... according to RMS.DLLs don't count as shared libraries, since you can obtain the adress and call it directly.
So... anyone care to explain to me how *nix manages the magic of executing code contained within an SO without knowing what it's address is? That's pretty damn impressive...
Sarcasm aside, I doubt that this was RMS's response. Whatever the OS - *nix, Windows, MacOS, Be, whatever - shared libraries offer a fairly uniform subset of capabilities. The two most basic are the ability to load a shared library into your memory space, and to get the address of a variable or block of code contained within the libary. Both of these are pretty much required in order to make used of a shared library.
Don't feel like you need to take my word for it, though:
Restrictions to the use of the internet in the computer should therefore be more appropriately compared to the maximum capacity of the library itself - if only 20 people can get in (small library) then sooner or later you need to get people out so others can get in.
Hmm. Excellent point. Still - if the library has a common meeting room with the capacity to hold 50 people, and there's no one using it at a particular time... that doesn't mean that 50 people can show up and hold a party. You can argue that nobody else is using that space (or that computer), so you're not depriving anyone of anything; but again, the library has the ability to determine how it's resources (including it's physical building) will be used. If they deem some type of usage inapropriate, they can forbid it. This applies to both tangible items(computers, books, furniture), and intangible items (floor space, employee time, meeting rooms, and network connections).
Bzzzzt. It costs extra money and library resources to implement filtering.
Bzzzzt. Who the hell said anything about filtering? Something as simple as "Sir, if you're not using the computer for research, we'd appreciate it if you would free it up for other patrons" would work. Besides, what about open source? How about one library system implements a decent set of filtering software, and just gives it away?
A library can decide to have computers or not, but they have no business telling people what they can and can't view.
Are you aware of some legal ruling about libraries in general that backs this up, or a you just stating something you think makes sense? The computers and computing resources belong to the library; they are entirely within their rights to set rules for their use. Libraries do this all the time. You can only check out books for a certain period of time (shorter times for the more popular books). You can't check out magazines or newspapers at all. Books in certain collections cannot leave the library, period. Some books just aren't available, period. None of these are censorship, just a library trying to make sure that the majority of it's patrons benefit from it's services.
Yah, I know. Computers aren't like books, yadda yadda yadda. You're absolutely right. They're not. The fundamentals of the situation remain the same: the library owns the resources, and set the rules regarding their uses. If monitoring usage, or filtering web access, or the like helps make computers more useful to the majority of their patrons, they'll do it.
IMHO, most libraires and librarians don't want to have to get to the point where they need to put the computers out in the open, with filtering software installed and someone constantly monitoring them. They want to let reasonable people behave reasonably. If you're familiar with the tragedy of the commons, though, then you know that even resonable people can be unreasonable when it comes to managing a shared resource like a public library or public computers.
But seriously, I feel sorry for any librarian who is forced to choose between quitting her/his job and becoming a censor.
I've worked in a library - every librarian, like it or not, is a censor. They don't mean to be... but there is no library in existance that has the unlimited funding it would take to carry all available materials.
So the librarians have to decide what new books they will purchase; what old, damaged books will be replaced; what old, damaged books can be repaired; and then do the same thing for video tapes... audio books... software... magazine subscriptions... newspaper subscriptions... and now, their computing resources.
If your local librarian doesn't think it's worth spending his/her limited budget on, then it won't be available in your local library. It's a kind of censorship - someone else telling you what you will or won't have access to They're generally unwilling to carry subscriptions to Playboy (or Hustler or whatever your favorite skin mag is), and the vast majority of the public views this type of "censorship" as a good and right way for them to make use of a limited funds in order to do their job.
So... tell me why a library's effort to make the same kind of decision about how to make use of limited computing resources in the same situation is viewed as unacceptable?
Re:Great, now 747's will be shot down all the time
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
They key here is "behind enemy lines". In peacetime, a soldier dressed as a civilian in another country is called a "tourist" or "visitor". Little things, like a declaration of war between two countries, tend to affect how they view each other, and will probably have some small effect on their attitude toward the people (civilian and military) and aircraft (civilian and military) from the country they are supposedly at war with.
