Yes, I am fully aware that you -can- use SCSI drives in a G4.
I said Apple use to use SCSI as standard on ALL thier systems, and now they have made it "optional," and it even seems a little obscure as to how to order a system with SCSI drives.
The POINT is, they took a step backwards, and now SCSI is not "standard" on thier systems, it's an option. Apple use to be "a step ahead" in this reguard, and now thier just like the rest.
I'd say the same thing if SGI or someone suddently stoped shipping thier systems with SCSI standard, and started using IDE insted. The point isn't "Apple Can't Do SCSI," because clearly, they can. The point is they made a cutback on other componants to get to a more competitive price, so all the G4 hype is drawing attention away from the fact that the "standard" systems have taken some quality cuts in other areas.
I'm not saying it's impossable to use SCSI in a G4. Not at all.
What I am saying is Apple is "pushing" IDE in the G4's. If you go to the Apple Store, it contradicts thier statement "Support for up to three internal SCSI drives." In fact, it's an "option" you can choose, or at least it seems that way.
I have no doubt you can (and probably -should-) use SCSI with an Apple G4 system, what I am saying is that Apple consumers don't clearly have that as an option on the configuration page, and more notably, what I feel is important to note... Apples use to use SCSI drives exclusively, they were "standard," not an option. When they moved to IDE, and then made IDE the standard and SCSI the option, they took a step backwards.
I know this is off topic, but I just have to aske this question anyway?
I looked over the G4 System Specs, and I can't help but notice that it uses IDE drives. So, of course, I poped over to the "Apple Store" online and checked if you could get one with SCSI drives. Not avaliable.
I thought the iMac was cute, I'll admit it, but Apple started to move away from SCSI then, and it seems they are still moving away. Apple was using SCSI drives exclusively when most companies didn't even offer them as an option, now the tables have turned again. Being that SCSI not only allows higher data flow rates, but off-loads the processing power needed to run the drives from the CPU to the controller card (or subsystem), it will clearly provide a preformance boost (that most people miss the significance of).
So, I guess I have to ask, why is it when Apple is pushing the new G4 as a "Super Computer on a Chip" and pushed the G3 as the "Pentium Beater" that they are takeing steps backwards with other componants?
I have to admit that the G4 price range (starting at about $1500, and topping off under $4000 not counting monitor) is quite impressive considering the claims of the CPU. But it's total system preformance that matters, and when even the $3500 decked out G4 system uses IDE drives, I just have to ask.... "WHY?
I guess when we actually see any G3/G4 generic systems come out, which is "suppose to happen" when IBM released mother board specs, this won't matter. But I haven't seen that happen yet, and since Apple is the primary source of the G4 systems to the consumer, it matters for now.
I don't see much that would make me believe that any group didn't deserve it's own distribution, but what would make it a seperate distribution?
The underlying structure would have to be the same, becuase after all, the hardware would be the same, there are no "gender bias computers" unless all of a sudden we call the iMac or something a womans computer, and then one of the Mac distributions becomes a "womens" distribution...
The file structures would have to be the same, because without interoperability, they would be seperating themselfs in the workplace, and files couldn't be shared, and they couldn't be a "team" player...
What's left? I think I would suggest (at the risk of really offending EVERYONE, and generally making myself look like a pig), that women might have a great place in GUI or theme development.
In thinking about it, browsing through the GTK, KDE, WindowMaker, E, and other themes, there isn't a whole heck of a lot out there for women to like. I know my wife was just flat out offended by some... and Caitlin Fairchild themes sure aren't gong to win them over to Linux...
Women have always been very "visually smart." (here goes the really chance for me to look like a PIG). As artists, they have always been impressive, and GUI overlayers (like themes) would be an awsome place to get more women involved and stop some of the gender bias of UNIX. I tried to create a theme once myself for my wife (see this pathetic attempt). But she ended up useing KDE, and wanting me to buy her a book on GIMP so she can do her own graphics.
Frankly, I don't think many of the GUI enviroment "visual layers" (hard coded or themes) really are as attractive to women as they could create for themselfs. I would love to be able to point my wife to a "women's theme pack" or something, but themes.org has soo much almost naked women, sci-fi, or dark and demented stuff, she doesn't even want to waste her time looking at them.....
So, a distribution? I don't know. But are plenty of areas for them to work in. The hard coded application and kernel stuff, I would hope women wouldn't divert from the general code, and contribute to the base where all people can benifit. But as for GUI, I think they would be well justified in comeing up with some creative visual stuff that would please _THEM_ insted of having to sort through all the borderline porn themes to find something they can stand working with.
Hmm. I have am currently running Debian, Red Hat, and FreeBSD. I have ran Slackware, SuSE, Open Linux, and a few others, plus some commercial UNIX systems (DEC, SGI, etc). And, the one conclusion I have come to is that the worst feature I have seen in any OS is clearly something I see from Linux (and to a lesser extent in FreeBSD).
What's that feature you ask? Well, it's the small part of the user base that constantly has to say "my OS is better than yours."
Each has it's benifits, and among the ones I like best are Red Hat and FreeBSD. Advocating the benifits of one over another is pointless when it will only start a flame war. There is no match for ports in the Linux world, dselect and dpkg are not as tight or relyable or intuitive, and it's not compileing from source allowing complete optimization based on your/etc/make.conf file, so it's not comparing apples to apples, it's comparing apples to oranges. And, rpm also has a remote package get, btw, rpm -ivh ftp://site.org/path/to.rpm works fine.
The "tightness" and "tweakability" of FreeBSD is very good, and trying to say that Linux is better is shortsighted. Linux has a huge (yet unorginized, and frequently poorly documented) breath of applications that run native, and FreeBSD is still working to cetch up.
Can't we just agree to disagree, and admit there is a great deal of good in both OS's. Start drawing on eachothers strengths, and admit that the interoperability of UNIX in it's many varients is still less fragemented that the Microsoft and Mac world would like us to believe? Or must we continue to drive wedges between diffrent UNIX factions, and fragement ourselfs into oblivion like was done in the past?
The feature freeze should be turning into a code freeze in another two months or so, and a release by the end of the year. And as everybody knows, our targets never slip.--Linus
For those of you to new to development kernel tracking, this is a JOKE, it's sarcasm. I have no doubt that Linus would like a freeze, and it COULD happen, but this is not written in stone.
Anyway, I personally don't see anything major pending. There are still various fixes that have yet to be integrated (some of the smbfs work by Bill etc), but on the whole I'd call this feature-freeze time. Have fun--Linus
As it happens, the development kernel kept going from 2.1.69 in 1-Dec-97 on to Linux 2.2.0-pre9 in 20-Jan-99, that's over a year.
Linus has a sence of humor, don't think every word out of his mouth is written in stone, this isn't Moses comeing down from the mountian with the ten commandments... . It's just a comment, and one said with tounge in cheek.
It could be "the freeze," but don't hold your breath.
I believe the fundamental problem is that the general population has equated Democracy with Freedom.
Democracy was put in place in the United States as a method of government that would best preserve Freedom, and prevent Tyranny. Unfortunately, some people have come under the impression that Democracy _is_ Freedom, which it is not.
The United States of America are now the worlds most "powerful" Democracy, but, it is needed to point out that it's no longer a "Free Country." Democracy has become bloated, corrupt, and become a organized version of "mob rule." Because the majority "wants" something has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Freedom.
