Having lived on both sides of the border and experienced both Space and the Sci-Fi channel I can state without reservation that Canada's Space channel is by far the superior product. Too bad that free trade does not extend to the cable industry because this is one Canadian channel that would kick it's US counterpart's butt if given the chance to compete.
Still Life Talking was my first Metheny CD. It is awesome. Pat has never made a bad or even an average album but my personal favorite is Secret Story. It will simply blow you away.
Windows does have a built-in language. More precisely, it has 2 of them, VBScript and JScript. They've been included with Windows since Win 2000 and can be downloaded for 95 & 98.
The.Net Framework (standard on Windows now, use Windows Update if you don't already have it) contains a C# compiler: csc.exe (command line only, no IDE.)
Beg 1 : to ask for as a charity 2 a : to ask earnestly for : ENTREAT b : to require as necessary or appropriate 3 a : EVADE, SIDESTEP b : to pass over or ignore by assuming to be established or settled
as long as we have dll's we will have com thats how things work
Excuse me? After starting your post with such a blatantly incorrect statement the rest of your misspelled ramblings can't really be taken very seriously.
ILM CTO Cliff Plumer attributes this amazing leap to the increase in processing power and a migration from using Silicon Graphics RISC-Unix workstations to Intel-based Dell systems running Linux.
No he doesn't. If you read the article he makes no connection whatsoever between the move from SGI to Linux and the ability to preview CGI on a movie set.
What he does say is:
Many of the tools used on post-production special effects have made their way onto the set
There is no technology breakthrough here. Tools that have existed for many years have simply changed location to the movie set. I'd be very surprised if other shops hadn't already done this many times over.
This article is a no-op. The ability to generate CGI in real-time and composite it into a live video feed has existed for many years . It's called a virtual set. I personally first saw it demonstrated at NAB '96 (using SGI hardware of course).
Sounds like all they have done is provide a better workflow by bring existing technology to a movie location and allowing them to playback the take with the (rough, not final) CGI added. It's not even real-time, it's just playing back a recorded scene with CGI added.
This has zero to do with Intel vs SGI or moving to Linux-based render farms.
It has more to do with liability than qualifications.
I hope you are not advocating liability without qualifications.
Besides, how would an EE with fifteen years of experience in software be less qualified to evaluate software than a computer scientist with fifteen years of experience?
All other things being equal, the computer scientist still has the more appropriate educational background. After fifteen years this may not be a big factor but you certainly can't argue that the EE is more qualified to evaluate software than the CS. The degree is the only reason that the CS can't become a professional engineer and yet ironically it is the thing that makes him better qualified in this instance.
I guess I am just pointing out that there are some absurdities in the system. The notion of a professional engineer as it currently exists is to some extent anachronistic because it has not really evolved to reflect the unique characteristics of software engineering nor the extent to which software is used in virtually every facet of the other Engineering disciplines. As more Software Engineering programs emerge and become standardized this will inevitably change, it just might take a while. Software Engineering as a degree program is not an alternative to Computer Science; I see it as more of a convergence.. Software Engineering == Applied Computer Science.
Because electrical engineering and computer science are much more closely related than mechanical engineering and biology. There are a lot of EEs that work exclusively in software. This is especially true for computer engineers.
You didn't answer the question. The average CS graduate is far better academically prepared for a career in software than the average EE graduate. Let's assume a CS graduate and an EE graduate have equivalent experience. How is the EE graduate better qualified to work in software engineering than the CS graduate?
Contrary to your (somewhat bizarre) assertion, most Computer Science graduates work in Software Engineering and build very real, functional systems. Whether you call them engineers or not is another matter but there is no group better academically qualified to perform Software Engineering than Computer Science graduates.
What I disagree with is that someone could get a degree in X, become a professional engineer based on the X degree, and then somehow be seen as better qualified in the field of Y than someone who got a degree in Y and has equivalent or greater experience in Y.
For example, X=Mechanical Engineering, Y=Biology
Makes no sense, right? So why should it make sense for X=Electrical Engineering, Y=Computer Science?
My father was a Chemical Engineer, a P.Eng. in Ontario, and a member of IChemE in the U.K. so I have a lot of respect for what that meant within his profession.
However I object to the notion that somebody certified in one profession could consider that their certification meant anything whatsoever within another profession.
Claiming that title can put you in a position where your actions could affect others seriously through your negligence or ignorance. I can see a day fast approaching when a CEO hires a tech-school "software engineer" to design a system that winds up killing someone because it was never evaluated by a "real" engineer. I hope that someone isn't me or mine.