The article is topped off with a gif image tagged "OOP Stinks!". That should give you a good insight into the level of discourse that follows.
Of course, the author absolves himself from all responsibility for having to present anything more than an emotion-filled diatribe by stating early on:
Disclaimer: not all myths discussed are necessarily shared by all or even most OO proponents. They are based on "common notions" found in the business and programming world as I have observed them. I am making no claims as to the frequency of beliefs in the myths. My frequency of encounter may differ from yours. Discussing myths is not the same as "punching a straw-man", which some OO proponents claim I am doing by mentioning myths.
So... his article is based on debunking "OOP Myths", which he states are not "necessarily shared by all or even most OO proponents." He repeatedly fails to back up any of his points with citations or references (and at one point, actually states "Sorry, we accidentally lost the references.") Instead, he justifies his arguments by making blanket statements like "Many OO books and even some OO fans suggest that OO only shines under fairly ideal conditions." Which OO books? "Some" OO "fans"? (Remember the disclaimer - not neccesarily all or even most OO proponents...)
Finally, some of his commonly (or not-so-commonly - take a look at that disclaimer, again) believed OOP myths are outrageous to the point of being silly... OOP eliminated the need for case or switch statements? OOP makes programming more visual? Only OOP has automatic garbage collection? Components can only be built with OOP? Only Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data? Who, exactly, does believe these myths? PHBs? Certainly not anyone with a CS education or decent amount of programming experience.
The best thing I can say about this article is that I think the author has a few good points and compelling arguments that are, unfortunately, lost amid the noise and confusion of unsubstantiated facts. If you can read it through and keep from grimacing in pain as OOP is compared to communism and the lack of research in non-OOP languages is decried, you might be able to find an idea or two that will reward you for the effort.
This does not extend to trying to trying to break into boxes that aren't yours.
So what's "breaking in"? Pinging the box? Determining who's connected? Trying to log in to check the uptime? Checking to see if it has any unusual ports open, or is currently passing traffic outside the internal network? You made it sound as if anyone even attempting a connection to one of the machines for any reason would be branded as a l33t hax0r and summarily fired without bothering to ask them what was going on.
In my defense, you weren't very descriptive of the type of network you typically work with. On most of the networks I've dealt with, the network administrators did, indeed, "own" everything on the network - they were absolutely responsible for every piece of equipment; in the course of their jobs, they might do any and all of the above without even thinking about it, because if a box was added to the network that they should not admin, then they would have been told about it. For the types of networks you've described, though, I'd expect a greater degree of control, and fewer people with this level of responsibility.
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
A CS degree is about advancing the field. A CIS degree is about learning what has already been learned.
I agree with that - I beleive I made a similar statement elsewhere in this discussion. There is a segment of folks arguing here, though, who are taking the position that only CS majors are capable of doing either - learning the current state of the art or advancing the state of the art; and that CIS majors and their kin should be relegated to rebooting servers and the like.
I think that the average CS cirriculum is put together with the expectation that a CS undergrad will eventually, if not immediately, go on to get a masters or doctorate. They tend to be theory-heavy, and have little or no real-world knowledge or experience. Just as an example: ask a CS grad how to normalize a database schema, then ask them when not to. You'll almost always get an answer to the first question, and a blank stare with the second, because they've been taught that normalized databases are right.
Several CS majors have talked about "Because of my CS background, it was so much easier to understand/learn X..." - without ackowledging that, every day, people without CS backgrounds come to learn or usderstand the same thing. Maybe the CS background does make it marginally easier; on the other hand, I'm a voracious reader, and I've never noticed my lack of a formal CS education slowing me down significantly.
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 2
It's not a matter of "cannot be taught or learned on the job", it's a matter of not knowing that reading a book at this point would be a really good idea.
Not really - there are five levels of ignorance, IIRC. The most basic one is not knowing that you don't know something. It's fairly easy to get past that and get into the "knowing that you don't know something" level. At that point, you should at least realize that you can ask questions, look for literature (in print and on the web), etc. and determine what it is that you need to know, and where you can learn it.
Folks in all fields do this all the time; I do it every time I encounter a new technology. These days, in particular, with the number of helpful folks on the net, it's particularly easy to get past being completely ignorant and arrive at the point where you can start educating yourself.