I highly doubt our fore fathers in-visioned a population and a group of politicians who would put Freedom by the wayside. People are influenced by many factors, and Freedom is no longer a fundamental decision in public policy. Politicians want to "represent the people" more than they want to "insure Freedom." This is not what was intended.
Personally, I still find the USA rating high in the order of "countries which allow their people individual freedoms" and I have no doubt this is where I want to stay. But, every day, we drift farther away from those freedoms, and become a more socialist country, so, I do vote, and I vote for members of the one political party who still remember what the founding principals were, the Libertarian Party.
My point is, it will cost you about $500 to get the Intel compiler, and you still can't use it in Linux. Compaq's compiler is now avaliable in Linux. So, in comparing compilers "made by hardware vendors," Compaq is showing how much it believes in Linux already, and Intel is still saying that "It's a Windows World, why bother."
You can also look over Intel's site, and see how many products they sell that include Windows drivers, but not Linux drivers, and Intel doesn't (yet) have a site like Compaq's Linux Site or SGI's Linux Site.
I am simply pointing out that Compaq is acknoledging Linux, and the comparison between Compaq and Intel doesn't automatically make Intel look like it's supporting Linux and Compaq doesn't really care.
GCC/EGCS is acceptable on x86 hardware, it's doing "ok." But, Alpha/Linux is still not as powerful of a platform as Alpha/Tru64. I do hope GCC/EGCS narrows the margin at some point in the future. But bashing Compaq isn't going to help. Compaq may be in a position to help GCC by simply donating some hardware to developers. But if they get an "unfriendly" responce from the Linux community, it would be unlikely that they would want to help.
It'll be a long rocky road for Linux if all of the Linux community had this "Open Source or F--- Off" attitude.
I'm all for the development of open source software, but it's going to be a while before Postges or MySql is up to the speed of Oracle, before KWord is up to Microsoft Word, before Gnumeric is up to Microsoft Excel, before GCC is up to commercial compilers, before KDeveloper is up to Code Fusion, before GnoMoney is up to Quicken, before....
There is a slow shift to open source software, that is clear. But it's not happening overnight, and there will be a place for commercial applications for quite a time to come. If all the "Microsoft Windows" software ran on Linux today, wouldn't you agree that Linux would probably have a more rapidly expanding user base? And, it the end, this would help the development of open source software?
If you notice, GCC is managed now by Cygnus, and without thier commercial products, they wouldn't have two nickels to rub together, much less host the GCC/EGCS web site, cvs site, ftp site, or the staff to help development of the compiler.
Slashdot itself is running on a MySQL database, which, if you were not aware, is NOT open source, it's commercial (to an extent). So, your post has at least been rendered up by a commercial product.
Really, I think the Linux community at large would be best served to get off of it's GPL evanglist soap box. Personally, I find no harsh things to say about the BSD licence, it's a valid licence, and I would rather see people use the BSD licence that "invent" a licence of thier own like Sun, AOL/Netscape, and Apple have done when they say they are supplying an "open source" product.
A better free compiler would help Compaq sell more Alphas (since benchmarks done by 3rd parties would show Alphas as being even faster compared to Intel processors). Intel seems to understand this. Compaq better learn it soon before the Alpha dies.
I think Compaq is a step ahead of Intel in the Linux compiler area.... I don't understand why you would want to bash them for it, and say Intel is so great because they support GCC vaporware for Merced vaporware on paper.
The entire point of my comment was to point out that Intel is one of the few hardware vendors that has their heads on straight on how to make money from us (nVidia being another). The whole goal should be to sell chips (and motherboards, and complete systems, etc.) and not compilers.
Take a look at Intel's Compiler.. If "Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about" where does this fit in?
If the compiler results in a 30%+ preformance boost in the binaries, and 30% faster hardware would cost $2,000 more, you can bet your pants that people will be ready to pay $500 for a commercial compiler.
I'm all for egcs getting up to speed, but a good compiler is _one_ thing I wouldn't mind paying for.
Does that answer the question? Or was this just another "they should open source everything" comment, and there was no real question?
There is no doubt in my mind that the average "mental maturity" of slashdot posters is adolecent. But some (not all) of the borderline trolls are pretty good.
The fact that the comments are negitive about a person, project, product, or concept are not in itself a troll. The ones that stick out in my mind are the posts reguarding Red Hat, SGI, and X-windows. These topics always bring with them a small segment of "flame-bait" posts. But, although some are flat out flame bait, some comments are actually solid criticism, with a leg to stand on.
Red Hat != Microsoft, and blatent flames are anoying, with "Red Hat Sucks" being a common responce. But, with all of Red Hats newfound money, it's odd that they don't clean up thier contribs, and they have been shortsighted in not accepting input from the outside world. They did screw up the squid packages when there were good squid packages in the contribs. They have made a mistake making thier base install a minimum of 120M. Some criticisms are well justified. Calling them the Microsoft of Linux, flaming them for the simple fact that they are now worth a few billion, and some of the harsher comments with no basis are flames. But not all criticisms are flames.
SGI obviously has some problems. Thier investors have a right to be consirned when at one time SGI was worth over $40 a share, and now hover around $10 a share. Thier motives in suddenly embraceing the GNU/GPL community seem a little suspect. They have lost key developers. There are many negitive things about the company that can be discussed intellegently. And it almost seems that it's some of the "positive" comments that are "flamebait." I have long respected thier MIPS based hardware, and listening to SlashDot script kiddies say how much "SGI rocks" because they now have an Intel based Linux box makes me feel like an intellegent discussion about the company impossable.
X-Windows, and specifically the XFree86 project are no doubt greatly benificial to almost everyone using a open source *NIX OS. Yet, there are still some shortfalls and limitations. I have never seen a truely intellegent discussion on SlashDot about what is good and bad in XFree86, only people spouting off how "we need a replacement, like Berlin" without supporting the comment, or "I can't wait for 4.0 because that will have all the cool stuff in it" without actually justifing what the needs for these new features will be. I don't doubt that an OpenGL implementation will be benificial, I know it will hell people who run software that requires OpenGL, but frankly, the only products I have used personally that use OpenGL are propriatary and don't run on Linux or any other free OS to start with. A vast majority of the comments, good and bad, might qualify as trolls.
So, I guess what I am saying is, just because a comment is negitive doesn't qualify it as a trool. There are many "This Rocks" type comments that are equally trolls. There are many "This sucks because X should do Y and part ABC has been core dumping every time you do a PDQ procedure" that are negitive, but not trolls, just true observations about shortfalls of the subject in question.
So, moderation may help. But, the true problem is probably that most SlashDot readers are more likely to be in the adolecent phase of "UNIX is cool, computers rock, I'm a 3113+3 H4X0R" catagory, and too few of slashdots readers bring long term, educated and experianced comments to the table.
"They" will define science to include themselfs. "They" always do. (yes "they" in quotes means something. It means those conventionally outside of the definition).
No matter how hard you argue it to me, I won't budge. Computers were man made. They will never be a science. And the recent invention of "natural science" vs. "science" is a nice way of saying "we screwed up the term, now we have to make 'natural science' mean what 'science' alone use to mean." Let me tell you, there isn't much "natural" about some of the best cutting edge chemistry or physics, yet, it's based in extending natural laws. Computers are manmade.
