there yet, but we are getting close enough to begin thinking about this realistically.
You implied I've never been to school, dumbass. I was telling you where I go to school.
You said what I read as "some of us understand with little or no problems" in reference to algorithms, which implies that you think that all algorithms are alike and understanding them is a skill which you either have or don't have, and is one you have. These things are all not true.
We were talking about the ability to understand computer science, perhaps I was being vague when I mentioned that my professors are the only ones who can be labeled as "smart".. I was talking about in their abilities within CS. You have most likely never been in the same room as someone who is fundamentally talented at CS (and who would excel in any engineering science) because you would not take such an over-inflated view on your CS abilities.
My final point was that your presence on this website almost definitely excludes you from the small sect of people in society who are naturally good at CS, simply because in my experience Slashdot is a pseudo-technical site that in lots of ways lacks any real intellectual discussion or content. Not that I don't enjoy it, but it's surely uninteresting to these smarties I'm talking about.
I have come to the conclusion that you are 15 years old, BTW.
And those of you who are so stupid to have to learn algorithms piss me off. You're just bitter that you have to study. Some of undestand with little or no problem.
If all algorithms were easily understood by people with "little or no problem" then we'd have them all from the day the computers were there to perform them. It seems to me that you haven't expanded your algorithm knowledge past the binary tree or the bubble sort, or else you'd realize that you can dedicate years of your life to understanding and building upon a single algorithm.
You've proven you're foolishness immediately by your very first statement. To even make the claim that every student in a class has the intention to learn is ridiculous, apparently you haven't been to school at all.
Yeah, I go to school. I go to Cornell. I go to many CS classes at Cornell. Nobody is in a CS class to fuck around once you get past the first couple weeder classes. If a classmate has no experience with C or a merge sort, I'm not going to jump on them as being inferior because I learned that stuff in my spare time. They have experiences in things outside of my realm of knowledge, and I'd expect the same respect from them.
You are the one who has obviously never been to school, or at least, partook in a competitive academic program where everyone there is taking their education seriously and keeping you on your toes.
You throw it around like it's a dirty word, I'm proud of my ability, and of course I look down on anyone who can't compete.
I think you probably need a reality check, because you're not so superior as you think. I'm pretty sure all of the people I've met at school (largely professors) who I've considered as being truly labeled as being "smart" have never read, or would bother reading, Slashdot. They're too busy doing more important things, like studying and expanding upon those algorithms that you seem to understand with "little or no problem."
Elitist. If they're going to class, they have the intention of learning. It's not their fault that your school has been unable to get them to a level in which you'd consider them worthy of your almighty company.
Graduating from school lacking knowledge is one thing (and is often not the fault of the person graduating,) but people who are annoyed at their classmates for not spending all their free time learning computer algorithms piss me off.
Give me a break. Data entry? Have you ever written anything somewhat complex in Java? Doubtful.
Just like you have to think differently about coding when you do assembly language, you have to think on a different plane when designing Java apps. Object relationships, interfaces, dependencies, etc. are all something you need to put into your design, instead of knowing what's on the stack or what registers are holding what values. These are the things you "hand off" to the Sun developers, worrying about the specifics of your OOP app. It's surely programming, though a different type of programming.
If when coding a Java app I used the assembly (or even C) part of my programming brain I would be doing things wrong in many cases. To take into account registers or memory addresses when designing an OOP app is something you shouldn't need to do, and for good reason. The only case where a C background _really_ helps with Java programming task is when you're dealing with object references, which are analagous to pointers. However, such a concept is easily learned and understood by non-C programmers. Demonstrating CS algorithms is better done in a high level language in most cases, so that's not a good argument either.
An understanding of assembly language and computer architecture is definitely essential to warrant a Computer Science degree, I couldn't agree more. However, to downplay Java as not being "programming" is a ridiculous statement that shows a lack of understanding of the whole point of component based/OO programming.
People are stupid. They will not use additional superior software they can download, because they are too dumb or lazy to bother when they have something that does the job already, even if it is a little substandard.