Unfortunately, no. The idea was to make these available to folks with long commutes, so they wouldn't spend two hours a day on the road and then another two hours a day reading up on ATM networking or whatever. Having to haul along a laptop in the car and potentially fiddle with it periodically to get it to go on to the next page or whatnot would be less than ideal:-/
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 5
So basically your point is that a degree is pointless?
No - just that which degree you have (CS vs. CIS vs. ECE) doesn't neccesarily mean a lot to a prospective employer. The fact that you finished school in a technical field related to computers is often enough to get you into an interview.
I have seldom found that these questions really allow the interviewee to show more than a slice of his knowledge.
Depends on what questions you ask, really. The ideal questions, and the ones we try to ask, are the ones that allow a person to demonstrate their knowlege of programming, data structures, and their problem solving skills. Asking questions like "What's a string?" tend to get you an entirely different class of answers than "How would you have implemneted cfront?"
Usually, a degree is a sign that person has learned a certain amount.
Agreed... that's what earns them the interview. At that point, they need to demonstrate that they really have learned that certain amount. I have interviewed people who may have been unsung geniuses, but when asked the simplest questions, were unable to explain basic concepts like stacks or linked lists. Either they were unable to function under the slightest amount of pressure, or they were unable to communicate effectively, or they simply didn't understand the concepts. Any one of those, in my mind, is a good enough reason to give someone a thumbs down.
Sorry, there are things that one learns in school that a person is just not going to discover on the job.
Like what? Please explain. I've yet to encounter anything that cannot be taught or learned on the job, or picked up "on the side" while working.
Yeah, a CIS degree may teach you how databases work, but you're never going to just figure out how to write one on the job.
Pardon me - your arrogance is showing. The first people to write databases did figure them out on the job. There are developers in all corners of the globe who somehow manage to limp along and produce some pretty damn good software without the benefit of a CS degree, because they're willing to learn on the job, outside of school. A CS degree is a good foundation for continuing to learn; but do not think for a moment that lack of a degree neccesarily indicates lack of knowledge.
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 2
If you'd read on, you'd see that I make that point - the degree is there to get your foot in the door. There's not a whole lot of variation in job applications from new grads - where you went to school probably counts as much, if not more, than whether your major was CS or CIS or ECE or some other variation.
Your typical new grad's resume (3-4 years of summer jobs, and maybe an internship) isn't worthless - it's just not a major factor in the decision to interview or not interview. If you did some interesting work at some point, it might make you stand out from the crowd, but lack of cool summer job experiences or internships is not going to drop you out of the running.
Who would YOU pick for a programming job - resume A with the CIS degree, or resume B with the CS degree?
Everything else being equal, whichever candidate was best able to answer the technical interview questions.
For someone fresh out of college, a degree is just a foot in the door. There is no way to judge a person's qualifications soley based on whether they were a CS/CIS major. Without any other siginficant work experience, either degree is generally good enough to get you in the door for an interview. (If this isn't the case, then the company probably just isn't interested in hiring a recent graduate, regardless of what their major was.)
I've interviewed new CS grads who seemed to have learned absolutely nothing from fours years of CS classes, and recent CIS and ECE graduates that were extremely competent. Their degrees had little to do with what they actually learned in school. Yah, a CS major is probably going to know more about computer science and sofware development than a CIS major. Differences in schools, cirriculums, electives and in-school work experiences can level things out pretty quickly, though, to the point where any company that makes a decision about a recent grad based solely on whether they have a CS or CIS degree is shooting themselves in the foot.
Agreed. At some point, it may become essential to get a CS/CIS degree before you can work as a developer... for now, though, and for the forseeable future, it truly doesn't matter what your degree was in, as long as you can demonstrate the neccesary skills.
I got my B.S. in metallurgical engineering; I work with another metallurgist (QA lead), a machinist who taught himself Perl and C (another QA lead), a UI designer who got his M.S. in anthropology... while there are certainly more folks here with a CS background than not, you would be hard pressed to find another technical field where lack of an undergraduate degree in the field was not an absolute barrier to entry.
