Cue Conan the Barbarian's explanation of what is good in life... oh wait, that's just for sarcastic value. If you have to ask then you are living in an alternate reality or are in the 1% who don't give a rat's ass.
As a Mechanical Engineer who took the EIT exam, passed it thus shaving the required 12 years under a P.E. down to 4 years, there is no way in hell you can sit through a P.E. exam without the 12 years working as a licensed Mechanical Engineer or having already passed the EIT and 4 years as a licensed Mechanical Engineer before taking the examination. I'd like to know which state bypasses that obvious requirement. Washington State sure as hell won't.
Software Engineering is a made up title. There is no actual Software Engineering ABET accredited program as Bill Joy so eloquently pointed out how Computer Science desperately needs that type of certainty so the quality can be measured to actual laws of science. Sorry, but a liberal arts major who became a professional programmer isn't an Engineer. I've met too many of them in my career. With my second degree in Computer Science I still only call myself an Engineer because I am one from my first degree.
In an Industry filled with Know it All Programmers
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
Less than 0.000001% of them has an actual unique idea to make a penny but a large and jaded majority of them profess to know Mr. Steven P. Job's worth to Computing. In ten years those same programmers will not be remembered. Centuries later, History students will learn about Mr. Steven P. Jobs.
To a personal hero and the greatest boss I ever knew and worked for, R.I.P. The world would be truly dull if it were not for your Vision.
Having known Steve Jobs and been around him, he is the most unique boss and visionary person I've ever met or observed. Sorry, but 99% of the world is average. It's the 1% that stands out. He was in that.1%.
I've still yet to use it. For Data acquisition I've got MATLAB. For numerical analysis I've got MATLAB and Octave, never mind other options. For Publishing I've got LaTeX/XeTeX. I'm glad i have it and will start leveraging Calc and more sooner rather than later, but it's not like the old days when Borland Quattro Pro for Engineers and AmiPro for word processing were fighting against Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, Word 2.0, etc.
The Compositing and leveraging the GPGPU is up to the Desktop Environment and the Application. Only OS X has OpenCL/GCD system-wide and app-wide due to the Compositor, Quartz and WindowServer all leveraging OpenCL natively working with an OpenGL 3.2 fully accelerated environment in 10.7. Linux is still sucking hind tit with OpenGL 1.4. It's only with KDE 4.7.x that OpenGL ES 2.0 bits are now being leveraged. At that rate it'll take years for Linux to catch up. Hopefully, with X moving to Wayland the gap won't be so great.
With OpenCL 1.1 throughout and more applications leveraging it even on Linux it's rather clear that once the Desktop Environments of KDE, Gnome catch up in some respects with OS X on using OpenCL for the GPGPUs then you'll will be using all that power without even knowing it. Games most certainly will be using it. Gimp, Blender, Inkscape and more are rolling it into their products.
Both sides have their fair share of bullshit. Furthermore, getting oil and coal out of the ground and refining it (or in the case of Coal the byproducts of burning it) aren't good for the environment anyway, so their reduction should help certain things regardless of human CO2 output affecting global warming.
Anti-Climate changers won't like your rational position and uncommon sense to pointing out that the Earth's diarrhea is a byproduct of recycling, heat compression, etc., and burning it makes about as much sense as shooting up heroin in the morning to give one a clear head.
Moral teachings of Sumeria, Ancient Egypt, Greece all predate those of The Bible. Most of them were plagiarized by the Bible authors. How about we flush the Abrahamic Religions or move them over to the Mythical Category and then let people do they want but keep the Myths out of the Public Sphere of Influence. Makes too much sense to ever happen.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half? Nobody is going to invade the US, without coming home to a glass parking lot anyway, and all that money is just thrown down a hole. Yes military spending is to an extent recycled back into the economy, but surely we can come up with something more constructive to spend it on if one must spend that money?
Part of the proposal is to cut over $1 Trillion from the 2 Wars.
I don't understand why Google and Apple don't just sit down and agree to let each other use all their patents. Then they really could compete on the strength of their own innovations, rather than wasting all this money on lawyers. The customers will go to the one who implements the patents better.
Patents are part of the strengths of their own innovations. Or do you not get the point of innovation and patenting said innovation?
Ahh no.
