And this is where it gets interesting. The Way of current democracies that are in power for short periods of time are to address only short term problems. Long term problems are generally ignored. Now couple that with "doubters." Now you have good reasons not to do anything if anyone dissents.
Everyone who doubts global warming should ask themselves a question... Right now the logic is "I don't believe its real, so I'm not going to do anything." The question should be, "If people are so worried about it, maybe I should do something?" After all, energy and water preservation are good things, reduction in polution is a good thing.
I know graduated mathematicians that cannot write computer programs.
I know graduated programmers that don't know numerical analysis.
Hell, I've interview people with computer science degrees that had absolutely no clue how to turn on a computer let alone write a program. One guy I did hire went so far as to redefine null because of an error he was getting... applied math major with a minor in computer science.
Being adaptive doesn't mean responding too all interruptions. Remember, one of the key points of Agile is prioritization. You break down the scope so you can focus... not deviate. If interruption messes up your sprint; its because your prioritization (oh no, change control) is broken.
By the by, agile = cyclical development = waterfall.:-)
If you take science to mean accumulate knowledge through experimentation and a healthy naturalism (wikipedia); then computer science does not yield people capable of actually writing computer programs. You've put applied problem solving, analysis and design strategies, and various domain (real world/data/object) modelling solely in the hand of the technical schools. So... if this is true, there is no need for a mathematical foundation in computer science at all. You can leave it at computational theory.
So I'd argue that math is something you can pick up on your own, when your specialization in computer science requires it.
(Not once has any client ever asked me to formally prove an algorithm.)
Computer science students should not require any math - as very little math is used in any computer science unless its a niche (graphics).
Here is what I needed to take for my degree; linear algebra, discrete, and calculus. One year of each. (Statistics might have been useful, but I didn't need to take it.)
There was virtually no application to any of my computer science courses. Restated, I never had to solve a series of equations, never had to apply formal proofs from discrete math to a "computing" problem, nor optimize anything via calculus. Hell I was lucky to use basic algebra.
However, much more effort in computer science could be put in algorithms, complexity, testing, and design. I mean the "science" of them; to optmization and performance, complexity measures, code coverage, and "software engineering" and the boat load of methodologies. This is far more useful to the "science"...
So if we boil it down to good, courageous, and noble deed...
How is giving away source code for an operating system kernel good, courageous, or noble? A lot of people still don't have computers, and even more have no clue how to install an operating system, so "common good" doesn't seem to apply (does anyone need a computer?)
Did Torvalds put his life in harms way to implement said good? Was there perril?
And then nobility... take admirable/impressive over rank/cast... has no one ever produced a kernel before? Even a free one? Was this the bestest kernel ever conceived by man?
Selling bellow or at cost is considered anti-competitive. A small company could not do this and survive, so predatory pricing or pricing based on market position need to be considered.
"shortage of skilled workers" really means "shortage of cheap workers"
As demand in India has increased, so have the rates. We saw exactly the same thing in Russia. Originally our out source was cheap. Then year after year the contract increased in value because the work force realized they could extract more.
And its not much different than the job shortage where I am... where shortage really means cheap (college) students. I know lots of older (over priced ?!) developers/designers/architects looking for work.
Not to mention the unemployed immigrant work force with skills (!??!?!)
The problem is that skeptics will always discount any factual evidence. Consider even the initial post saying that [Canada has chosen a side without considering the evidence.] The problem; this statement completely discounts Canada's decision, which really is a variety of decisions on a variety of fronts, stating that there is a problem.
The recent news about fish stocks depleting... and ecosystems changing/disappearing... are completely factual. Cold water species are moving north, as are warm water species. Really cold water species are under pressure, from both encroachment and seasonal change. The amusing thing; the fisherman around Newfoundland and Labrador were complaining about this long before fisheries canada (scientists) got involved.
Course all sorts of people would argue with that. Where I was, archaeology was under history, not anthro - considered humanities - not a social science. An archaeologist is not necessarily a sociologist. It really depends on your bent.