This is why microsoft has a monopoly, because by including it, you appease the lazy man, who constitutes a large chunk of the software market.
Yeah but regardless, can't we see how the GPL is far from letting the most people take advantage of the software? I thought that was the idea of Free Software, secondary to pushing the belief onto others is making sure that everyone can use the software?
First you take intro to Java (if you need it, most don't)
Then you take data structures in Java (which ultimately becomes GUI construction techniques in Java, despite how hard they try.) People who have never programmed fail since they either are A) not fast enought at GUI design or B) cannot comprehend the idea of the linked list.
Then you take functional programming in scheme. People who can't handle recursion and functional thinking fail.
Then you take computer architecture, in which you write MIPS assembly and design a CPU. People who at this point still can't understand what a computer _really_ does, fail.
From thereon you advance through stuff and less people fail out. I think it's probably a decent system since there is a steady drop-out rate, as opposed to people doing computer architecture or scheme first and everyone jumping ship at once. The first two Java classes basically get you warmed up in coding and try to get you thinking about data relationships and stuff.. things which are very important when doing scheme and even when designing a CPU. The data structures class, if taught in C or any other language, would have the same purpose and would not delve into the things Java does automatically like memory management. CS classes are not about learning the language, they're about learning the theory and concepts behind using the language. You eventually do learn the things that are absent in Java like MM, but they are taught in a different context, on the hardware level.
Yeah, analogies are the worst form of argument, agreed. They never work, and seem to simplify the solution to a problem which is totally wrong.
It's like when some religious icon says "Your soul is like a bucket of water, you can see the reflection of the moon in it if it is still, but if you move it too fast then the image is blurred!".. basically that can be summed up in the phrase "Chill out.".. but by using some random analogy it seems to have a deeper and more profound meaning. Plus, this is an analogy that works, don't get me started on the shitty as analogies that get thrown around here that make no sense at all.
CNN reports that Microsoft has admitted to performing research in "hidden TCP/IP compatible surveilance systems," though they still claim that it is unrelated to their hardware line nor their firm stance on privacy protection. They swear that "XP" stands for "Xtra Protection."
also,
MSNBC reports that the RIAA has been hiring outside firms to research in "EMF generation through the use of convetional audio speakers" despite their claim that their "digital signing" technology to be embedded in future audio formats merely disable the playback of the music when a invalid key is detected.
and lastly..
The U.S. government has completed construction of a big fat black cylinder on the White House lawn. The only describable feature of the cylinder is a small 1"x1" AOL logo embossed on its side. The president has commented in regards to the (new) addition as saying "Oh, that old thing? The boys down at NASA tell me that's for ozone detection." Upon being told that a similar object was seen in an episode of "The X-Files," he replied, "What? Aliens? Ha ha! Everyone knows there's no such thing, and besides, if there were, we could pull a McVeigh on them now if they tried to land here! I mean..er.. don't mess with Texas?"
Um. That's what they do now. There's a handful of layers in a modern CPU. It's not to the point where you're talking "3d Cube".. but cross-layer communication IIRC is slow and troublesome to architect.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, particularly since the image says something different now, I'd hinder a guess that it's dynamically generated. I'd be assuming too much if I told you it would be trivial for them to put the numbers in text form on the front page.. they might just automate taking a screenshot from the client or something weird.
:) Reminds me of the "free nude britteny picz LOL!#@*$" links and fake FTP directories with "SpearsNippleShot.avi" links on warez sites. And, if for no other reason than to counter the AC insults, I click on all of them, view them regularly, and have them all saved to my desktop.
Images don't always = static. Like I said though, I'm still a bit skeptical just because of the lameness factor in the way they word things on the site:
Search for whatever you want and maybe stumble across some of the thousands of private erotic files which are only distributed in this way.
(Their boldness) Puhleaaaze
Because then I can't get screwed over in the end by the MP3 people, whoever they end up being at the time, to pay for my pirated music using their format.
.. I could be wrong though.
Seriously though, there are a couple people (5, or 6) using MP3 for legitimate purposes.. and it would be bad to see the GIF phenomenon take place a year or two down the road with audio instead of images.