The FPU was integrated in the 486DX you could get a cheap 486SX that didn't have an FPU because heck who needed one except for CAD users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87
For the history of the x87 family.
10 years? Naw I give it five max. Once APUs can play games at 1080p with all the eye candy almost no one will buy a separate GPU. They day that they can driver two 1080p displays at that level it will be all over.
It won't be over. It will be a new form factor for GPGPUs on Systems. You'll see a cluster of scaled down GPGPUs in a daughter card for PCI-E 3.x and the system will be ripping through all sorts of mundane tasks now offloaded to that card.
It's you. I'd suggest not being on amphetamines, or any other psychoactive agent when you walk into public spaces with lots of people in a good mood. You'll end up thinking everyone is looking at you.
To put a quantitative understanding to your qualitative understanding of the theory from various authors in the field it becomes real simple: Calculus I, II, III [Multi-variable], Linear Algebra, Probability and Statistics for Engineers [Math 171,172,273,220 and 360 respectively at Washington State University], Differential Equations [ODEs Math 315 at WSU], Vector Analysis [Tensor Calculus Math 375 at WSU] and Intermediate Differential Equations [ODE/PDE for Nonlinear Dynamics Math 415 at WSU]. Then add onto that a foundation in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics for Engineering should suffice.
But I don't think you want to really know it more than just to understand in common language how to explain it in it's most vulgar sense.
This is a very good comprehensive list and the best answer in this thread to the OPs question, but fair warning:
Einstein had an estimated IQ between 160 and 180, and he struggled with Tensor fields. He found it cumbersome and difficult to work with.
For reference, about 1 in 400,000 people have an IQ of 170.
So if you aren't in that range expect to hit a wall. My IQ is roughly 135 and I couldn't get my head around GE to my satisfaction when I was studying physics in college. I had taken all of the above mentioned courses except Tensor Calculus Math which I tried to learn on my own over a summer, but it was just too difficult.
My problem with Tensor Calculus when I first ran into it after all the math listed above, but before 415, was the a-hole professor who had been demoted from EE down to the Math Department and couldn't take the time to show me the entire derivation in class. The real reason was because he screwed up the basic explanation earlier and all 25 of us were completely dumbfounded on what he was doing. I asked him to show me how he went from step A to step Z and he started by insulting my intelligence and that I shouldn't be in his class which turned my response into reminding him that until now I have never met such an incompetent mathematics professor incapable of showing not just myself but the entire class who all were graduating in Mechanical Engineering, Physics, EE, ChemE, and even Pure and Applied Mathematics the same semester, how to actually break down the covariant tensors and especially tensor analysis on manifolds, when the piece of garbage textbook he ordered didn't manage to do it either.
I was too busy to put up with this b.s. and decided I had better focus on my Senior Project and learn Tensor Calculus on my own. Dover Publications to the rescue. I completely agree with you that Tensor Calculus can be a bear, but only until the bulb goes off just like learning DiffEq and it all falls into place. You literally are well advised to actually refresh one's entire prior curriculum in Calc I,II,III, Linear Algebra, DiffEq, and for myself I had added Discrete Mathematics, Prob/Stats for Engineers Math 360, Linear Programming/Optimization Math 364, and Numerical Analysis Math 448 so as to then reapproach Tensor Calculus from a completely different perspective. I think the lack of accessibility comes from both the really shallow and dull textbooks which lack a lot of direct application combined with the lack of talent teaching such a course. It's truly sad as Tensor Calculus is truly a vital course.
To put a quantitative understanding to your qualitative understanding of the theory from various authors in the field it becomes real simple: Calculus I, II, III [Multi-variable], Linear Algebra, Probability and Statistics for Engineers [Math 171,172,273,220 and 360 respectively at Washington State University], Differential Equations [ODEs Math 315 at WSU], Vector Analysis [Tensor Calculus Math 375 at WSU] and Intermediate Differential Equations [ODE/PDE for Nonlinear Dynamics Math 415 at WSU]. Then add onto that a foundation in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics for Engineering should suffice.
But I don't think you want to really know it more than just to understand in common language how to explain it in it's most vulgar sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Perfect list.
Cue Conan the Barbarian's explanation of what is good in life... oh wait, that's just for sarcastic value. If you have to ask then you are living in an alternate reality or are in the 1% who don't give a rat's ass.
