It really depends on what you intend to do with your degree. For general use, and some research programming is not needed. There are things it will help with, but you can cope. A little bit more time, and a spreadsheet will let you do all the data crunching needed.
For theoretical work, it is a must. That field essentially ensures that you will be either writing code, or writing code to run on an available modeling suite. Either way, the more you know of programming the easier it is.
I got a PhD in an engineering discipline w/o ever learning to code 2 years ago. It is not essential, but it can help out a lot and save time. I did all my number crunching in Excel w/o Macros mainly because each data set was different and there weren't that many to justify learning a language for it.
My biggest issue is that each professor in U-grad was into a different suite, so I'd learn what was necessary for that suite at the time. Learn some Matlab, learn some Mathematica, learn some Maple, etc. then never use it again for 3 years and forget it. Not that they are hardcore programming languages but serve the purpose.
If I did it again, I'd learn a language earlier so it'd be available to me. It is also a valuable skill to employers.
I'd agree with this. Excel is good in many respects, but it has some serious limitations in dataset size. It really isn't hard to get datasets many times larger than it can handle with modern instrumentation looking data at 100kSamples/s and up on multiple channels.
What Windows 7 really needs is to be built from the ground up. Make it work well in a small package, and not be a gigantic resource hog. An OS is to run programs and be an interface to the system, not to look super pretty. An OS should not require a large graphics card to function.
The Windows releases have pretty much just been adding more stuff into an already overly large OS. And make it so that it doesn't load everything under the sun at startup.
Scrap it and make some clean code. For compatability have a windowed emulator mode that will allow legacy apps.
I basically said the same thing lower down.
You can't come up with fancy names for how good the performance is, because it's all relative. "Ultra" is going to be "not-so-ultra" is 2 years. You'll have a 2010 "basic" system thrashing a 2008 "ultra" system. The naming system will completely break down. You either have to date everything with the name to get anything out of it (which is insanely complex...I have a May 08 Ultra system...is that better than a May '10 basic???), or use a pure numeric benchmark-type score. Otherwise it is MORE confusing.
It'll never work.
Good idea, crappy ass execution.
Biggest issue with is the entire thing is the X PC configuration is labeled as Ultra and Y PC configuration is label basic. How long will these configurations be the adequate for PC gaming? In 2 years, the "ULTRA" system may be pretty crappy compared to what is for sale. You have to keep coming up with new names to identify that this is different from that.
Essentially, PC hardware changes all the time. How is one to know how todays "basic" compares to yesterday's "ULTRA?" It makes the entire mechanism useless over time.
If you are going to do it, you need to say some system is the baseline system with a score of 100. Over time, you rate the PC based on that. So in 2 years, a "standard" pc may end up rating a 200. You say a game requires a rating of Z score to play. It is of course not foolproof as there are many factors that go into a PC's performance but it's a lot better the "basic" and "ULTRA"
DARPAs job is to fund wild-ass, crazy military tech ideas. Stuff with ah high risk of failure, but with good payoffs. "Wouldn't it be cool if..." sorts of things. Historically, most of the things they fund don't really go anywhere.
They have had some GREAT successes though.
This type of tech is a pretty low-priority sort of work. You can tell by the amount of overall funding it has received over the last couple years. When is the last time the US faced a "modern" armored military force?
Typical first day is paper reading, background junk, required university safety training, etc.
Then you'll be assigned a project and typically work under a graduate student. Often, the project will be relatively closely associated with what the graduate student is doing for his research, but distinct enough that you have your own thing.
You'll often start with grunt work (our lab had metal sample polishing, glassware cleaning is often involved in chem/bio labs) as a means to an end. You need to prep X to do Y, and hell if anyone else is doing the annoying X work.
It may be debugging code, or something else. This will lead into your project if they've set up the experience well. It'll give background information and get you exposed to the material/give you an appreciation for the consequences of messing up.
You WILL be low man on the totem pole. If you prove you're capable you'll get more autonomy as the weeks go on. There is a pecking order in a lab, typically set by experience and tenure in the lab.
Don't expect to interact with the professor much. Univ. labs are run by the graduate students and PostDocs if the lab has any. You should try to schedule a meeting weekly with the professor if possible though. A good prof should gladly take an hour a week to talk about what is going on in the lab, results, hinderances, future plans, etc. Use it to help you out, but never talk bad about the others in the lab.
These things almost follow a recipe anymore.
"save the artists. the artists are starving."
In reality, few artists actually hold the copyright. It is typically big corporations who own the copyright and get rich off these schemes. The artists see royalties, but it is typically a small fraction. Notice how they never mention that XX funds were distributed to the "artists." It is a huge ploy to generate public sympathy for the music industry execs levying taxes on the people in the case of the storage media fees. It also has the trouble of then "validating" downloading. If you paid the fee/tax/levy on media to compensate for music copying, then the average person feels they have paid for the ability to copy them. Otherwise, you are paying a fee/tax/levy because of illegal activity, which is completely idiotic.
Is it so bad that a song someone wrote in the 60s is no longer making them money? If you make something, do you really expect to be paid for it the rest of your life? For most people, they get paid for the work they did today (or recently).