The fallacy in your argument is that there is no such thing as a "real" engineer who is qualified to evaluate a complex software system by virtue of his/her professional accreditation alone. There may be professional engineers who happen to have software expertise but that expertise has nothing to do with their professional status and is of no more value than similar expertise possessed by a non-engineer software person.
The fact is, all licensing and accreditation issues aside, by far the best academic preparation for a career in Software Engineering is a Computer Science degree. Sure there are graduates in Engineering, Physics, and Math who do equally well, just as there are those who somehow make it through CS without a clue. One day the Software Engineering curriculum may supplant Computer Science but this is a long way from happening.
3) Accepting liability for your work. If you write a program that crashes a pacemaker you can be sued in civil court and depending on the extent of your knowledge of the degree of hazard perhaps prosecuted in criminal court.
This is such a crock of s$%@. The company which stands to make millions selling pacemakers and, oh, by the way, owns anything you invent while in their employ, better take responsibility if something goes wrong. You have to be pretty dumb to accept personal and potentially criminal liability for something that you won't even profit from. I hope your Engineering Malpractice Insurance premiums are up to date.
- think on many levels - keep the big picture in mind while dealing with the details - deal with constantly changing requirements
I agree that not everyone can do these things but in which of your "long tests" did you show your instructor that you could deal with constantly changing requirements?
One of the most brilliant people I know at Software Engineering has a PhD in Math. Being an "Engineer" means basically nothing when it comes to these skills. Either you have them or you don't.
I have a Computer Science degree and I don't generally call myself a Software Engineer although I have been doing Software Engineering for 18 years.
The term Software Engineer is pretty much meaningless from an accreditation point of view because the field is so young; there are too few accredited Software Engineering programs and no universally accepted standards for Software Engineering accreditation. There are two few accredited Software Engineers (I've never met one) to be much of a factor in the marketplace.
On the other for an Electrical or Computer Engineer with a couple of software credits to call themselves a Software Engineer and claim to be more qualified to do Software Engineering than a CS grad is just plain ridiculous. If they want to call themselves Software Engineers, fine, but don't hang around any people who do Software Engineering for a living.
Good luck. Once your mail is in Microsoft's proprietary format, you can forget about getting it back out. Changing to a non-Microsoft mail client is frowned upon by the folks at Redmond.
You're right, they should have totally changed what is probably the most read story of the 20th century so that it fits into your definition of what a "Hollywood" movie is supposed to be. Maybe Peter Jackson and New Line gave the audience a little more credit than you apparently deserve.
The human eye can distinguish lines separated by about one arc-minute (1/60 degree). To truly benefit from a 2400 line display would therefore require that it occupy 2400/60 = 40 degrees of your vertical field of view. At 200 dpi the screen would be 12" high.
Considering symmetry about the viewing axis, your eyes would need to be:
> GOF patterns are for people who don't know how to > properly use a database
It is difficult to imagine the narrowness of perspective that could result in such a statement.
There is more to software than business applications. There is a whole universe of application domains where relational database technology is not the solution to most design problems. Even in heavily database-oriented enterprise applications (I work on one) there are generally business object and user interface layers where OOP and design patterns can be essential tools.
Either you are confused about what design patterns are or you are confused about how to build complex systems.
Fact 1: Software requires maintenance. A sane management team plans for this. Your project plan for "the next release" should account for time that may have to be spent on debugging, patches, or maintenance releases for "the current release" and any previous release that is still supported.
Fact 2: People leave. A sane management team avoids the "truck factor" by making sure, through cross-training and knowledge transfer, that there is more than one person around who can perform maintenance of legacy code. This is also a good thing because, if there is only one person doing all the maintenance, he/she may get tired of doing it and find another job.
Being put on maintenance is also a good way for a new or junior developer to learn the product and the code. Even if they sometimes have to call in the developer who wrote the code, they can often fix the simpler problems, which at least partially offloads the original developers, and it is a great learning experience. This is working well in my company. Of course if you leave someone on this for too long you run the risk that they get fed up and leave (see Fact 2).
Slashdot Mirror
Having lived on both sides of the border and experienced both Space and the Sci-Fi channel I can state without reservation that Canada's Space channel is by far the superior product. Too bad that free trade does not extend to the cable industry because this is one Canadian channel that would kick it's US counterpart's butt if given the chance to compete.