"loose password, loose information" - Attrition? People come and go. So its common practice to reset, but not store the passwords.
"policy in writing, buy in from the top" - Single point of failure? Not a big sell. SOX and privacy are about limiting access, not removing access, and effective management policies (not draconian business shattering ones.)
"all data can be reproduced" - also crap - take any company where research is a component - its not just the data - its what drove it that way - so the trail of notes along the way. Any drug company would tell you how disasterous it would be to not be able to recover data...
But this is all off topic. The original point was Trust your IT. I agree. I work in a place that actively distrusts its IT - and it prevents (hinders) me from doing my job. The big big big difference: big companies can afford such stupidity. It would kill smaller ones.
I totally agree. However... my recent calls to my doctor about my latest lab tests are really about "should I lay off the sauce or is my liver patte?"; translated "Should I come in for a consult?"
People in those positions have admin staff that isolate them from the phone call. Strangely, those same staff usually screen mailings. So - I doubt that these magazines will reach their targets unscathed... that and the fact that most execs I know don't read fortune! They read the rags in their vertical, or their favorite hobby rag. When fluff comes it, it gets put on the waiting room table.
When time is a precious commodity, you get other people to waste it...
1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
Note the algorithmic detail hidden in the patents hide some of the totally obvious "Hey isn't that common sense?" and "How can they patent that!?"
Of course I agree that on the surface, the patent claims are "insane" which is why Amazon ignores IBM. Almost as insane as a patten for a one-stop-buy button. The system is way broken, but read the patents yourselves to jump to the same conclusion.
I was a Mac developer for ten years. Unfortunately, I was promoting use of Mac in sci-tech. The problem then and now is the same. This whole concept of a killer app killed support by Apple and the community for any vertical app. I remember an evangelist telling me the CAD tools we were porting weren't killer apps and therefore not worthy of any attention. My point was that in science, engineering, and business... any vertical really... that ANY app is better than NO app. The biggest complaint from companies about support for Mac was lack of tools.
Of course we learned hard lessons. Our ports of DOS/Windows products to the Mac were distinctively un-Mac like and drew ire from the bretheren.
So we got nailed from both sides. Users didn't like the apps because they didn't use all the latest, greatest whiz bang (non portable) MacOS features. Apple (media and evangelism) didn't like the apps because they did boring stuff (chemical process simulation and plant design).
I remember the killer Apps for QuickDraw3d. Ooooo 3d animating charting! Ah.... wait; form vs. function. Tron comes to mind. Doesn't every app need a purpose?
Sorry; my wife who is taking her masters in social work is passing me papers about the rise in ADHD, ODD, and the decline of healthy emotional/physical reinforcement. Some "academics" are showing trends in these behavioral areas and tying them to all sorts of causes. For example, a hug for reinforcement is considered taboo because of its potential sexual implications. Adults, especially those in social work, are advised against physical contact because of problems differentiating it from misconduct. Same sex peers avoid emotional physical contact because of the stigma of sexuality. Parents advise their children about sharing items (like headphones) for fear of disease. Our wonderful polically correct, puritantical North American social infrastructure has been moving away from healthy physical contact for decades. Kids would rather play video games and chat on the internet then go out and play baseball. Sorry you doubt it.
Oh yeah, I've read papers on our kids are getting fatter and stupider too. Its all bullshit right?
If you look at explosions in other gadgets and human nature... Steve is wrong about Zune's music sharing. Here is why...
Kids love cell phones. They love text messaging. They also love text messaging on their computers. One common theme is to express their individuality by publishing What they're listening to right now. Sometimes in a chat they'll even include a link to the song. Couple this with increasing introverted behavior. Kids will love the ability to share a song via wireless. There is this innate need to get inside the headspace...
Sharing a headphone requires an unwanted and unwelcome [physical] contact.
The Zune wireless can be extended to do more than share music. Its personal publishing.