Define it how you want, but the study of computers (or the human THOUGHT process of the human mind for that matter) has always been seen as "outside of the field of science." (granted that linguistics is based in studying mans thought process, but, some will argue that mental processes of man are soo borderline, they are not science).
I frankly give up on these SlashDot types that want to prove to me Computer Science is a science, because someone in the computer field once postulated a theory that is difficult for all of them to grasp. I will once again state, "I can apply the scientific method to drinking beer. Theory, experiment, new therory, and on and on. That does NOT make drinking beer a science."
Frankly, linguistics is an art. And, of that, they should be proud. It's one of the most highly evolved, technical, elaborate, insightfull, and exciting of all forms of art. But none the less, it's an art, because it's primarly about _language_ which is NOT a science, it's something manmade.
And furthermore, to avoid potential "slippery slope" arguments, because there is something in the study that is "natural" no more makes it a science than the fact that I can build a chemical structure to form a work of art. Science is applying the scientific method to gain insight into the natural world.
Now, it's not like there is anything wrong with one field or another. It's just that someone has to make a distinct "line in the sand" and say study this and that's art, study that and it's engineering, study this other thing and it's science, study this next thing and it's medicine. So, why fight so hard to say your field is on over the line you want it to be?
I'll tell you why, It's because "science" has been portrayed by way to many people as the "elite" field of study. And frankly, it's NOT. I know many an artist I would rather work with in a chemitry lab than some so called "scientists." Someone has to take a step back and realize, without the ballance, there is no way for society as a whole to evolve. It took the artists, engineers, and all to evolve "science" to where it is today. And likewise for the other fields. Where would a great painter be without some "scientist" developing a better, longer lasting, more bright paint? Where would the scientist be without the tools the engineers have provided? Where would the engineers be without the principles that scientists layed out and the creativity that artists came to the table with? They would all still be back far beyond the uglyness of the Dark Ages.
Linguistics is about the structure of Languages, which turns out to depend on the structure of the human brain. That's a natural physical structure. Read Chomsky for details..... Excuse me, but the human brain? Well, yea, it's natural, but would you say that everything that the human brain can come up with is "natural?" Well, if that is the case, then EVERYTHING is a science.
CS is about number theory at root, Godel's theorem being the prime example. That's a relation between numbers which was unknown before Godel's proof, and in many ways Godels method was an experiment on the behaviour of numbers...... Well, first of all, no one has proved that "math" itself is a science. Albiet arguable, I would probably be much more likely to call mathamatics itself a science. But the "Application" of math to something is clearly an application, and therefore engineering. Tell me, if the application of science to the "man made world" isn't engineering, what is engineering?
Why try so hard to make someone (me in this case) believe that Computers in any sence can be called a science? The only valid point you can make is that my "definition" of science is dated, and the word has evolved to mean anything that you can apply the scientific method to. If that is the case, then sure, Computer Science is a science, and so is just about everything else in that people study, including my study tonight on beer drinking. At least that argument you can win.
Frankly, I believe that by dilluting the meaning of words, and redefining them to suit your needs is the "de-evolution" of mankind. Because something is "hip" or "in" doesn't mean that we should make everything that way. That's the problem with the USA today, everyone wants "what's best for the majority" and "what the people want" because it's a democracy. And, you completely erase the premise of freedom by replacing it with democracy. Democracy is just a pretty way to say "mob rule" and does not by construct ensure freedom. Yet, people want to call everything under the sun "science," they want to call everything a pretty word, no more "wasp, fag, gay, whatever." Once apon a time, the words all had meanings to be proud of, and then people used them in inapproprate ways. Rather than dealing with the fact that there was a definition to the words, we in America either redefine them, or invent new ones to take thier place that haven't been used negitively. "Black" at one time was a way to distinguish race, now it's a "insult" and they are to be called "African-American," and you black only is a color you can buy a car in. "Gay" at one time meant happy, then it was a slam on the "partying good timeing homos" and now they are something else (who knows a "PC" term to call homosexuals today that doesn't imply a negitive sterotype?).
Call me a "Mick" and see if I care. Honestly. Call me a "Mick" to your hearts content. And I will only stand up and be proud. Call me a "scientist" and I will probably agree that I was educated as one in chemistry, but am much less likely to accept that label, because the work I do involves so much art (and flat out creativity), and management skills (which aren't a science), and I will say that label is misleading. I will say, "why yes, I am a Mick, if you think that makes me 'inferior' I can only hope to prove you wrong." Call me a "scientist" and I will say it's a broad label.
But if you want me to stand up and say "your right, next time I meet someone who writes computer code that has one time studied a 'theory' I will call him a 'scientist' not a programmer." I just can't accept that.
How many programmers or even computer engineers will stand up in public and say "Oh, I am a scientist?" That is not what scientists are, and they know that, and they understand that if they said they were scientists in public, the people they said that to would not expect them to be "programmers." The computer people who want to put the label "science" on their profession are doing themself a dis-service. They are saying to the world that "we are bound to natural principals in our work" rather than "we are creative and invent many things" like they could say if they called themselfs engineers or even if they said they are artists.
The day I meet a hacker that calls himself an artist is the day I find a whole new respect for the person saying it. That would emply not only are they "applying something that is manmade to a real world application as engineers do" but they are saying "I am taking it to a new level, somewhere that has no bounds, that's creative beyond conventional thinking, and something that will revolutionize the world like the renasaissance."
This reminds me of an old proverb. One which emplys that we all wish we could do something "greater" than we do at the present, but in the end, it's only a circle. It goes "Artists wish they were scientists. Scientists wish they were mathematicians. Mathematicatians wish they were artists.
Experimentation does not make something a science.
Engineers experiment all the time with new structures, but that doesn't make it science.
Science is understand "what is" not developing something new and trying to test it, that's engineering.
Read my post a couple steps above for a more complete explination. Basically, "the scientific method" can be applied to many things, but applying a "scientific method" doesn't make something a science. If it did, maybe one could be a "master of the science of beer drinking" as well. It's simply not the case.
You need to study something not created by man to make it a science. You need to study things that were not "manmade" and test, experiment, and tweek them. That's science.
Dictionary definition: Science: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and it's phenomena.
Things studied that are man-made are considered "engineering" studies, not science.
OK, well, as nice as it sounds to be called a "science" I don't think it really is IMHO. Yes, my _opinion_.
Science has historically been attempting to understand _nature_ or something that is already there by applying a "scientific method" of theory, test the theory, new theory.
If anything, Computer Science is more Engineering, it's just "data engineering" insted of manipulating something physical.
I think that you might be "over valuing" the "science" label. Political Science is NOT a science... But it doens't mean that politics are not important in the world. Linguistics are not sciences, and it doesn't mean communication isn't important.
Just because the "powers at be" choose to label it science, doesn't make it a science in the traditional sence. If anything, what it shows is that they are redefining the term science, not that the study of computers fits traditionally know methods of science.
That being said, I don't mean to put any less value on the studies of Computer Science majors. I have a great deal of respect for (most) of them. But I don't think it fits the mold of what most people think of when they think about the word "science." Computers weren't "always there" and then at one point mankind decided to study them and try to understand how they work. They were engineered. And, as as much, I would agree that "Software Engineer" is probably a good term.
The labels "Software Engineer" and "Computer Engineer" might be better to more accurately reflect people who develop software and develop hardware respectivly.