Nice try in making me out to be a hypocrite, or something. I'm not going to lie to you, I pirate as much music as the next guy (and buy the CDs when they deserve my money.) However, it's comparing apples to oranges when you're talking about the standard way of transporting audio over the net being a proprietary standard. It expands beyond just music, and even where it applies to music it is important. You can yell at the guy in the next cube for pirating Windows from Microsoft (and getting IE,) but you can't use that to invalidate his opinion that the web needs to be an open standard. When the Borg comes and takes him away in shackles at the next audit, they'll be sure to ask for input about Windows before they lock him away.
(I can never hold off the inherent CS geek need to make analogies. Damn program abstraction methods ingrained in my brain.)
Someone who sneaks into a movie can still form a valid judgement about the quality of the film, even though they cheated the creators out of their money. If you discredit their opinion in deciding what movie you'd like to see this weekend, simply because they didn't pay, you're being ignorant.
To the AC equating proprietary standards with Communism - Um. I thought that Communism was regarded as a good thing on here by the OSS (Open Source Socialists)
I just checked it out.. if it wasn't for your comment I wouldn't take them seriously. Offering a "Insiders Secrets Guide" to getting free hotel rooms if you sign up someone for free isn't the most reputable style of convincing people to sign up :) It's also very loud about the porn aspect of it on the front page, which also makes it seem more ghetto :)
:)
I might try it though anyway, just for kicks. $4 is nothing
The music revolution IS over. We won. I can get any music I want still.. the record companies think they've won by killing Napster or whatever, but unfortunately their narrow-sightedness has made them be oblivious to the fact that you can get tons of MP3s on
- Audiogalaxy
- Gnutella
- IRC
- FTPs
- Shoutcast Streams
- Direct Connect
and so on. 0 Day albums on IRC anyone? In fact, the MP3s I get are usually named better, categorized better, and easier to find then they were on Napster, since Napster has a very primitive interface and backend.
I feel bad for Napster as they keep getting nailed up to the cross.. but it's a good thing overall since the record companies can spend their time and money to crucify Napster while everyone else is just using other means. Until cops start arresting lots of people for pirating MP3s, the "piracy" of music will continue.
Something I was recently thinking about is starting a new channel of getting music along the lines of Napster's interface for simplicity (perhaps using the Gnutella protocol or whatever so there's no legal issues) which only distributed Ogg Vorbis format files. It would have to include a database backend like audiogalaxy and be smart about recognizing filenames and such. If Ogg were used exclusively in a new easy to use client for trading files, many college kids would probably jump on it and maybe, just maybe, we would have a standard open format for digial music.
Regardless, despite all the depression and pessimism by the small companies looking to make a buck off the music revolution, the end user hasn't had it better, and there's still places to innovate independently as long as you're not trying to get rich quick.
Having a MSCE or an A+ does mean shit in the grand scheme of things. You're a fool to think it simply has no significance. You may argue that someone without a MCSE, for example, may be more qualified for a position than someone with.. but you cannot say it doesn't mean "shit" if you have one.
Would you prefer nobody was formally trained, tested, and certified in professional practices? Perhaps we should all just drop out of school and jump on the 'net to learn the things we need to know.
Besides, I'd bet old Marcus would never be able to hold his own in court. It takes more than just knowledge of the law to be a good lawyer, just like it takes more than C++ knowledge to be a good coder. It comes down to not just knowledge, but experience. It comes down to not just experience in the thing you're doing (law, C++ coding) but also in life in general. This could mean how to interact with people, how to work as part of a team (which involves knowing your and your coworkers limitations and expertise) among other things. A 15 year old has no experience and no education in the finer points of law, and that is exactly what you're paying for.