Truth is not fact. And the law, even in Canada (I know, I'm Canadian) is primarily concerned with physical damages. Libel is almost impossible to prove in Canada because it requires the plantif come up with factual damages (that is, they were denied work, lost a contract, etc) and factual means backing evidence (that is, they have a affidavit from the third party stating that they refused this person work because of the libel).
Here is an analogous example. Your wife cheats on you. The truth is she's an adulterer. But the facts in your divorce are solely concerned about the fair dissolution of property through your union. There is no morality in law.
Hurting your feelings is irrelevant. Damaging your career with fact is allowed. Using hearsay or lying to take money out of your pocket or prevent you from earning it is when I've broken the law. Note the latter part: prevent you from earning it: is another almost impossible to prove - might or maybe doesn't hold with any judges I know. That is why most non-compete clauses are thrown out if challenged, because a party to whom you have a contract cannot prevent you from gainful employment once the contract is over.
Note that libel is "A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." The issue comes down to... fact. Not truth per se - but if the comments are substantiated fact, then you can publish as many of those as you wish. The line between critique and libel is the presence of fact with a (for the most part) impartial argument. That qualifies as lawful justification. Rumors are not fact. As I understand it, the defendant published rumors. However, defamation typically demands a monetary loss be proved by the plantif and that it be reasonable. Somehow I seriously doubt the amount awarded...
Microsoft has followed "Know your enemy, even if they don't know it yet" fo the last 20 years. Anyone who has ever been on a technology edge knows that. In '95 the OLE evangelists got a hold of me because I was making OpenDoc demos. "Here's a bunch of free stuff, why not come over to the other side?" Not the first time it happened to me either. Or others. Apple had a long history of mentoring budding Microsoft employees - and technologies. Anyone remember "Brand X" from WWDC '95? Quickdraw3D? Pippin? Naw. ATG? Anyone? How about... VBA/Script embedded everywhere? Direct3D? XBox? You know those don't ya.
This conversation never happened.
"Hey, what do you think of this Apple Pippin? They figure put a stripped down Mac in a console; tuned for games and multi-media. Re-use existing development tools. Partner with Bandi for distribution."
"Wow, that gimped. Expensive and underpowered. But in a couple years; we can put a stripped down PC in a console; tuned for games and multi-media. Re-use existing development tools. Use our own distribution network; and buy a flagship Mac/Windows game developer like Bungie."
"The fanboys will love it! By the way, give Apple a bag of cash and tell them to kill CyberDog."
But what a pipe dream eh? Sure a bunch of hobbiests in their sheds can come up with some pretty cool designs, and even build some toys, but there is something they cannot do: mass production. Why? Well, take plastic moulding for example. It costs about $500,000 just to set up a non-specialized injection company just to make something as simple as a casing for plug.
Supply and demand. "The American Dream." All these things would stomp out open source hardware.
I know of several design tools btw, open source projects, that failed because - hmm - people didn't contribute to them - hmm - because they're so vertical they're effectively useless to the masses - hmm - and that's why open source initiatives - so noble and good willed - will fail because without a broad developer base and even broader consumer base its like putting lipstick on a chicken. [Pointless.]
Its not legal. Neither is the immigrant on welfare showing up to her oral surgeon wearing a real rolex. The system works for 80% of the population; but its easy for people to work around it. I'm not advocating that... and though once upon a time I would get really upset about the "perps"; my frustration is directed and the governments that allow it. Its easy for rc or immigration to miss the bad; in fact willful considering their understaffed; and it makes sense to focus on the good in line... same reason why I see a cop pull over a minivan for doing 10 over the speed limit when a beamer goes by at twice. The minivan is easy pickins to meet the quota (they deny having, yet traffic violations are listed as the number 1 revenue stream for our local police force.)
Slashdot Mirror
And this is where it gets interesting. The Way of current democracies that are in power for short periods of time are to address only short term problems. Long term problems are generally ignored. Now couple that with "doubters." Now you have good reasons not to do anything if anyone dissents.