As a Mechanical Engineer who took the EIT exam, passed it thus shaving the required 12 years under a P.E. down to 4 years, there is no way in hell you can sit through a P.E. exam without the 12 years working as a licensed Mechanical Engineer or having already passed the EIT and 4 years as a licensed Mechanical Engineer before taking the examination. I'd like to know which state bypasses that obvious requirement. Washington State sure as hell won't.
Software Engineering is a made up title. There is no actual Software Engineering ABET accredited program as Bill Joy so eloquently pointed out how Computer Science desperately needs that type of certainty so the quality can be measured to actual laws of science. Sorry, but a liberal arts major who became a professional programmer isn't an Engineer. I've met too many of them in my career. With my second degree in Computer Science I still only call myself an Engineer because I am one from my first degree.
Less than 0.000001% of them has an actual unique idea to make a penny but a large and jaded majority of them profess to know Mr. Steven P. Job's worth to Computing. In ten years those same programmers will not be remembered. Centuries later, History students will learn about Mr. Steven P. Jobs.
To a personal hero and the greatest boss I ever knew and worked for, R.I.P. The world would be truly dull if it were not for your Vision.
Having known Steve Jobs and been around him, he is the most unique boss and visionary person I've ever met or observed. Sorry, but 99% of the world is average. It's the 1% that stands out. He was in that .1%.
I've still yet to use it. For Data acquisition I've got MATLAB. For numerical analysis I've got MATLAB and Octave, never mind other options. For Publishing I've got LaTeX/XeTeX. I'm glad i have it and will start leveraging Calc and more sooner rather than later, but it's not like the old days when Borland Quattro Pro for Engineers and AmiPro for word processing were fighting against Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, Word 2.0, etc.
The Compositing and leveraging the GPGPU is up to the Desktop Environment and the Application. Only OS X has OpenCL/GCD system-wide and app-wide due to the Compositor, Quartz and WindowServer all leveraging OpenCL natively working with an OpenGL 3.2 fully accelerated environment in 10.7. Linux is still sucking hind tit with OpenGL 1.4. It's only with KDE 4.7.x that OpenGL ES 2.0 bits are now being leveraged. At that rate it'll take years for Linux to catch up. Hopefully, with X moving to Wayland the gap won't be so great.
With OpenCL 1.1 throughout and more applications leveraging it even on Linux it's rather clear that once the Desktop Environments of KDE, Gnome catch up in some respects with OS X on using OpenCL for the GPGPUs then you'll will be using all that power without even knowing it. Games most certainly will be using it. Gimp, Blender, Inkscape and more are rolling it into their products.
Both sides have their fair share of bullshit. Furthermore, getting oil and coal out of the ground and refining it (or in the case of Coal the byproducts of burning it) aren't good for the environment anyway, so their reduction should help certain things regardless of human CO2 output affecting global warming.
Anti-Climate changers won't like your rational position and uncommon sense to pointing out that the Earth's diarrhea is a byproduct of recycling, heat compression, etc., and burning it makes about as much sense as shooting up heroin in the morning to give one a clear head.
Since when is WebKit and some code from Chromium the revolutionary part and WebKit the mundane part?
Moral teachings of Sumeria, Ancient Egypt, Greece all predate those of The Bible. Most of them were plagiarized by the Bible authors. How about we flush the Abrahamic Religions or move them over to the Mythical Category and then let people do they want but keep the Myths out of the Public Sphere of Influence. Makes too much sense to ever happen.
In state is booming.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half? Nobody is going to invade the US, without coming home to a glass parking lot anyway, and all that money is just thrown down a hole. Yes military spending is to an extent recycled back into the economy, but surely we can come up with something more constructive to spend it on if one must spend that money?
Part of the proposal is to cut over $1 Trillion from the 2 Wars.
I don't understand why Google and Apple don't just sit down and agree to let each other use all their patents. Then they really could compete on the strength of their own innovations, rather than wasting all this money on lawyers. The customers will go to the one who implements the patents better.
Patents are part of the strengths of their own innovations. Or do you not get the point of innovation and patenting said innovation?
This is for Deep Space.
Let Space X figure it out on their own. They want to be a Private Venture then they can raise the money on their own.
What's criminal is your lack of knowledge.
This is not a New Shuttle but a Deep Space ship for cryin' out loud.