Why fight it, engineers make more money in general anyway. Which, in fact, also seems to be something the CS community has more in common with Engineers than Scientists.
dunno, didn't reread it. Lemme check. Yup, your right. 2/3rds not 1/3rd. Semi explains the typo a little more, one key off reaching up for the numbers, but in a grading sence, still would have lost a point for the wrong answer;-) Feel free to grade with moderation points, I think my posts are probably still comming in above average on the curve;-).
Although, based on grammer and spelling, I would have failed "slashdot 101" about 100 times over. I guess I never have got the hang of "proof reading." Plus, I'll be the first to admit, I frequently hit "submit" and never hit "preview" because I to have been influanced by the "get a lower post number" thing. The spillover thing if there are more than 30 posts, I hate being on the "second page" because. K, yea, I am not that far away from a "first post" idiot. Seeing as how this time it caught up with me I will make this promise:
After this post, I will TRY to remember to do a preview before I do a submit, and not worry about being "down on the second or third page."
It would be cool if Malda hacked ispell into the preview feature, wouldn't it?;-)
Go to plig.org to check a few out. I would recommend BlackBox or WM2 for something that can look nice, and still not suck up resources on a 486.
The diffrence between a "window manager" and a "Desktop environment" is that the "desktop environment" includes a window manager, as well as a bunch of other applications that use the same widget styles.
Well, I have taught more than a few hundred first year college freshman in a University Chemistry Lab. I believe I can comment on this a bit.
The "weed out" effect comes in two basic forms, from what I have observed, but it's definately there. Here's what I have seen.
The first form is the "wakeup call" where students get in over thier heads. Quite frankly, there is a historical trend that only 2/3rds of the students pass, and 1/3rd don't. No matter who is teaching, no matter how "hard" or "easy" they try to make the class, 1/3rd end up not completeing the course (some drop, some flat out fail). I believe they just don't come in prepared. I spend about 75% of my time in Chemistry labs teaching students basic Algebra, not chemistry. They usually have the dexterity to do the experiments, but just can't do some of the very very basic math. In this case, I think the blame is clearly to be placed on the High School from which they graduated. And, when they are screwing up the math, in general, they don't have the basic "logic" skills to understand the science behind the math. I mean, how hard is it to add up the molecular weight of Methane? Carbon=12, you have one. Hydrogen=1, you have 4. What's the weight of the full molecule. Uh... (12x1)+(1X4)=___. When they can't handle that, how do they expect to get anywhere? If you make it apples and oranges, they can do fine. For some reason, it's so ingrained in thier minds that "Chemistry is Hard" that when you replace apples and oranges with elements, suddendly they can't do Algebra!
There is no big "push" from the university to make us fail students. There is a push to make us "pass" students. In this vain, most Chemistry departments around the country have a "Chemistry Lite" class now, where they avoid math at all costs.
The second reason that students fail, or the other second part of the "weed out effect" comes from the medical school. They don't want people making it 4 years as a pre-med student, and not being able to handle medical school. And, a very large portion of the students in the basic sciences are pre-medical students. So, here is a class full of 250 students, we already know 1/3 of them are (pardon the expression) idiots, what about the other 1/2rds? Well, they contain the most mercenary students on campus. The type of kids who will give others the wrong answers to "make themselfs sit higher on the curve." They resent having to be in the class completely, because they are still believing "I'll never have to use this stuff" so they just want a grade.
It's not like we have a lot to work with there. One way or another, none of them want to be in the class to start with. Believe me when I say, the professors do thier best to "sell" how much fun the sciences can be. But when they clearly see that a BS in Biology won't get them a job, but a BS in computer science can get them $40,000 to start, how do you expect them to feel? Then, throw them into a group where 1/3 of the people they are with can't to basic math, and another large percentage are as arrogent as can be, and they get disgusted with the class after the first week.
Solution? I don't know, bring McGyver back on TV;-) The media never portrays science as "fun" anyway. Sure, you complain that "hackers" don't get a fair portral in the movies or on the news, but at least they get some media attention. Scientists usually get made out to be evil, completely over the top "maddness-genius" types, or just plain boring.
If anyone out there is reading this and is looking at a carrer in science, I'll tell you flat out, "we need you." Qualifications are not the sterotypes. We need people with strong math skills, that's true, but more that that, we need people who are "artists" at heart, and can dream up the future, and make it happen. You have to be able to think "outside the box" and be very creative. To solve new problems, it really takes an artist that can apply logic to his work.
?ttp://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SGI&d=my Look at graph. Ford, GM, even Dodge doesn't do this (unless they are following the rest of the market). SGI's droping while other Tech stocks rise.
Come on now people... Forgive me, but this is hardly shocking.
I looked over the articals, and all I can say is "So What?" the Gaussian distribution is based on pure random-ness. Did you expect everything to be a completely random event?
Neither artical seems to go into great detail about how the new curve was calculated, but it's simply a _FACT_ that applying the Gaussian distribution to most events is considered a "simplification" of the problem, assuming it's random. Take away some random-ness, and of course the Gaussian distribution won't fit.
Intelligence (however mesured) will not be purely random, nor will floods, grade distributions, tornados, or anything
What's missing from both of these pieces is an explination behind the way the new curve was built, and on what foundation. The Poisson (spelling is way off there) distribution is frequently used in place of Gaussian because it "fits better," but again, doesn't prove that the events have much to do with the math.
This is a case of "curve fitting gone wild" here, and unless I can see someone spell out in scientific detail the relationship between the events and the distribution, I don't buy it. So, they have a new equasion, and a new curve, it doesn't mean that the events are related to the math directly. If you look for anything hard enouth, you will start to find it everywhere.
I do award them credit for a new curve that better fits some models. If the equasion for thier curve is manageable. If it's a complex equasion, it's worthless, because the whole point is to make some equasion fit a distribution of events. If theirs fits, and it's easy to calculate, it's benificial. But it does not emply a direct coorilation between the functions and the variables in the distribution. How do I explain this in SlashDot terms... (/me get's frusturated).
Ok, take Moore's Law, you all know that right? Processor power doubles every 18 months? Or, the more accurately I believe he stated something to the effect that the number of circuts would double every 18 months. Well, a loosely fit exponential function will almost match this trend (roughly). But then you have to "adjust" the month scale between 12 and 24 untill the curve fits well. Now, that's a "model" but does not prove scientificly that circuts and design engineers are behaving exactly as can be predicted. At some point in the future everyone has predicted Moores Law will fail. See... It's a model! Curve Fitting.... Doesn't PROVE anything about what's going on in developers minds, or much tangable other that the "estimation" that things will get more powerfull in the computing world.
Now, take it a step further, say Moores Law fails right as people develop a new method of increacing computing preformance, like say 3D circuts, or something not yet concieved, and with less "countable circuts" you get more preformance. Suddently, new devices start to a few less circuts, and more power. Now the Moores Law curve goes down, slowly at first, leveling off, and maybe dropping just a tad, and it starts to look like a "bell shaped curve" only half drawn. You could go "Curve fitting crazy" and say "Hey, it's Gaussian, it's going to go down now, and within another 15 years, we will all be back to 8 bit processors!" That's just idiotic.