The reason Marcus was able to pull off what he did, I'd hypothesize, is not because he has an incredible understanding of the law, but because he is one of the (many) people who have the talent to tell people what they want to hear and inherently understand the psychology of answering questions. I bet Marcus would make a hell of a Slashdot troll. Mix in a little bit of "Court TV" knowledge where it applies, and blammo, instant at-home lawyer. We just see the lawyer and the stock broker, but how many other 15 year olds with Marcus' skill are out there pulling off the alternative life as experts in car maintenence, cooking, and other less jaw-dropping fields? Looking at slashdot, you can see there are many 15 year olds who pass themselves off, occasionally successfully, as DBAs or sysadmins.. though they're weeded out quickly because 1) This is a tech site and 2) The Internet is a tech phenomenon. The same couldn't be said of our 15-year-old online gourmet chef.
Legal advice, cooking advice, programming advice, etc. is one thing.. being in court, making a dish for a crowd of people, or developing a app to be used in the real world is quite another.
To argue that the education system does not teach the finer points of law is a different argument. I'm assuming that certification (be it MCSE, a degree, or membership to the ABA) indicates that you have been trained in a certain field of knowledge, and have picked up all the experiences involved along the way. Coming out of college with a degree doesn't get you a job just because you've been certified to know X, Y, and Z.. it's because having a degree tells an employer that you were able to accomplish all the goals given to you (and in some cases performed better than most all your peers) without getting sucked under by the wave.
While it is true that stereotypes in regards to race, religion, etc. are very rare on the web, to say that it is the "great equalizer" is wrong. People who are unable to express themselves effectively online using English, either because of a lack of education or because it is not their native language, are taken less seriously. It's not far fetched to have a non-native English speaker trying to present an astute point in a web forum but having their readers take them less seriously due to their grammatical errors.
Also, stereotypes do exist. Linux users. AOL users. Windows users. People who read Slashdot. People who read Stile Project. People who use Netscape. People who use IE. People on a certain forum with a lot of posts. People with a few posts. The list goes on and on. A particularly horrible stereotype seen on the web is that if someone is somewhat computer illeterate (just well versed enough to get online) they are then assumed by many to be uneducated or overall incompetent.
There are less ways for these individual traits to be determined (an @aol.com email, for example, is a dead giveaway for an AOLer,) but they are still used to jump to conclusions about the person expressing themselves, in a fundamentally identical manner to the way people do so IRL based upon race, creed, economic status, etc.
I would agree that this phenomenon is much better on the Internet than IRL, but again the Internet is far from the "everyone is equal" utopia you claim it to be.
That wasn't what I said, at all. I am not saying it is possible to predict where the limit will be, and did not say it was likely there ever would be a limit. What I was implying, however, is that the demand for higher storage media will slow down as we approach the level of storage which will allow our current hardware (sound cards, monitors) to fully use their output bandwidth. I'm not saying that better hardware won't come along (3d goggles, or whatever) and I'm not saying there won't be a need to store massive amounts of data for processing (the example you gave.) What I *am* saying is that there will be a upper bound for home storage that will slow down dramatically. If it is possible for you to store enough information on your computer to play DivX movies for the next four years, as well as high quality music for the same time, where is the need for more space on a home box? All other things outside of movies and audio are most likely to require less space since the amount of space required is a function of the resolution of output, in whatever form that may be.
The difference being that up until this point, the "XX size is always good enough" argument hasn't been able to be made in reference to the fact that generally standard sizes used today are becoming able to push the output/input limits of our senses on the hardware. For example, the human eye only can distinguish certain refresh rate and a certain resolution in pixel and color size.. a screen with this resolution displaying at this refresh rate (with compression perhaps) is a static number of bytes (don't ask me how many.) Once you have storage space/memory space approaching this size, the question "We'll never need more" takes on a bit more validity since the additional storage will not be used for presentation of stuff but only for internal conputation (ie, a 3d universe has a ton of internal information.) Even in a huge 3d game, the amount of space used for the media of presentation will never go beyond a certain resolution (visually or audiably) both in space and time, since our senses can't make the distinction.
Not that I'm saying we're quite there yet, but we are getting close enough to begin thinking about this realistically.
Somebody is going to set up... eh fuck it.
You implied I've never been to school, dumbass. I was telling you where I go to school.