Slashdot Mirror
It really depends on what you intend to do with your degree. For general use, and some research programming is not needed. There are things it will help with, but you can cope. A little bit more time, and a spreadsheet will let you do all the data crunching needed. For theoretical work, it is a must. That field essentially ensures that you will be either writing code, or writing code to run on an available modeling suite. Either way, the more you know of programming the easier it is. I got a PhD in an engineering discipline w/o ever learning to code 2 years ago. It is not essential, but it can help out a lot and save time. I did all my number crunching in Excel w/o Macros mainly because each data set was different and there weren't that many to justify learning a language for it. My biggest issue is that each professor in U-grad was into a different suite, so I'd learn what was necessary for that suite at the time. Learn some Matlab, learn some Mathematica, learn some Maple, etc. then never use it again for 3 years and forget it. Not that they are hardcore programming languages but serve the purpose. If I did it again, I'd learn a language earlier so it'd be available to me. It is also a valuable skill to employers.
I'd agree with this. Excel is good in many respects, but it has some serious limitations in dataset size. It really isn't hard to get datasets many times larger than it can handle with modern instrumentation looking data at 100kSamples/s and up on multiple channels.
What Windows 7 really needs is to be built from the ground up. Make it work well in a small package, and not be a gigantic resource hog. An OS is to run programs and be an interface to the system, not to look super pretty. An OS should not require a large graphics card to function.
The Windows releases have pretty much just been adding more stuff into an already overly large OS. And make it so that it doesn't load everything under the sun at startup.
Scrap it and make some clean code. For compatability have a windowed emulator mode that will allow legacy apps.
I basically said the same thing lower down. You can't come up with fancy names for how good the performance is, because it's all relative. "Ultra" is going to be "not-so-ultra" is 2 years. You'll have a 2010 "basic" system thrashing a 2008 "ultra" system. The naming system will completely break down. You either have to date everything with the name to get anything out of it (which is insanely complex...I have a May 08 Ultra system...is that better than a May '10 basic???), or use a pure numeric benchmark-type score. Otherwise it is MORE confusing. It'll never work.
Good idea, crappy ass execution. Biggest issue with is the entire thing is the X PC configuration is labeled as Ultra and Y PC configuration is label basic. How long will these configurations be the adequate for PC gaming? In 2 years, the "ULTRA" system may be pretty crappy compared to what is for sale. You have to keep coming up with new names to identify that this is different from that. Essentially, PC hardware changes all the time. How is one to know how todays "basic" compares to yesterday's "ULTRA?" It makes the entire mechanism useless over time. If you are going to do it, you need to say some system is the baseline system with a score of 100. Over time, you rate the PC based on that. So in 2 years, a "standard" pc may end up rating a 200. You say a game requires a rating of Z score to play. It is of course not foolproof as there are many factors that go into a PC's performance but it's a lot better the "basic" and "ULTRA"
yeah, but not that sort of power. It is impractical to store that much energy in batteries.
He didn't invent anything. Magnetic fields and jets of metal are the only real similarities.
DARPAs job is to fund wild-ass, crazy military tech ideas. Stuff with ah high risk of failure, but with good payoffs. "Wouldn't it be cool if..." sorts of things. Historically, most of the things they fund don't really go anywhere. They have had some GREAT successes though. This type of tech is a pretty low-priority sort of work. You can tell by the amount of overall funding it has received over the last couple years. When is the last time the US faced a "modern" armored military force?
Typical first day is paper reading, background junk, required university safety training, etc. Then you'll be assigned a project and typically work under a graduate student. Often, the project will be relatively closely associated with what the graduate student is doing for his research, but distinct enough that you have your own thing. You'll often start with grunt work (our lab had metal sample polishing, glassware cleaning is often involved in chem/bio labs) as a means to an end. You need to prep X to do Y, and hell if anyone else is doing the annoying X work. It may be debugging code, or something else. This will lead into your project if they've set up the experience well. It'll give background information and get you exposed to the material/give you an appreciation for the consequences of messing up. You WILL be low man on the totem pole. If you prove you're capable you'll get more autonomy as the weeks go on. There is a pecking order in a lab, typically set by experience and tenure in the lab. Don't expect to interact with the professor much. Univ. labs are run by the graduate students and PostDocs if the lab has any. You should try to schedule a meeting weekly with the professor if possible though. A good prof should gladly take an hour a week to talk about what is going on in the lab, results, hinderances, future plans, etc. Use it to help you out, but never talk bad about the others in the lab.
...and destroy all types of internet commerce.
correlation =/= causation
These things almost follow a recipe anymore. "save the artists. the artists are starving." In reality, few artists actually hold the copyright. It is typically big corporations who own the copyright and get rich off these schemes. The artists see royalties, but it is typically a small fraction. Notice how they never mention that XX funds were distributed to the "artists." It is a huge ploy to generate public sympathy for the music industry execs levying taxes on the people in the case of the storage media fees. It also has the trouble of then "validating" downloading. If you paid the fee/tax/levy on media to compensate for music copying, then the average person feels they have paid for the ability to copy them. Otherwise, you are paying a fee/tax/levy because of illegal activity, which is completely idiotic. Is it so bad that a song someone wrote in the 60s is no longer making them money? If you make something, do you really expect to be paid for it the rest of your life? For most people, they get paid for the work they did today (or recently).