In short, curve fitting is useful to predict many things, but it can not be assumed that the curve implyes natural phenomona. Any curve that fits data is useful. A curve that fits data does not directly imply complete coorelation of events, or diffinitive proff that God does or doesn't play dice (hope he does personally, has to have fun sometime!). And Furthermore:
For those who continue to doubt that it could all be so simple, Prof Turcotte has a suitably direct response. "People say: 'You can't do it because it's too complicated a problem'," he says. "We say: 'Just look at the data'."
So his data fit, so what? Any reasonable math wiz should be able to come up with a few dozen equasions that fit a line. Doesn't prove a thing.
Forgive my typos, bad grammer, and spelling, I got pretty pissed at tabloid junk science, and I had to vent. Feel free to prove me wrong, I would like to see how you can prove the new equasion and chaos theory is the best "insight into the universe" we have... BTW, if you can prove it, you'll probably be up for a Nobel Prize too.
Slashdot Mirror
I said Apple use to use SCSI as standard on ALL thier systems, and now they have made it "optional," and it even seems a little obscure as to how to order a system with SCSI drives.
The POINT is, they took a step backwards, and now SCSI is not "standard" on thier systems, it's an option. Apple use to be "a step ahead" in this reguard, and now thier just like the rest.
I'd say the same thing if SGI or someone suddently stoped shipping thier systems with SCSI standard, and started using IDE insted. The point isn't "Apple Can't Do SCSI," because clearly, they can. The point is they made a cutback on other componants to get to a more competitive price, so all the G4 hype is drawing attention away from the fact that the "standard" systems have taken some quality cuts in other areas.
I'm not saying it's impossable to use SCSI in a G4. Not at all.
What I am saying is Apple is "pushing" IDE in the G4's. If you go to the Apple Store, it contradicts thier statement "Support for up to three internal SCSI drives." In fact, it's an "option" you can choose, or at least it seems that way.
I have no doubt you can (and probably -should-) use SCSI with an Apple G4 system, what I am saying is that Apple consumers don't clearly have that as an option on the configuration page, and more notably, what I feel is important to note... Apples use to use SCSI drives exclusively, they were "standard," not an option. When they moved to IDE, and then made IDE the standard and SCSI the option, they took a step backwards.
I looked over the G4 System Specs, and I can't help but notice that it uses IDE drives. So, of course, I poped over to the "Apple Store" online and checked if you could get one with SCSI drives. Not avaliable.
I thought the iMac was cute, I'll admit it, but Apple started to move away from SCSI then, and it seems they are still moving away. Apple was using SCSI drives exclusively when most companies didn't even offer them as an option, now the tables have turned again. Being that SCSI not only allows higher data flow rates, but off-loads the processing power needed to run the drives from the CPU to the controller card (or subsystem), it will clearly provide a preformance boost (that most people miss the significance of).
So, I guess I have to ask, why is it when Apple is pushing the new G4 as a "Super Computer on a Chip" and pushed the G3 as the "Pentium Beater" that they are takeing steps backwards with other componants?
I have to admit that the G4 price range (starting at about $1500, and topping off under $4000 not counting monitor) is quite impressive considering the claims of the CPU. But it's total system preformance that matters, and when even the $3500 decked out G4 system uses IDE drives, I just have to ask.... "WHY?
I guess when we actually see any G3/G4 generic systems come out, which is "suppose to happen" when IBM released mother board specs, this won't matter. But I haven't seen that happen yet, and since Apple is the primary source of the G4 systems to the consumer, it matters for now.
The underlying structure would have to be the same, becuase after all, the hardware would be the same, there are no "gender bias computers" unless all of a sudden we call the iMac or something a womans computer, and then one of the Mac distributions becomes a "womens" distribution...
The file structures would have to be the same, because without interoperability, they would be seperating themselfs in the workplace, and files couldn't be shared, and they couldn't be a "team" player...
What's left? I think I would suggest (at the risk of really offending EVERYONE, and generally making myself look like a pig), that women might have a great place in GUI or theme development.
In thinking about it, browsing through the GTK, KDE, WindowMaker, E, and other themes, there isn't a whole heck of a lot out there for women to like. I know my wife was just flat out offended by some... and Caitlin Fairchild themes sure aren't gong to win them over to Linux...
Women have always been very "visually smart." (here goes the really chance for me to look like a PIG). As artists, they have always been impressive, and GUI overlayers (like themes) would be an awsome place to get more women involved and stop some of the gender bias of UNIX. I tried to create a theme once myself for my wife (see this pathetic attempt). But she ended up useing KDE, and wanting me to buy her a book on GIMP so she can do her own graphics.
Frankly, I don't think many of the GUI enviroment "visual layers" (hard coded or themes) really are as attractive to women as they could create for themselfs. I would love to be able to point my wife to a "women's theme pack" or something, but themes.org has soo much almost naked women, sci-fi, or dark and demented stuff, she doesn't even want to waste her time looking at them.....
So, a distribution? I don't know. But are plenty of areas for them to work in. The hard coded application and kernel stuff, I would hope women wouldn't divert from the general code, and contribute to the base where all people can benifit. But as for GUI, I think they would be well justified in comeing up with some creative visual stuff that would please _THEM_ insted of having to sort through all the borderline porn themes to find something they can stand working with.
I see the link is broke, so it's also covered here:
http://mu.current.nu
and at
http://www.pdabuzz.com
What's that feature you ask? Well, it's the small part of the user base that constantly has to say "my OS is better than yours."
Each has it's benifits, and among the ones I like best are Red Hat and FreeBSD. Advocating the benifits of one over another is pointless when it will only start a flame war. There is no match for ports in the Linux world, dselect and dpkg are not as tight or relyable or intuitive, and it's not compileing from source allowing complete optimization based on your /etc/make.conf file, so it's not comparing apples to apples, it's comparing apples to oranges. And, rpm also has a remote package get, btw, rpm -ivh ftp://site.org/path/to.rpm works fine.
The "tightness" and "tweakability" of FreeBSD is very good, and trying to say that Linux is better is shortsighted. Linux has a huge (yet unorginized, and frequently poorly documented) breath of applications that run native, and FreeBSD is still working to cetch up.
Can't we just agree to disagree, and admit there is a great deal of good in both OS's. Start drawing on eachothers strengths, and admit that the interoperability of UNIX in it's many varients is still less fragemented that the Microsoft and Mac world would like us to believe? Or must we continue to drive wedges between diffrent UNIX factions, and fragement ourselfs into oblivion like was done in the past?
For those of you to new to development kernel tracking, this is a JOKE, it's sarcasm. I have no doubt that Linus would like a freeze, and it COULD happen, but this is not written in stone.
I refer you to Kernel 2.1.69 notes where Linus said:
Anyway, I personally don't see anything major pending. There are still various fixes that have yet to be integrated (some of the smbfs work by Bill etc), but on the whole I'd call this feature-freeze time. Have fun--Linus
As it happens, the development kernel kept going from 2.1.69 in 1-Dec-97 on to Linux 2.2.0-pre9 in 20-Jan-99, that's over a year.
Linus has a sence of humor, don't think every word out of his mouth is written in stone, this isn't Moses comeing down from the mountian with the ten commandments... . It's just a comment, and one said with tounge in cheek.
It could be "the freeze," but don't hold your breath.
Democracy was put in place in the United States as a method of government that would best preserve Freedom, and prevent Tyranny. Unfortunately, some people have come under the impression that Democracy _is_ Freedom, which it is not.