Everyone who doubts global warming should ask themselves a question... Right now the logic is "I don't believe its real, so I'm not going to do anything." The question should be, "If people are so worried about it, maybe I should do something?" After all, energy and water preservation are good things, reduction in polution is a good thing.
I know graduated mathematicians that cannot write computer programs.
I know graduated programmers that don't know numerical analysis.
Hell, I've interview people with computer science degrees that had absolutely no clue how to turn on a computer let alone write a program. One guy I did hire went so far as to redefine null because of an error he was getting... applied math major with a minor in computer science.
Being adaptive doesn't mean responding too all interruptions. Remember, one of the key points of Agile is prioritization. You break down the scope so you can focus... not deviate. If interruption messes up your sprint; its because your prioritization (oh no, change control) is broken.
:-)
By the by, agile = cyclical development = waterfall.
If you take science to mean accumulate knowledge through experimentation and a healthy naturalism (wikipedia); then computer science does not yield people capable of actually writing computer programs. You've put applied problem solving, analysis and design strategies, and various domain (real world/data/object) modelling solely in the hand of the technical schools. So... if this is true, there is no need for a mathematical foundation in computer science at all. You can leave it at computational theory.
So I'd argue that math is something you can pick up on your own, when your specialization in computer science requires it.
(Not once has any client ever asked me to formally prove an algorithm.)
Call me flame bait...
Computer science students should not require any math - as very little math is used in any computer science unless its a niche (graphics).
Here is what I needed to take for my degree; linear algebra, discrete, and calculus. One year of each. (Statistics might have been useful, but I didn't need to take it.)
There was virtually no application to any of my computer science courses. Restated, I never had to solve a series of equations, never had to apply formal proofs from discrete math to a "computing" problem, nor optimize anything via calculus. Hell I was lucky to use basic algebra.
However, much more effort in computer science could be put in algorithms, complexity, testing, and design. I mean the "science" of them; to optmization and performance, complexity measures, code coverage, and "software engineering" and the boat load of methodologies. This is far more useful to the "science"...
I agree with some of the comments here; what exactly is a hero?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero
So if we boil it down to good, courageous, and noble deed...
How is giving away source code for an operating system kernel good, courageous, or noble?
A lot of people still don't have computers, and even more have no clue how to install an operating system, so "common good" doesn't seem to apply (does anyone need a computer?)
Did Torvalds put his life in harms way to implement said good? Was there perril?
And then nobility... take admirable/impressive over rank/cast... has no one ever produced a kernel before? Even a free one? Was this the bestest kernel ever conceived by man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix
How can any invention based on a string of memes be considered heroic?
Selling bellow or at cost is considered anti-competitive. A small company could not do this and survive, so predatory pricing or pricing based on market position need to be considered.
. cfm?itemID=1256&lg=e
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index
"shortage of skilled workers" really means "shortage of cheap workers"
As demand in India has increased, so have the rates. We saw exactly the same thing in Russia. Originally our out source was cheap. Then year after year the contract increased in value because the work force realized they could extract more.
And its not much different than the job shortage where I am... where shortage really means cheap (college) students. I know lots of older (over priced ?!) developers/designers/architects looking for work.
Not to mention the unemployed immigrant work force with skills (!??!?!)
The problem is that skeptics will always discount any factual evidence. Consider even the initial post saying that [Canada has chosen a side without considering the evidence.] The problem; this statement completely discounts Canada's decision, which really is a variety of decisions on a variety of fronts, stating that there is a problem.
The recent news about fish stocks depleting... and ecosystems changing/disappearing... are completely factual. Cold water species are moving north, as are warm water species. Really cold water species are under pressure, from both encroachment and seasonal change. The amusing thing; the fisherman around Newfoundland and Labrador were complaining about this long before fisheries canada (scientists) got involved.
Course all sorts of people would argue with that. Where I was, archaeology was under history, not anthro - considered humanities - not a social science. An archaeologist is not necessarily a sociologist. It really depends on your bent.