.. I was talking about in their abilities within CS. You have most likely never been in the same room as someone who is fundamentally talented at CS (and who would excel in any engineering science) because you would not take such an over-inflated view on your CS abilities.
You said what I read as "some of us understand with little or no problems" in reference to algorithms, which implies that you think that all algorithms are alike and understanding them is a skill which you either have or don't have, and is one you have. These things are all not true.
We were talking about the ability to understand computer science, perhaps I was being vague when I mentioned that my professors are the only ones who can be labeled as "smart"
My final point was that your presence on this website almost definitely excludes you from the small sect of people in society who are naturally good at CS, simply because in my experience Slashdot is a pseudo-technical site that in lots of ways lacks any real intellectual discussion or content. Not that I don't enjoy it, but it's surely uninteresting to these smarties I'm talking about.
I have come to the conclusion that you are 15 years old, BTW.
And those of you who are so stupid to have to learn algorithms piss me off. You're just bitter that you have to study. Some of undestand with little or no problem.
If all algorithms were easily understood by people with "little or no problem" then we'd have them all from the day the computers were there to perform them. It seems to me that you haven't expanded your algorithm knowledge past the binary tree or the bubble sort, or else you'd realize that you can dedicate years of your life to understanding and building upon a single algorithm.
You've proven you're foolishness immediately by your very first statement. To even make the claim that every student in a class has the intention to learn is ridiculous, apparently you haven't been to school at all.
Yeah, I go to school. I go to Cornell. I go to many CS classes at Cornell. Nobody is in a CS class to fuck around once you get past the first couple weeder classes. If a classmate has no experience with C or a merge sort, I'm not going to jump on them as being inferior because I learned that stuff in my spare time. They have experiences in things outside of my realm of knowledge, and I'd expect the same respect from them.
You are the one who has obviously never been to school, or at least, partook in a competitive academic program where everyone there is taking their education seriously and keeping you on your toes.
You throw it around like it's a dirty word, I'm proud of my ability, and of course I look down on anyone who can't compete.
I think you probably need a reality check, because you're not so superior as you think. I'm pretty sure all of the people I've met at school (largely professors) who I've considered as being truly labeled as being "smart" have never read, or would bother reading, Slashdot. They're too busy doing more important things, like studying and expanding upon those algorithms that you seem to understand with "little or no problem."
Elitist. If they're going to class, they have the intention of learning. It's not their fault that your school has been unable to get them to a level in which you'd consider them worthy of your almighty company.
Graduating from school lacking knowledge is one thing (and is often not the fault of the person graduating,) but people who are annoyed at their classmates for not spending all their free time learning computer algorithms piss me off.
Give me a break. Data entry? Have you ever written anything somewhat complex in Java? Doubtful.
Just like you have to think differently about coding when you do assembly language, you have to think on a different plane when designing Java apps. Object relationships, interfaces, dependencies, etc. are all something you need to put into your design, instead of knowing what's on the stack or what registers are holding what values. These are the things you "hand off" to the Sun developers, worrying about the specifics of your OOP app. It's surely programming, though a different type of programming.
If when coding a Java app I used the assembly (or even C) part of my programming brain I would be doing things wrong in many cases. To take into account registers or memory addresses when designing an OOP app is something you shouldn't need to do, and for good reason. The only case where a C background _really_ helps with Java programming task is when you're dealing with object references, which are analagous to pointers. However, such a concept is easily learned and understood by non-C programmers. Demonstrating CS algorithms is better done in a high level language in most cases, so that's not a good argument either.
An understanding of assembly language and computer architecture is definitely essential to warrant a Computer Science degree, I couldn't agree more. However, to downplay Java as not being "programming" is a ridiculous statement that shows a lack of understanding of the whole point of component based/OO programming.
People are stupid. They will not use additional superior software they can download, because they are too dumb or lazy to bother when they have something that does the job already, even if it is a little substandard.
This is why microsoft has a monopoly, because by including it, you appease the lazy man, who constitutes a large chunk of the software market.
Sun and IBM don't have a monopoly on the desktop. Think Netscape, but if IE had come out before it did.