The United States of America are now the worlds most "powerful" Democracy, but, it is needed to point out that it's no longer a "Free Country." Democracy has become bloated, corrupt, and become a organized version of "mob rule." Because the majority "wants" something has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Freedom.
I highly doubt our fore fathers in-visioned a population and a group of politicians who would put Freedom by the wayside. People are influenced by many factors, and Freedom is no longer a fundamental decision in public policy. Politicians want to "represent the people" more than they want to "insure Freedom." This is not what was intended.
Personally, I still find the USA rating high in the order of "countries which allow their people individual freedoms" and I have no doubt this is where I want to stay. But, every day, we drift farther away from those freedoms, and become a more socialist country, so, I do vote, and I vote for members of the one political party who still remember what the founding principals were, the Libertarian Party.
You can also look over Intel's site, and see how many products they sell that include Windows drivers, but not Linux drivers, and Intel doesn't (yet) have a site like Compaq's Linux Site or SGI's Linux Site.
I am simply pointing out that Compaq is acknoledging Linux, and the comparison between Compaq and Intel doesn't automatically make Intel look like it's supporting Linux and Compaq doesn't really care.
GCC/EGCS is acceptable on x86 hardware, it's doing "ok." But, Alpha/Linux is still not as powerful of a platform as Alpha/Tru64. I do hope GCC/EGCS narrows the margin at some point in the future. But bashing Compaq isn't going to help. Compaq may be in a position to help GCC by simply donating some hardware to developers. But if they get an "unfriendly" responce from the Linux community, it would be unlikely that they would want to help.
It'll be a long rocky road for Linux if all of the Linux community had this "Open Source or F--- Off" attitude.
I'm all for the development of open source software, but it's going to be a while before Postges or MySql is up to the speed of Oracle, before KWord is up to Microsoft Word, before Gnumeric is up to Microsoft Excel, before GCC is up to commercial compilers, before KDeveloper is up to Code Fusion, before GnoMoney is up to Quicken, before....
There is a slow shift to open source software, that is clear. But it's not happening overnight, and there will be a place for commercial applications for quite a time to come. If all the "Microsoft Windows" software ran on Linux today, wouldn't you agree that Linux would probably have a more rapidly expanding user base? And, it the end, this would help the development of open source software?
If you notice, GCC is managed now by Cygnus, and without thier commercial products, they wouldn't have two nickels to rub together, much less host the GCC/EGCS web site, cvs site, ftp site, or the staff to help development of the compiler.
Slashdot itself is running on a MySQL database, which, if you were not aware, is NOT open source, it's commercial (to an extent). So, your post has at least been rendered up by a commercial product.
Really, I think the Linux community at large would be best served to get off of it's GPL evanglist soap box. Personally, I find no harsh things to say about the BSD licence, it's a valid licence, and I would rather see people use the BSD licence that "invent" a licence of thier own like Sun, AOL/Netscape, and Apple have done when they say they are supplying an "open source" product.
Wait...
I think Compaq is a step ahead of Intel in the Linux compiler area.... I don't understand why you would want to bash them for it, and say Intel is so great because they support GCC vaporware for Merced vaporware on paper.
Take a look at Intel's Compiler.. If "Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about" where does this fit in?
Also, take a look at some SPEC results for Intel Hardware and notice that most of the results (even Intel's newest entry are with Intel's compiler. If your really interested, look around on the SPEC site. Even AMD reports results using Intel's compiler.
Maybe you should look at Apple, at least they use GCC as thier compiler.
I'm all for egcs getting up to speed, but a good compiler is _one_ thing I wouldn't mind paying for.
Does that answer the question? Or was this just another "they should open source everything" comment, and there was no real question?
This would allow people a choice of setting thier threshold, OR, ignore "Anonymous Coward" or any users that happen to be rubbing them the wrong way.
There is no doubt in my mind that the average "mental maturity" of slashdot posters is adolecent. But some (not all) of the borderline trolls are pretty good.
The fact that the comments are negitive about a person, project, product, or concept are not in itself a troll. The ones that stick out in my mind are the posts reguarding Red Hat, SGI, and X-windows. These topics always bring with them a small segment of "flame-bait" posts. But, although some are flat out flame bait, some comments are actually solid criticism, with a leg to stand on.
Red Hat != Microsoft, and blatent flames are anoying, with "Red Hat Sucks" being a common responce. But, with all of Red Hats newfound money, it's odd that they don't clean up thier contribs, and they have been shortsighted in not accepting input from the outside world. They did screw up the squid packages when there were good squid packages in the contribs. They have made a mistake making thier base install a minimum of 120M. Some criticisms are well justified. Calling them the Microsoft of Linux, flaming them for the simple fact that they are now worth a few billion, and some of the harsher comments with no basis are flames. But not all criticisms are flames.
SGI obviously has some problems. Thier investors have a right to be consirned when at one time SGI was worth over $40 a share, and now hover around $10 a share. Thier motives in suddenly embraceing the GNU/GPL community seem a little suspect. They have lost key developers. There are many negitive things about the company that can be discussed intellegently. And it almost seems that it's some of the "positive" comments that are "flamebait." I have long respected thier MIPS based hardware, and listening to SlashDot script kiddies say how much "SGI rocks" because they now have an Intel based Linux box makes me feel like an intellegent discussion about the company impossable.
X-Windows, and specifically the XFree86 project are no doubt greatly benificial to almost everyone using a open source *NIX OS. Yet, there are still some shortfalls and limitations. I have never seen a truely intellegent discussion on SlashDot about what is good and bad in XFree86, only people spouting off how "we need a replacement, like Berlin" without supporting the comment, or "I can't wait for 4.0 because that will have all the cool stuff in it" without actually justifing what the needs for these new features will be. I don't doubt that an OpenGL implementation will be benificial, I know it will hell people who run software that requires OpenGL, but frankly, the only products I have used personally that use OpenGL are propriatary and don't run on Linux or any other free OS to start with. A vast majority of the comments, good and bad, might qualify as trolls.
So, I guess what I am saying is, just because a comment is negitive doesn't qualify it as a trool. There are many "This Rocks" type comments that are equally trolls. There are many "This sucks because X should do Y and part ABC has been core dumping every time you do a PDQ procedure" that are negitive, but not trolls, just true observations about shortfalls of the subject in question.
So, moderation may help. But, the true problem is probably that most SlashDot readers are more likely to be in the adolecent phase of "UNIX is cool, computers rock, I'm a 3113+3 H4X0R" catagory, and too few of slashdots readers bring long term, educated and experianced comments to the table.
"They" will define science to include themselfs. "They" always do. (yes "they" in quotes means something. It means those conventionally outside of the definition).
No matter how hard you argue it to me, I won't budge. Computers were man made. They will never be a science. And the recent invention of "natural science" vs. "science" is a nice way of saying "we screwed up the term, now we have to make 'natural science' mean what 'science' alone use to mean." Let me tell you, there isn't much "natural" about some of the best cutting edge chemistry or physics, yet, it's based in extending natural laws. Computers are manmade.
Define it how you want, but the study of computers (or the human THOUGHT process of the human mind for that matter) has always been seen as "outside of the field of science." (granted that linguistics is based in studying mans thought process, but, some will argue that mental processes of man are soo borderline, they are not science).