There's absolutely no reason why you can't use a source format (say, IDL) to produce both COM/CORBA and SOAP representations of the same interfaces. We're currently doing that, although not using IDL as the source; it seems to work well, and offers you performance via COM/DCOM where you need it, with interoperability via SOAP when you want it.
A few times it was IS staffers. Then we'd follow the same drill, try to determine what they were doing & why, then when called in if they couldn't give a good accounting of themselves cut them loose, again on the spot.
Let me get this straight... you dump a box onto some internal network; and then when an IS staffer says to him/herself "What the frick is that thing? It wasn't there yesterday..." and tries to figure out what your admittedly suspicious looking box is doing on the network they're responsible for...
Then you fire them?
You really shouldn't have to. Any decent IS staffer subjected to this kind of treatment should give you exactly what you deserve - a rude gesture - and walk out.
Re:OT: RE: ...or to save your soul?
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
Despite your apparent attempt to villify catholics for some reason (are you an American fundamentalist of some stripe?)
I meant no offense, nor had any intent to villify Catholics of any stripe (Roman, Anglican, or otherwise). I did indicate that the Catholic idea of salvation through "charity" (indulgences) was an old idea. Looking back, I realize that using "an old one (idea)" to indicate that the concept was no longer practiced realy wasn't clear. My apologies. And yes, I am an American fundamentalist (Baptist), though comparatively, a rather subdued one:-)
And please don't claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians.
Wouldn't dream of it. The converse is not neccesarily true, though, and non-Christians tend to think that Christian == Catholic for some reason, which can be more than a little annoying.
Again, my apologies for any perceived mischaracterizations of Catholicism. I'm glad to hear that I was clearer on the issues of faith and charity than I was on the other points.
OT: RE: ...or to save your soul?
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
The only reason the motivation should matter, is the selfish Christian idea that the main purpose of charity is to save the soul of the giver, not to help the receiver.
Where to start?
First off, this is not a Christian idea... a Catholic idea, perhaps, and even then, an old one.
Now, charity is a very fundamental Christian principle. Not because it will "save your soul" - a Christian believes that there is only one way to "save your soul", and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Once a person has made that choice, the desire to live a Christian life is a reflection of a desire to live a life that embodies the ideals - love, forgiveness, charity - demonstrated by Jesus. No soul-saving involved.
For a Christian, charity is something you do, not because you have to, but because it is one small way in which you show your love and respect for your savior.
From the tone of your post, I strongly suspect you're not a religious individual - that's your right, and your choice. I am not trying to convince you (here, at least:-) that your beliefs are wrong. I just want to give you an idea of what a practicing Christian (not Catholic - Christian) believes his faith says about the subject of charity and salvation.
There might be some rare exceptions where the company would be willing to go along, but in the general case it would be hopeless and would only make the would-be employee look like a fool.
Hardly. Take a look at a previous post on the subject. My experience has been similar - out of the last three positions I've held, two employers were very amenable to removing these restrictions from the employment contract, and the third required as part of the NDA a listing of outside projects that the employee had contributed to/been involved in that were not to be covered by the NDA.
On the other hand, these were all software companies. I wouldn't be surprised if more traditional companies (public utilities, financial industry, etc.) would simply refuse to alter a standard contract, if only because they lack a clear understanding of what they are asking for.
I would not be able to transfer my copy of "The Carl Stalling Project" from tape to CD (in which it is not available).
Hmm. I'm almost positive that I've got a copy of "The Carl Stalling Project" that I bought on CD a few years back. If you'd like, let me know and I'll try and dig it up to confirm.
Slashdot Mirror
"Have your bags been in your control since you left your home?"
"Has anyone given you a package to carry on to the airplane?"
"Are you a l33t h@x0r?"
So... anyone care to explain to me how *nix manages the magic of executing code contained within an SO without knowing what it's address is? That's pretty damn impressive...
Sarcasm aside, I doubt that this was RMS's response. Whatever the OS - *nix, Windows, MacOS, Be, whatever - shared libraries offer a fairly uniform subset of capabilities. The two most basic are the ability to load a shared library into your memory space, and to get the address of a variable or block of code contained within the libary. Both of these are pretty much required in order to make used of a shared library.