Baloney.
"loose password, loose information" - Attrition? People come and go. So its common practice to reset, but not store the passwords.
"policy in writing, buy in from the top" - Single point of failure? Not a big sell. SOX and privacy are about limiting access, not removing access, and effective management policies (not draconian business shattering ones.)
"all data can be reproduced" - also crap - take any company where research is a component - its not just the data - its what drove it that way - so the trail of notes along the way. Any drug company would tell you how disasterous it would be to not be able to recover data...
But this is all off topic. The original point was Trust your IT. I agree. I work in a place that actively distrusts its IT - and it prevents (hinders) me from doing my job. The big big big difference: big companies can afford such stupidity. It would kill smaller ones.
I totally agree. However... my recent calls to my doctor about my latest lab tests are really about "should I lay off the sauce or is my liver patte?"; translated "Should I come in for a consult?"
;-)
Cheers
Too funny.
People in those positions have admin staff that isolate them from the phone call. Strangely, those same staff usually screen mailings. So - I doubt that these magazines will reach their targets unscathed... that and the fact that most execs I know don't read fortune! They read the rags in their vertical, or their favorite hobby rag. When fluff comes it, it gets put on the waiting room table.
When time is a precious commodity, you get other people to waste it...
1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
Note the algorithmic detail hidden in the patents hide some of the totally obvious "Hey isn't that common sense?" and "How can they patent that!?"
Of course I agree that on the surface, the patent claims are "insane" which is why Amazon ignores IBM. Almost as insane as a patten for a one-stop-buy button. The system is way broken, but read the patents yourselves to jump to the same conclusion.
I was a Mac developer for ten years. Unfortunately, I was promoting use of Mac in sci-tech. The problem then and now is the same. This whole concept of a killer app killed support by Apple and the community for any vertical app. I remember an evangelist telling me the CAD tools we were porting weren't killer apps and therefore not worthy of any attention. My point was that in science, engineering, and business... any vertical really... that ANY app is better than NO app. The biggest complaint from companies about support for Mac was lack of tools.
Of course we learned hard lessons. Our ports of DOS/Windows products to the Mac were distinctively un-Mac like and drew ire from the bretheren.
So we got nailed from both sides. Users didn't like the apps because they didn't use all the latest, greatest whiz bang (non portable) MacOS features. Apple (media and evangelism) didn't like the apps because they did boring stuff (chemical process simulation and plant design).
I remember the killer Apps for QuickDraw3d. Ooooo 3d animating charting! Ah.... wait; form vs. function. Tron comes to mind. Doesn't every app need a purpose?
The man/woman that ports EQ to a Mac is evil. :-)
I'd love to chat/argue this, but its way off topic.
Sorry; my wife who is taking her masters in social work is passing me papers about the rise in ADHD, ODD, and the decline of healthy emotional/physical reinforcement. Some "academics" are showing trends in these behavioral areas and tying them to all sorts of causes. For example, a hug for reinforcement is considered taboo because of its potential sexual implications. Adults, especially those in social work, are advised against physical contact because of problems differentiating it from misconduct. Same sex peers avoid emotional physical contact because of the stigma of sexuality. Parents advise their children about sharing items (like headphones) for fear of disease. Our wonderful polically correct, puritantical North American social infrastructure has been moving away from healthy physical contact for decades. Kids would rather play video games and chat on the internet then go out and play baseball. Sorry you doubt it.
Oh yeah, I've read papers on our kids are getting fatter and stupider too. Its all bullshit right?
If you look at explosions in other gadgets and human nature... Steve is wrong about Zune's music sharing. Here is why...
Kids love cell phones. They love text messaging. They also love text messaging on their computers. One common theme is to express their individuality by publishing What they're listening to right now. Sometimes in a chat they'll even include a link to the song. Couple this with increasing introverted behavior. Kids will love the ability to share a song via wireless. There is this innate need to get inside the headspace...