Still Life Talking was my first Metheny CD. It is awesome. Pat has never made a bad or even an average album but my personal favorite is Secret Story. It will simply blow you away.
Windows does have a built-in language. More precisely, it has 2 of them, VBScript and JScript. They've been included with Windows since Win 2000 and can be downloaded for 95 & 98.
.Net Framework (standard on Windows now, use Windows Update if you don't already have it) contains a C# compiler: csc.exe (command line only, no IDE.)
The
Beg
g
1 : to ask for as a charity
2 a : to ask earnestly for : ENTREAT b : to require as necessary or appropriate
3 a : EVADE, SIDESTEP b : to pass over or ignore by assuming to be established or settled
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=be
as long as we have dll's we will have com thats how things work
Excuse me? After starting your post with such a blatantly incorrect statement the rest of your misspelled ramblings can't really be taken very seriously.
a img { border-style: none; } works on every browser I've tried (except NS4 of course).
ILM CTO Cliff Plumer attributes this amazing leap to the increase in processing power and a migration from using Silicon Graphics RISC-Unix workstations to Intel-based Dell systems running Linux.
No he doesn't. If you read the article he makes no connection whatsoever between the move from SGI to Linux and the ability to preview CGI on a movie set.
What he does say is:
Many of the tools used on post-production special effects have made their way onto the set
There is no technology breakthrough here. Tools that have existed for many years have simply changed location to the movie set. I'd be very surprised if other shops hadn't already done this many times over.
This article is a no-op. The ability to generate CGI in real-time and composite it into a live video feed has existed for many years . It's called a virtual set. I personally first saw it demonstrated at NAB '96 (using SGI hardware of course).
Sounds like all they have done is provide a better workflow by bring existing technology to a movie location and allowing them to playback the take with the (rough, not final) CGI added. It's not even real-time, it's just playing back a recorded scene with CGI added.
This has zero to do with Intel vs SGI or moving to Linux-based render farms.
It has more to do with liability than qualifications.
.. Software Engineering == Applied Computer Science.
I hope you are not advocating liability without qualifications.
Besides, how would an EE with fifteen years of experience in software be less qualified to evaluate software than a computer scientist with fifteen years of experience?
All other things being equal, the computer scientist still has the more appropriate educational background. After fifteen years this may not be a big factor but you certainly can't argue that the EE is more qualified to evaluate software than the CS. The degree is the only reason that the CS can't become a professional engineer and yet ironically it is the thing that makes him better qualified in this instance.
I guess I am just pointing out that there are some absurdities in the system. The notion of a professional engineer as it currently exists is to some extent anachronistic because it has not really evolved to reflect the unique characteristics of software engineering nor the extent to which software is used in virtually every facet of the other Engineering disciplines. As more Software Engineering programs emerge and become standardized this will inevitably change, it just might take a while. Software Engineering as a degree program is not an alternative to Computer Science; I see it as more of a convergence
Because electrical engineering and computer science are much more closely related than mechanical engineering and biology. There are a lot of EEs that work exclusively in software. This is especially true for computer engineers.
You didn't answer the question. The average CS graduate is far better academically prepared for a career in software than the average EE graduate. Let's assume a CS graduate and an EE graduate have equivalent experience. How is the EE graduate better qualified to work in software engineering than the CS graduate?
Contrary to your (somewhat bizarre) assertion, most Computer Science graduates work in Software Engineering and build very real, functional systems. Whether you call them engineers or not is another matter but there is no group better academically qualified to perform Software Engineering than Computer Science graduates.
What I disagree with is that someone could get a degree in X, become a professional engineer based on the X degree, and then somehow be seen as better qualified in the field of Y than someone who got a degree in Y and has equivalent or greater experience in Y.
For example, X=Mechanical Engineering, Y=Biology
Makes no sense, right? So why should it make sense for X=Electrical Engineering, Y=Computer Science?
My father was a Chemical Engineer, a P.Eng. in Ontario, and a member of IChemE in the U.K. so I have a lot of respect for what that meant within his profession.
However I object to the notion that somebody certified in one profession could consider that their certification meant anything whatsoever within another profession.
Claiming that title can put you in a position where your actions could affect others seriously through your negligence or ignorance. I can see a day fast approaching when a CEO hires a tech-school "software engineer" to design a system that winds up killing someone because it was never evaluated by a "real" engineer. I hope that someone isn't me or mine.