Don't feel like you need to take my word for it, though:
dlsym man pagedlopen man page
dlclose man page
dlerror man page
A History of Search Engines
Bzzzzt. Who the hell said anything about filtering? Something as simple as "Sir, if you're not using the computer for research, we'd appreciate it if you would free it up for other patrons" would work. Besides, what about open source? How about one library system implements a decent set of filtering software, and just gives it away?
Are you aware of some legal ruling about libraries in general that backs this up, or a you just stating something you think makes sense? The computers and computing resources belong to the library; they are entirely within their rights to set rules for their use. Libraries do this all the time. You can only check out books for a certain period of time (shorter times for the more popular books). You can't check out magazines or newspapers at all. Books in certain collections cannot leave the library, period. Some books just aren't available, period. None of these are censorship, just a library trying to make sure that the majority of it's patrons benefit from it's services.
Yah, I know. Computers aren't like books, yadda yadda yadda. You're absolutely right. They're not. The fundamentals of the situation remain the same: the library owns the resources, and set the rules regarding their uses. If monitoring usage, or filtering web access, or the like helps make computers more useful to the majority of their patrons, they'll do it.
IMHO, most libraires and librarians don't want to have to get to the point where they need to put the computers out in the open, with filtering software installed and someone constantly monitoring them. They want to let reasonable people behave reasonably. If you're familiar with the tragedy of the commons, though, then you know that even resonable people can be unreasonable when it comes to managing a shared resource like a public library or public computers.
I've worked in a library - every librarian, like it or not, is a censor. They don't mean to be... but there is no library in existance that has the unlimited funding it would take to carry all available materials.
So the librarians have to decide what new books they will purchase; what old, damaged books will be replaced; what old, damaged books can be repaired; and then do the same thing for video tapes... audio books... software... magazine subscriptions... newspaper subscriptions... and now, their computing resources.
If your local librarian doesn't think it's worth spending his/her limited budget on, then it won't be available in your local library. It's a kind of censorship - someone else telling you what you will or won't have access to They're generally unwilling to carry subscriptions to Playboy (or Hustler or whatever your favorite skin mag is), and the vast majority of the public views this type of "censorship" as a good and right way for them to make use of a limited funds in order to do their job.
So... tell me why a library's effort to make the same kind of decision about how to make use of limited computing resources in the same situation is viewed as unacceptable?
They key here is "behind enemy lines". In peacetime, a soldier dressed as a civilian in another country is called a "tourist" or "visitor". Little things, like a declaration of war between two countries, tend to affect how they view each other, and will probably have some small effect on their attitude toward the people (civilian and military) and aircraft (civilian and military) from the country they are supposedly at war with.
The article is topped off with a gif image tagged "OOP Stinks!". That should give you a good insight into the level of discourse that follows.
Of course, the author absolves himself from all responsibility for having to present anything more than an emotion-filled diatribe by stating early on:
So... his article is based on debunking "OOP Myths", which he states are not "necessarily shared by all or even most OO proponents." He repeatedly fails to back up any of his points with citations or references (and at one point, actually states "Sorry, we accidentally lost the references.") Instead, he justifies his arguments by making blanket statements like "Many OO books and even some OO fans suggest that OO only shines under fairly ideal conditions." Which OO books? "Some" OO "fans"? (Remember the disclaimer - not neccesarily all or even most OO proponents...)
Finally, some of his commonly (or not-so-commonly - take a look at that disclaimer, again) believed OOP myths are outrageous to the point of being silly... OOP eliminated the need for case or switch statements? OOP makes programming more visual? Only OOP has automatic garbage collection? Components can only be built with OOP? Only Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data? Who, exactly, does believe these myths? PHBs? Certainly not anyone with a CS education or decent amount of programming experience.
The best thing I can say about this article is that I think the author has a few good points and compelling arguments that are, unfortunately, lost amid the noise and confusion of unsubstantiated facts. If you can read it through and keep from grimacing in pain as OOP is compared to communism and the lack of research in non-OOP languages is decried, you might be able to find an idea or two that will reward you for the effort.