I frankly give up on these SlashDot types that want to prove to me Computer Science is a science, because someone in the computer field once postulated a theory that is difficult for all of them to grasp. I will once again state, "I can apply the scientific method to drinking beer. Theory, experiment, new therory, and on and on. That does NOT make drinking beer a science."
Frankly, linguistics is an art. And, of that, they should be proud. It's one of the most highly evolved, technical, elaborate, insightfull, and exciting of all forms of art. But none the less, it's an art, because it's primarly about _language_ which is NOT a science, it's something manmade.
And furthermore, to avoid potential "slippery slope" arguments, because there is something in the study that is "natural" no more makes it a science than the fact that I can build a chemical structure to form a work of art. Science is applying the scientific method to gain insight into the natural world.
Now, it's not like there is anything wrong with one field or another. It's just that someone has to make a distinct "line in the sand" and say study this and that's art, study that and it's engineering, study this other thing and it's science, study this next thing and it's medicine. So, why fight so hard to say your field is on over the line you want it to be?
I'll tell you why, It's because "science" has been portrayed by way to many people as the "elite" field of study. And frankly, it's NOT. I know many an artist I would rather work with in a chemitry lab than some so called "scientists." Someone has to take a step back and realize, without the ballance, there is no way for society as a whole to evolve. It took the artists, engineers, and all to evolve "science" to where it is today. And likewise for the other fields. Where would a great painter be without some "scientist" developing a better, longer lasting, more bright paint? Where would the scientist be without the tools the engineers have provided? Where would the engineers be without the principles that scientists layed out and the creativity that artists came to the table with? They would all still be back far beyond the uglyness of the Dark Ages.
Linguistics is about the structure of Languages, which turns out to depend on the structure of the human brain. That's a natural physical structure. Read Chomsky for details ..... Excuse me, but the human brain? Well, yea, it's natural, but would you say that everything that the human brain can come up with is "natural?" Well, if that is the case, then EVERYTHING is a science.
CS is about number theory at root, Godel's theorem being the prime example. That's a relation between numbers which was unknown before Godel's proof, and in many ways Godels method was an experiment on the behaviour of numbers. ..... Well, first of all, no one has proved that "math" itself is a science. Albiet arguable, I would probably be much more likely to call mathamatics itself a science. But the "Application" of math to something is clearly an application, and therefore engineering. Tell me, if the application of science to the "man made world" isn't engineering, what is engineering?
Why try so hard to make someone (me in this case) believe that Computers in any sence can be called a science? The only valid point you can make is that my "definition" of science is dated, and the word has evolved to mean anything that you can apply the scientific method to. If that is the case, then sure, Computer Science is a science, and so is just about everything else in that people study, including my study tonight on beer drinking. At least that argument you can win.
Frankly, I believe that by dilluting the meaning of words, and redefining them to suit your needs is the "de-evolution" of mankind. Because something is "hip" or "in" doesn't mean that we should make everything that way. That's the problem with the USA today, everyone wants "what's best for the majority" and "what the people want" because it's a democracy. And, you completely erase the premise of freedom by replacing it with democracy. Democracy is just a pretty way to say "mob rule" and does not by construct ensure freedom. Yet, people want to call everything under the sun "science," they want to call everything a pretty word, no more "wasp, fag, gay, whatever." Once apon a time, the words all had meanings to be proud of, and then people used them in inapproprate ways. Rather than dealing with the fact that there was a definition to the words, we in America either redefine them, or invent new ones to take thier place that haven't been used negitively. "Black" at one time was a way to distinguish race, now it's a "insult" and they are to be called "African-American," and you black only is a color you can buy a car in. "Gay" at one time meant happy, then it was a slam on the "partying good timeing homos" and now they are something else (who knows a "PC" term to call homosexuals today that doesn't imply a negitive sterotype?).
Call me a "Mick" and see if I care. Honestly. Call me a "Mick" to your hearts content. And I will only stand up and be proud. Call me a "scientist" and I will probably agree that I was educated as one in chemistry, but am much less likely to accept that label, because the work I do involves so much art (and flat out creativity), and management skills (which aren't a science), and I will say that label is misleading. I will say, "why yes, I am a Mick, if you think that makes me 'inferior' I can only hope to prove you wrong." Call me a "scientist" and I will say it's a broad label.
But if you want me to stand up and say "your right, next time I meet someone who writes computer code that has one time studied a 'theory' I will call him a 'scientist' not a programmer." I just can't accept that.
How many programmers or even computer engineers will stand up in public and say "Oh, I am a scientist?" That is not what scientists are, and they know that, and they understand that if they said they were scientists in public, the people they said that to would not expect them to be "programmers." The computer people who want to put the label "science" on their profession are doing themself a dis-service. They are saying to the world that "we are bound to natural principals in our work" rather than "we are creative and invent many things" like they could say if they called themselfs engineers or even if they said they are artists.
The day I meet a hacker that calls himself an artist is the day I find a whole new respect for the person saying it. That would emply not only are they "applying something that is manmade to a real world application as engineers do" but they are saying "I am taking it to a new level, somewhere that has no bounds, that's creative beyond conventional thinking, and something that will revolutionize the world like the renasaissance."
This reminds me of an old proverb. One which emplys that we all wish we could do something "greater" than we do at the present, but in the end, it's only a circle. It goes "Artists wish they were scientists. Scientists wish they were mathematicians. Mathematicatians wish they were artists.
Engineers experiment all the time with new structures, but that doesn't make it science.
Science is understand "what is" not developing something new and trying to test it, that's engineering.
Read my post a couple steps above for a more complete explination. Basically, "the scientific method" can be applied to many things, but applying a "scientific method" doesn't make something a science. If it did, maybe one could be a "master of the science of beer drinking" as well. It's simply not the case.
You need to study something not created by man to make it a science. You need to study things that were not "manmade" and test, experiment, and tweek them. That's science.
Dictionary definition:
Science: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and it's phenomena.
Things studied that are man-made are considered "engineering" studies, not science.
Slashdot Science defender
Science has historically been attempting to understand _nature_ or something that is already there by applying a "scientific method" of theory, test the theory, new theory.
If anything, Computer Science is more Engineering, it's just "data engineering" insted of manipulating something physical.
I think that you might be "over valuing" the "science" label. Political Science is NOT a science... But it doens't mean that politics are not important in the world. Linguistics are not sciences, and it doesn't mean communication isn't important.
Just because the "powers at be" choose to label it science, doesn't make it a science in the traditional sence. If anything, what it shows is that they are redefining the term science, not that the study of computers fits traditionally know methods of science.
That being said, I don't mean to put any less value on the studies of Computer Science majors. I have a great deal of respect for (most) of them. But I don't think it fits the mold of what most people think of when they think about the word "science." Computers weren't "always there" and then at one point mankind decided to study them and try to understand how they work. They were engineered. And, as as much, I would agree that "Software Engineer" is probably a good term.
The labels "Software Engineer" and "Computer Engineer" might be better to more accurately reflect people who develop software and develop hardware respectivly.
Why fight it, engineers make more money in general anyway. Which, in fact, also seems to be something the CS community has more in common with Engineers than Scientists.