The fallacy in your argument is that there is no such thing as a "real" engineer who is qualified to evaluate a complex software system by virtue of his/her professional accreditation alone. There may be professional engineers who happen to have software expertise but that expertise has nothing to do with their professional status and is of no more value than similar expertise possessed by a non-engineer software person.
The fact is, all licensing and accreditation issues aside, by far the best academic preparation for a career in Software Engineering is a Computer Science degree. Sure there are graduates in Engineering, Physics, and Math who do equally well, just as there are those who somehow make it through CS without a clue. One day the Software Engineering curriculum may supplant Computer Science but this is a long way from happening.
3) Accepting liability for your work. If you write a program that crashes a pacemaker you can be sued in civil court and depending on the extent of your knowledge of the degree of hazard perhaps prosecuted in criminal court.
This is such a crock of s$%@. The company which stands to make millions selling pacemakers and, oh, by the way, owns anything you invent while in their employ, better take responsibility if something goes wrong. You have to be pretty dumb to accept personal and potentially criminal liability for something that you won't even profit from. I hope your Engineering Malpractice Insurance premiums are up to date.
So you say you can:
- think on many levels
- keep the big picture in mind while dealing with the details
- deal with constantly changing requirements
I agree that not everyone can do these things but in which of your "long tests" did you show your instructor that you could deal with constantly changing requirements?
One of the most brilliant people I know at Software Engineering has a PhD in Math. Being an "Engineer" means basically nothing when it comes to these skills. Either you have them or you don't.
I have a Computer Science degree and I don't generally call myself a Software Engineer although I have been doing Software Engineering for 18 years.
The term Software Engineer is pretty much meaningless from an accreditation point of view because the field is so young; there are too few accredited Software Engineering programs and no universally accepted standards for Software Engineering accreditation. There are two few accredited Software Engineers (I've never met one) to be much of a factor in the marketplace.
On the other for an Electrical or Computer Engineer with a couple of software credits to call themselves a Software Engineer and claim to be more qualified to do Software Engineering than a CS grad is just plain ridiculous. If they want to call themselves Software Engineers, fine, but don't hang around any people who do Software Engineering for a living.
Good luck. Once your mail is in Microsoft's proprietary format, you can forget about getting it back out. Changing to a non-Microsoft mail client is frowned upon by the folks at Redmond.
IMAP is an alternative to POP, not to SMTP. You still use SMTP to send mail even when you are using IMAP to read mail.
You're right, they should have totally changed what is probably the most read story of the 20th century so that it fits into your definition of what a "Hollywood" movie is supposed to be. Maybe Peter Jackson and New Line gave the audience a little more credit than you apparently deserve.
OK, Sherlock, if you are so smart perhaps you would explain how it could be a "usable operating system" but not an "operating system"?
But then people don't know whether to use a long "i" or a short one, i.e. Linn-ux or Line-ux.
FreeBSD is much more pronounceable.
The human eye can distinguish lines separated by about one arc-minute (1/60 degree). To truly benefit from a 2400 line display would therefore require that it occupy 2400/60 = 40 degrees of your vertical field of view. At 200 dpi the screen would be 12" high.
Considering symmetry about the viewing axis, your eyes would need to be:
6"/tan(20) = 16.5 inches from the display
> GOF patterns are for people who don't know how to
> properly use a database
It is difficult to imagine the narrowness of perspective that could result in such a statement.
There is more to software than business applications. There is a whole universe of application domains where relational database technology is not the solution to most design problems. Even in heavily database-oriented enterprise applications (I work on one) there are generally business object and user interface layers where OOP and design patterns can be essential tools.
Either you are confused about what design patterns are or you are confused about how to build complex systems.
Fact 1: Software requires maintenance. A sane management team plans for this. Your project plan for "the next release" should account for time that may have to be spent on debugging, patches, or maintenance releases for "the current release" and any previous release that is still supported.
Fact 2: People leave. A sane management team avoids the "truck factor" by making sure, through cross-training and knowledge transfer, that there is more than one person around who can perform maintenance of legacy code. This is also a good thing because, if there is only one person doing all the maintenance, he/she may get tired of doing it and find another job.
Being put on maintenance is also a good way for a new or junior developer to learn the product and the code. Even if they sometimes have to call in the developer who wrote the code, they can often fix the simpler problems, which at least partially offloads the original developers, and it is a great learning experience. This is working well in my company. Of course if you leave someone on this for too long you run the risk that they get fed up and leave (see Fact 2).