My daughter (who can seemingly spend hours playing with refrigerator magnets) would certainly disagree with this statement :-)
Frankly, while it's a catchy tune, it's not one of their best. Give me "Peace Sells", any day of the year... pure adrenaline from start to finish.
Interesting - thanks for the suggestion.
So what's "breaking in"? Pinging the box? Determining who's connected? Trying to log in to check the uptime? Checking to see if it has any unusual ports open, or is currently passing traffic outside the internal network? You made it sound as if anyone even attempting a connection to one of the machines for any reason would be branded as a l33t hax0r and summarily fired without bothering to ask them what was going on.
In my defense, you weren't very descriptive of the type of network you typically work with. On most of the networks I've dealt with, the network administrators did, indeed, "own" everything on the network - they were absolutely responsible for every piece of equipment; in the course of their jobs, they might do any and all of the above without even thinking about it, because if a box was added to the network that they should not admin, then they would have been told about it. For the types of networks you've described, though, I'd expect a greater degree of control, and fewer people with this level of responsibility.
I agree with that - I beleive I made a similar statement elsewhere in this discussion. There is a segment of folks arguing here, though, who are taking the position that only CS majors are capable of doing either - learning the current state of the art or advancing the state of the art; and that CIS majors and their kin should be relegated to rebooting servers and the like.
I think that the average CS cirriculum is put together with the expectation that a CS undergrad will eventually, if not immediately, go on to get a masters or doctorate. They tend to be theory-heavy, and have little or no real-world knowledge or experience. Just as an example: ask a CS grad how to normalize a database schema, then ask them when not to. You'll almost always get an answer to the first question, and a blank stare with the second, because they've been taught that normalized databases are right.
Several CS majors have talked about "Because of my CS background, it was so much easier to understand/learn X..." - without ackowledging that, every day, people without CS backgrounds come to learn or usderstand the same thing. Maybe the CS background does make it marginally easier; on the other hand, I'm a voracious reader, and I've never noticed my lack of a formal CS education slowing me down significantly.
Unfortunately, no. The idea was to make these available to folks with long commutes, so they wouldn't spend two hours a day on the road and then another two hours a day reading up on ATM networking or whatever. Having to haul along a laptop in the car and potentially fiddle with it periodically to get it to go on to the next page or whatnot would be less than ideal :-/
No - just that which degree you have (CS vs. CIS vs. ECE) doesn't neccesarily mean a lot to a prospective employer. The fact that you finished school in a technical field related to computers is often enough to get you into an interview.
Depends on what questions you ask, really. The ideal questions, and the ones we try to ask, are the ones that allow a person to demonstrate their knowlege of programming, data structures, and their problem solving skills. Asking questions like "What's a string?" tend to get you an entirely different class of answers than "How would you have implemneted cfront?" Agreed... that's what earns them the interview. At that point, they need to demonstrate that they really have learned that certain amount. I have interviewed people who may have been unsung geniuses, but when asked the simplest questions, were unable to explain basic concepts like stacks or linked lists. Either they were unable to function under the slightest amount of pressure, or they were unable to communicate effectively, or they simply didn't understand the concepts. Any one of those, in my mind, is a good enough reason to give someone a thumbs down.Like what? Please explain. I've yet to encounter anything that cannot be taught or learned on the job, or picked up "on the side" while working.
Pardon me - your arrogance is showing. The first people to write databases did figure them out on the job. There are developers in all corners of the globe who somehow manage to limp along and produce some pretty damn good software without the benefit of a CS degree, because they're willing to learn on the job, outside of school. A CS degree is a good foundation for continuing to learn; but do not think for a moment that lack of a degree neccesarily indicates lack of knowledge.If you'd read on, you'd see that I make that point - the degree is there to get your foot in the door. There's not a whole lot of variation in job applications from new grads - where you went to school probably counts as much, if not more, than whether your major was CS or CIS or ECE or some other variation.
Your typical new grad's resume (3-4 years of summer jobs, and maybe an internship) isn't worthless - it's just not a major factor in the decision to interview or not interview. If you did some interesting work at some point, it might make you stand out from the crowd, but lack of cool summer job experiences or internships is not going to drop you out of the running.
Everything else being equal, whichever candidate was best able to answer the technical interview questions.