Sharing a headphone requires an unwanted and unwelcome [physical] contact.
The Zune wireless can be extended to do more than share music. Its personal publishing.
Truth is not fact. And the law, even in Canada (I know, I'm Canadian) is primarily concerned with physical damages. Libel is almost impossible to prove in Canada because it requires the plantif come up with factual damages (that is, they were denied work, lost a contract, etc) and factual means backing evidence (that is, they have a affidavit from the third party stating that they refused this person work because of the libel).
Here is an analogous example. Your wife cheats on you. The truth is she's an adulterer. But the facts in your divorce are solely concerned about the fair dissolution of property through your union. There is no morality in law.
Hurting your feelings is irrelevant. Damaging your career with fact is allowed. Using hearsay or lying to take money out of your pocket or prevent you from earning it is when I've broken the law. Note the latter part: prevent you from earning it: is another almost impossible to prove - might or maybe doesn't hold with any judges I know. That is why most non-compete clauses are thrown out if challenged, because a party to whom you have a contract cannot prevent you from gainful employment once the contract is over.
Note that libel is "A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." The issue comes down to ... fact. Not truth per se - but if the comments are substantiated fact, then you can publish as many of those as you wish. The line between critique and libel is the presence of fact with a (for the most part) impartial argument. That qualifies as lawful justification. Rumors are not fact. As I understand it, the defendant published rumors. However, defamation typically demands a monetary loss be proved by the plantif and that it be reasonable. Somehow I seriously doubt the amount awarded ...
Microsoft has followed "Know your enemy, even if they don't know it yet" fo the last 20 years. Anyone who has ever been on a technology edge knows that. In '95 the OLE evangelists got a hold of me because I was making OpenDoc demos. "Here's a bunch of free stuff, why not come over to the other side?" Not the first time it happened to me either. Or others. Apple had a long history of mentoring budding Microsoft employees - and technologies. Anyone remember "Brand X" from WWDC '95? Quickdraw3D? Pippin? Naw. ATG? Anyone? How about... VBA/Script embedded everywhere? Direct3D? XBox? You know those don't ya.
This conversation never happened.
"Hey, what do you think of this Apple Pippin? They figure put a stripped down Mac in a console; tuned for games and multi-media. Re-use existing development tools. Partner with Bandi for distribution."
"Wow, that gimped. Expensive and underpowered. But in a couple years; we can put a stripped down PC in a console; tuned for games and multi-media. Re-use existing development tools. Use our own distribution network; and buy a flagship Mac/Windows game developer like Bungie."
"The fanboys will love it! By the way, give Apple a bag of cash and tell them to kill CyberDog."
Theo the Rat couldn't have written it better!
But what a pipe dream eh? Sure a bunch of hobbiests in their sheds can come up with some pretty cool designs, and even build some toys, but there is something they cannot do: mass production. Why? Well, take plastic moulding for example. It costs about $500,000 just to set up a non-specialized injection company just to make something as simple as a casing for plug.
Supply and demand. "The American Dream." All these things would stomp out open source hardware.
I know of several design tools btw, open source projects, that failed because - hmm - people didn't contribute to them - hmm - because they're so vertical they're effectively useless to the masses - hmm - and that's why open source initiatives - so noble and good willed - will fail because without a broad developer base and even broader consumer base its like putting lipstick on a chicken. [Pointless.]
Its not legal. Neither is the immigrant on welfare showing up to her oral surgeon wearing a real rolex. The system works for 80% of the population; but its easy for people to work around it. I'm not advocating that... and though once upon a time I would get really upset about the "perps"; my frustration is directed and the governments that allow it. Its easy for rc or immigration to miss the bad; in fact willful considering their understaffed; and it makes sense to focus on the good in line... same reason why I see a cop pull over a minivan for doing 10 over the speed limit when a beamer goes by at twice. The minivan is easy pickins to meet the quota (they deny having, yet traffic violations are listed as the number 1 revenue stream for our local police force.)