Although, based on grammer and spelling, I would have failed "slashdot 101" about 100 times over. I guess I never have got the hang of "proof reading." Plus, I'll be the first to admit, I frequently hit "submit" and never hit "preview" because I to have been influanced by the "get a lower post number" thing. The spillover thing if there are more than 30 posts, I hate being on the "second page" because. K, yea, I am not that far away from a "first post" idiot. Seeing as how this time it caught up with me I will make this promise:
After this post, I will TRY to remember to do a preview before I do a submit, and not worry about being "down on the second or third page."
It would be cool if Malda hacked ispell into the preview feature, wouldn't it? ;-)
right after I hit "submit" I saw that. Typo, should have been 1/3rd. Happerns wherein yoy try to tpye too fast. ;-)
The diffrence between a "window manager" and a "Desktop environment" is that the "desktop environment" includes a window manager, as well as a bunch of other applications that use the same widget styles.
The "weed out" effect comes in two basic forms, from what I have observed, but it's definately there. Here's what I have seen.
The first form is the "wakeup call" where students get in over thier heads. Quite frankly, there is a historical trend that only 2/3rds of the students pass, and 1/3rd don't. No matter who is teaching, no matter how "hard" or "easy" they try to make the class, 1/3rd end up not completeing the course (some drop, some flat out fail). I believe they just don't come in prepared. I spend about 75% of my time in Chemistry labs teaching students basic Algebra, not chemistry. They usually have the dexterity to do the experiments, but just can't do some of the very very basic math. In this case, I think the blame is clearly to be placed on the High School from which they graduated. And, when they are screwing up the math, in general, they don't have the basic "logic" skills to understand the science behind the math. I mean, how hard is it to add up the molecular weight of Methane? Carbon=12, you have one. Hydrogen=1, you have 4. What's the weight of the full molecule. Uh... (12x1)+(1X4)=___. When they can't handle that, how do they expect to get anywhere? If you make it apples and oranges, they can do fine. For some reason, it's so ingrained in thier minds that "Chemistry is Hard" that when you replace apples and oranges with elements, suddendly they can't do Algebra!
There is no big "push" from the university to make us fail students. There is a push to make us "pass" students. In this vain, most Chemistry departments around the country have a "Chemistry Lite" class now, where they avoid math at all costs.
The second reason that students fail, or the other second part of the "weed out effect" comes from the medical school. They don't want people making it 4 years as a pre-med student, and not being able to handle medical school. And, a very large portion of the students in the basic sciences are pre-medical students. So, here is a class full of 250 students, we already know 1/3 of them are (pardon the expression) idiots, what about the other 1/2rds? Well, they contain the most mercenary students on campus. The type of kids who will give others the wrong answers to "make themselfs sit higher on the curve." They resent having to be in the class completely, because they are still believing "I'll never have to use this stuff" so they just want a grade.
It's not like we have a lot to work with there. One way or another, none of them want to be in the class to start with. Believe me when I say, the professors do thier best to "sell" how much fun the sciences can be. But when they clearly see that a BS in Biology won't get them a job, but a BS in computer science can get them $40,000 to start, how do you expect them to feel? Then, throw them into a group where 1/3 of the people they are with can't to basic math, and another large percentage are as arrogent as can be, and they get disgusted with the class after the first week.
Solution? I don't know, bring McGyver back on TV ;-) The media never portrays science as "fun" anyway. Sure, you complain that "hackers" don't get a fair portral in the movies or on the news, but at least they get some media attention. Scientists usually get made out to be evil, completely over the top "maddness-genius" types, or just plain boring.
If anyone out there is reading this and is looking at a carrer in science, I'll tell you flat out, "we need you." Qualifications are not the sterotypes. We need people with strong math skills, that's true, but more that that, we need people who are "artists" at heart, and can dream up the future, and make it happen. You have to be able to think "outside the box" and be very creative. To solve new problems, it really takes an artist that can apply logic to his work.
?ttp://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SGI&d=my Look at graph. Ford, GM, even Dodge doesn't do this (unless they are following the rest of the market). SGI's droping while other Tech stocks rise.
I looked over the articals, and all I can say is "So What?" the Gaussian distribution is based on pure random-ness. Did you expect everything to be a completely random event?
Neither artical seems to go into great detail about how the new curve was calculated, but it's simply a _FACT_ that applying the Gaussian distribution to most events is considered a "simplification" of the problem, assuming it's random. Take away some random-ness, and of course the Gaussian distribution won't fit.
Intelligence (however mesured) will not be purely random, nor will floods, grade distributions, tornados, or anything
What's missing from both of these pieces is an explination behind the way the new curve was built, and on what foundation. The Poisson (spelling is way off there) distribution is frequently used in place of Gaussian because it "fits better," but again, doesn't prove that the events have much to do with the math.
This is a case of "curve fitting gone wild" here, and unless I can see someone spell out in scientific detail the relationship between the events and the distribution, I don't buy it. So, they have a new equasion, and a new curve, it doesn't mean that the events are related to the math directly. If you look for anything hard enouth, you will start to find it everywhere.
I do award them credit for a new curve that better fits some models. If the equasion for thier curve is manageable. If it's a complex equasion, it's worthless, because the whole point is to make some equasion fit a distribution of events. If theirs fits, and it's easy to calculate, it's benificial. But it does not emply a direct coorilation between the functions and the variables in the distribution. How do I explain this in SlashDot terms... (/me get's frusturated).
Ok, take Moore's Law, you all know that right? Processor power doubles every 18 months? Or, the more accurately I believe he stated something to the effect that the number of circuts would double every 18 months. Well, a loosely fit exponential function will almost match this trend (roughly). But then you have to "adjust" the month scale between 12 and 24 untill the curve fits well. Now, that's a "model" but does not prove scientificly that circuts and design engineers are behaving exactly as can be predicted. At some point in the future everyone has predicted Moores Law will fail. See... It's a model! Curve Fitting.... Doesn't PROVE anything about what's going on in developers minds, or much tangable other that the "estimation" that things will get more powerfull in the computing world.
Now, take it a step further, say Moores Law fails right as people develop a new method of increacing computing preformance, like say 3D circuts, or something not yet concieved, and with less "countable circuts" you get more preformance. Suddently, new devices start to a few less circuts, and more power. Now the Moores Law curve goes down, slowly at first, leveling off, and maybe dropping just a tad, and it starts to look like a "bell shaped curve" only half drawn. You could go "Curve fitting crazy" and say "Hey, it's Gaussian, it's going to go down now, and within another 15 years, we will all be back to 8 bit processors!" That's just idiotic.
In short, curve fitting is useful to predict many things, but it can not be assumed that the curve implyes natural phenomona. Any curve that fits data is useful. A curve that fits data does not directly imply complete coorelation of events, or diffinitive proff that God does or doesn't play dice (hope he does personally, has to have fun sometime!). And Furthermore:
For those who continue to doubt that it could all be so simple, Prof Turcotte has a suitably direct response. "People say: 'You can't do it because it's too complicated a problem'," he says. "We say: 'Just look at the data'."
So his data fit, so what? Any reasonable math wiz should be able to come up with a few dozen equasions that fit a line. Doesn't prove a thing.
Forgive my typos, bad grammer, and spelling, I got pretty pissed at tabloid junk science, and I had to vent. Feel free to prove me wrong, I would like to see how you can prove the new equasion and chaos theory is the best "insight into the universe" we have... BTW, if you can prove it, you'll probably be up for a Nobel Prize too.
It "dosen't?"