For someone fresh out of college, a degree is just a foot in the door. There is no way to judge a person's qualifications soley based on whether they were a CS/CIS major. Without any other siginficant work experience, either degree is generally good enough to get you in the door for an interview. (If this isn't the case, then the company probably just isn't interested in hiring a recent graduate, regardless of what their major was.)
I've interviewed new CS grads who seemed to have learned absolutely nothing from fours years of CS classes, and recent CIS and ECE graduates that were extremely competent. Their degrees had little to do with what they actually learned in school. Yah, a CS major is probably going to know more about computer science and sofware development than a CIS major. Differences in schools, cirriculums, electives and in-school work experiences can level things out pretty quickly, though, to the point where any company that makes a decision about a recent grad based solely on whether they have a CS or CIS degree is shooting themselves in the foot.
Agreed. At some point, it may become essential to get a CS/CIS degree before you can work as a developer... for now, though, and for the forseeable future, it truly doesn't matter what your degree was in, as long as you can demonstrate the neccesary skills.
I got my B.S. in metallurgical engineering; I work with another metallurgist (QA lead), a machinist who taught himself Perl and C (another QA lead), a UI designer who got his M.S. in anthropology... while there are certainly more folks here with a CS background than not, you would be hard pressed to find another technical field where lack of an undergraduate degree in the field was not an absolute barrier to entry.
There's absolutely no reason why you can't use a source format (say, IDL) to produce both COM/CORBA and SOAP representations of the same interfaces. We're currently doing that, although not using IDL as the source; it seems to work well, and offers you performance via COM/DCOM where you need it, with interoperability via SOAP when you want it.
Let me get this straight... you dump a box onto some internal network; and then when an IS staffer says to him/herself "What the frick is that thing? It wasn't there yesterday..." and tries to figure out what your admittedly suspicious looking box is doing on the network they're responsible for...
Then you fire them?
You really shouldn't have to. Any decent IS staffer subjected to this kind of treatment should give you exactly what you deserve - a rude gesture - and walk out.
I meant no offense, nor had any intent to villify Catholics of any stripe (Roman, Anglican, or otherwise). I did indicate that the Catholic idea of salvation through "charity" (indulgences) was an old idea. Looking back, I realize that using "an old one (idea)" to indicate that the concept was no longer practiced realy wasn't clear. My apologies. And yes, I am an American fundamentalist (Baptist), though comparatively, a rather subdued one :-)
Wouldn't dream of it. The converse is not neccesarily true, though, and non-Christians tend to think that Christian == Catholic for some reason, which can be more than a little annoying.
Again, my apologies for any perceived mischaracterizations of Catholicism. I'm glad to hear that I was clearer on the issues of faith and charity than I was on the other points.
Where to start?
First off, this is not a Christian idea... a Catholic idea, perhaps, and even then, an old one.
Now, charity is a very fundamental Christian principle. Not because it will "save your soul" - a Christian believes that there is only one way to "save your soul", and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Once a person has made that choice, the desire to live a Christian life is a reflection of a desire to live a life that embodies the ideals - love, forgiveness, charity - demonstrated by Jesus. No soul-saving involved.
For a Christian, charity is something you do, not because you have to, but because it is one small way in which you show your love and respect for your savior.
From the tone of your post, I strongly suspect you're not a religious individual - that's your right, and your choice. I am not trying to convince you (here, at least :-) that your beliefs are wrong. I just want to give you an idea of what a practicing Christian (not Catholic - Christian) believes his faith says about the subject of charity and salvation.
Hardly. Take a look at a previous post on the subject. My experience has been similar - out of the last three positions I've held, two employers were very amenable to removing these restrictions from the employment contract, and the third required as part of the NDA a listing of outside projects that the employee had contributed to/been involved in that were not to be covered by the NDA.
On the other hand, these were all software companies. I wouldn't be surprised if more traditional companies (public utilities, financial industry, etc.) would simply refuse to alter a standard contract, if only because they lack a clear understanding of what they are asking for.
Hmm. I'm almost positive that I've got a copy of "The Carl Stalling Project" that I bought on CD a few years back. If you'd like, let me know and I'll try and dig it up to confirm.