Ahh no. The FPU was integrated in the 486DX you could get a cheap 486SX that didn't have an FPU because heck who needed one except for CAD users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87 For the history of the x87 family. 10 years? Naw I give it five max. Once APUs can play games at 1080p with all the eye candy almost no one will buy a separate GPU. They day that they can driver two 1080p displays at that level it will be all over.
It won't be over. It will be a new form factor for GPGPUs on Systems. You'll see a cluster of scaled down GPGPUs in a daughter card for PCI-E 3.x and the system will be ripping through all sorts of mundane tasks now offloaded to that card.
It's you. I'd suggest not being on amphetamines, or any other psychoactive agent when you walk into public spaces with lots of people in a good mood. You'll end up thinking everyone is looking at you.
You're truly high if you think NY is laid out like London.
long before I jack in headphones just to read a book with immersive sound.
I'll give you one obvious reason: Professional Sports.
To put a quantitative understanding to your qualitative understanding of the theory from various authors in the field it becomes real simple: Calculus I, II, III [Multi-variable], Linear Algebra, Probability and Statistics for Engineers [Math 171,172,273,220 and 360 respectively at Washington State University], Differential Equations [ODEs Math 315 at WSU], Vector Analysis [Tensor Calculus Math 375 at WSU] and Intermediate Differential Equations [ODE/PDE for Nonlinear Dynamics Math 415 at WSU]. Then add onto that a foundation in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics for Engineering should suffice.
But I don't think you want to really know it more than just to understand in common language how to explain it in it's most vulgar sense.
This is a very good comprehensive list and the best answer in this thread to the OPs question, but fair warning:
Einstein had an estimated IQ between 160 and 180, and he struggled with Tensor fields. He found it cumbersome and difficult to work with.
For reference, about 1 in 400,000 people have an IQ of 170.
So if you aren't in that range expect to hit a wall. My IQ is roughly 135 and I couldn't get my head around GE to my satisfaction when I was studying physics in college. I had taken all of the above mentioned courses except Tensor Calculus Math which I tried to learn on my own over a summer, but it was just too difficult.
My problem with Tensor Calculus when I first ran into it after all the math listed above, but before 415, was the a-hole professor who had been demoted from EE down to the Math Department and couldn't take the time to show me the entire derivation in class. The real reason was because he screwed up the basic explanation earlier and all 25 of us were completely dumbfounded on what he was doing. I asked him to show me how he went from step A to step Z and he started by insulting my intelligence and that I shouldn't be in his class which turned my response into reminding him that until now I have never met such an incompetent mathematics professor incapable of showing not just myself but the entire class who all were graduating in Mechanical Engineering, Physics, EE, ChemE, and even Pure and Applied Mathematics the same semester, how to actually break down the covariant tensors and especially tensor analysis on manifolds, when the piece of garbage textbook he ordered didn't manage to do it either.
I was too busy to put up with this b.s. and decided I had better focus on my Senior Project and learn Tensor Calculus on my own. Dover Publications to the rescue. I completely agree with you that Tensor Calculus can be a bear, but only until the bulb goes off just like learning DiffEq and it all falls into place. You literally are well advised to actually refresh one's entire prior curriculum in Calc I,II,III, Linear Algebra, DiffEq, and for myself I had added Discrete Mathematics, Prob/Stats for Engineers Math 360, Linear Programming/Optimization Math 364, and Numerical Analysis Math 448 so as to then reapproach Tensor Calculus from a completely different perspective. I think the lack of accessibility comes from both the really shallow and dull textbooks which lack a lot of direct application combined with the lack of talent teaching such a course. It's truly sad as Tensor Calculus is truly a vital course.
To put a quantitative understanding to your qualitative understanding of the theory from various authors in the field it becomes real simple: Calculus I, II, III [Multi-variable], Linear Algebra, Probability and Statistics for Engineers [Math 171,172,273,220 and 360 respectively at Washington State University], Differential Equations [ODEs Math 315 at WSU], Vector Analysis [Tensor Calculus Math 375 at WSU] and Intermediate Differential Equations [ODE/PDE for Nonlinear Dynamics Math 415 at WSU]. Then add onto that a foundation in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics for Engineering should suffice.
But I don't think you want to really know it more than just to understand in common language how to explain it in it's most vulgar sense.