Just for kicks
I vomit up things like you after breakfast.
It's times like these I wish I had become a web developer.
Time to die, ya friggin maggots.
When I'm through, everyone here will be crying to their mommies for a diaper change.
Catch! or Nice Catch, all-star. (Upon shooting/hitting a rocket or something)
I hope you took out insurance on that filthy carcass of yours, cause the repo man's here.
I'm out faster than a cheap tourist in a Vegas casino.
I'm so hot, you could cook a steak on my ass.
I'm faster than a cheetah on speed bolted to an air-to-air missle.
I haven't looked into it, but someone needs to write a Winamp plugin to decompress this stuff. Now.
Yeah but regardless, can't we see how the GPL is far from letting the most people take advantage of the software? I thought that was the idea of Free Software, secondary to pushing the belief onto others is making sure that everyone can use the software?
First you take intro to Java (if you need it, most don't)
Then you take data structures in Java (which ultimately becomes GUI construction techniques in Java, despite how hard they try.) People who have never programmed fail since they either are A) not fast enought at GUI design or B) cannot comprehend the idea of the linked list.
Then you take functional programming in scheme. People who can't handle recursion and functional thinking fail.
Then you take computer architecture, in which you write MIPS assembly and design a CPU. People who at this point still can't understand what a computer _really_ does, fail.
From thereon you advance through stuff and less people fail out. I think it's probably a decent system since there is a steady drop-out rate, as opposed to people doing computer architecture or scheme first and everyone jumping ship at once. The first two Java classes basically get you warmed up in coding and try to get you thinking about data relationships and stuff.. things which are very important when doing scheme and even when designing a CPU. The data structures class, if taught in C or any other language, would have the same purpose and would not delve into the things Java does automatically like memory management. CS classes are not about learning the language, they're about learning the theory and concepts behind using the language. You eventually do learn the things that are absent in Java like MM, but they are taught in a different context, on the hardware level.
Yeah, analogies are the worst form of argument, agreed. They never work, and seem to simplify the solution to a problem which is totally wrong. It's like when some religious icon says "Your soul is like a bucket of water, you can see the reflection of the moon in it if it is still, but if you move it too fast then the image is blurred!" .. basically that can be summed up in the phrase "Chill out." .. but by using some random analogy it seems to have a deeper and more profound meaning. Plus, this is an analogy that works, don't get me started on the shitty as analogies that get thrown around here that make no sense at all.
Yum! Keep it up, old chap! Right-o!
All I can say to that is damn, am I jealous of my dear mother! Ha ha!
You betcha! Thanks!
It's the witty oneline insults that make me keep coming back to Slashdot! Leet! Keep it up, gents!
CNN reports that Microsoft has admitted to performing research in "hidden TCP/IP compatible surveilance systems," though they still claim that it is unrelated to their hardware line nor their firm stance on privacy protection. They swear that "XP" stands for "Xtra Protection."
also,
MSNBC reports that the RIAA has been hiring outside firms to research in "EMF generation through the use of convetional audio speakers" despite their claim that their "digital signing" technology to be embedded in future audio formats merely disable the playback of the music when a invalid key is detected.
and lastly..
The U.S. government has completed construction of a big fat black cylinder on the White House lawn. The only describable feature of the cylinder is a small 1"x1" AOL logo embossed on its side. The president has commented in regards to the (new) addition as saying "Oh, that old thing? The boys down at NASA tell me that's for ozone detection." Upon being told that a similar object was seen in an episode of "The X-Files," he replied, "What? Aliens? Ha ha! Everyone knows there's no such thing, and besides, if there were, we could pull a McVeigh on them now if they tried to land here! I mean..er.. don't mess with Texas?"
I think he was implying that it would be squared each time instead of doubled. Ie:
2^2 = 4
4^2 = 16
16^2 = 256
.. and so on.
Um. That's what they do now. There's a handful of layers in a modern CPU. It's not to the point where you're talking "3d Cube" .. but cross-layer communication IIRC is slow and troublesome to architect.