The common procedure is to first submit to the most prestigious conference in the appropriate specialization that you think might accept your paper. A good way to guesstimate this is by looking at past papers from the conference. Even if you aren't an ACM or IEEE member (and you should probably join if you can afford it), you can browse the abstracts at the ACM and IEEE portals, which should be good enough for your purposes. You'll also want to look at the related papers in preparing your own paper's list of references (nearly all papers compare explicitly to previous research and state what the innovation over the current research status is in the paper).
If they accept your paper, great. If not, they'll usually send you the reviewer's comments. Next, use these comments to make your paper better and submit it to the next best conference that you think might accept your paper. Repeat until accepted.
This procedure will definitely work because eventually you'll get to low prestige journals that should accept pretty much anything that's not simply incorrect. Don't feel bad if this happens. Many papers subsequently recognized as important had to be shopped into obscure journals, so even this worst-case scenario is not that bad.
The robots idea isn't far from the truth. The value of goods manufactured in the US has actually grown during the past decade (no "poor foreigners" involved) while manufacturing employment has gone way down. That is the result of increased productivity. While manufacturing may come back strong in the US, manufacturing employment won't. There are a lot of things that need to be done, but they many of them require strong educational background and 21st century skills.
Nice way to hide misrepresentation of the facts with an emotional appeal. The actual facts are that 4.5 million construction and manufacturing jobs have been lost this decade (~20% of the total). Jobs that don't require higher education are declining (this is spelled out in a lot more detail at the link). While I have no disrespect for the guy who washes dishes, there are a lot more people who are willing and able to wash dishes than dishwashing jobs. We're not doing anyone a favor by not educating our population for the jobs that we will require.
FiveThirtyEight looked at this question from a fairly rigorous statistical point of view. Their conclusion was that college graduates have far better career prospects than lower levels of educational achievement. In fact, US college graduates have remained at (the technical definition of) full employment throughout the current economic downturn, while other groups have suffered terribly. The obvious conclusion is that there are not too many college graduates.
I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company. I would trade most of the math I know (which I rarely use) for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc. This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference. I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.
It's far from cheap (let alone free) and it's not an assembler, but IDA Pro is indispensible for anyone who needs to develop, analyze, or debug code in assembler. It can't assemble code for you but it does everything else ( http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif) you've thought of and many you haven't.
I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company. I would trade most of the math I know for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc. This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference. I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.
Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.
Actually, this is one of the most basic principles of how civil engineers build bridges. It's called "margin of safety." You don't build to the worst you can prove will happen. You build to the worst that you can't prove will not happen.
One thing I do agree with the TFA is that the public doesn't understand how science works (obviously neither does the author) and that is creating a huge public relations crisis. Science needs some articulate advocates who are actual real scientists (or at least deeply understand what science is), not the politicians (Gore) and editorialists (Henninger) who seem to be framing the discussion now.
A musician friend of mine told me to check out Les Paul, saying he did everything that Hendrix et al did before then. At first, I had trouble finding his CDs at the local music store until I discovered they were in the "Easy Listening" section. In spite of that (arguably accurate) classification, I have to agree with my friend. What an innovator!
Ageism in tech is very real, and even if you're not seeing it yet, you will in another 10 years. By that time it will be too late. Get on the management track while you can.
The problem doesn't arrive because you are 40. It arises based on how far and recently you have advanced by 40. If you have been a mid-level programmer for the last 10 years and are no longer advancing in your profession, yeah, you can have problems because your seniority doesn't match your "seniority." Many people will want to hire someone who doesn't appear to have plateaued and therefore is perceived as having more potential (although many companies will respect that basing decisions on being under 40 is illegal, so they won't look at age per se).
On the other hand, if you have been the lead architect for commercially successful products, demonstrably know what it takes to produce successful maintainable products, have continued to advance in your career, etc., your experience and seniority are likely to be a plus.
IOW, the risk of being in a profession for 20 years is that you'll have a long track record. The benefit of being in a profession for 20 years is that you'll have a long track record.
there are no guarantee that destructors on static object will be called.
Actually, Section 3.6.3p1 of the C++ standard guarantees it. (Wonder why people who can't validate technical language claims feel qualified to mod posts that make them).
An Introduction to Number Theory is a fantastic book that assumes no familiarity with number theory. I used it to teach a high school number theory course with great results. Starting from essentially no prerequisites, it reaches important topics like the Chinese Remainder Theorem, and quadratic fields, as well as fun topics like Magic Squares and Continued Fractions. Perhaps the best part is the opening chapter on why you need proofs. He shows this by giving a half dozen examples of results that are "obviously" true (many of which were believed true for hundreds of years) that turn out to be false.
Our net headcount in these functions will decline by 2,000 to 3,000 over the next 18 months.
While this is still considerable, it's much less than in the headline due to planned new hires. I hate it when the news mentions the number of people let go but never mentions how many are brought on. Headlines like these would lead you to conclude that America has lost many times more jobs over the years than it actually has.
I know very strong and effective managers who think personality tests can be useful.
For example, many of the best salespeople are very outgoing and social but at the same time don't care much what other people think of them (so they can take 30 rejections in a row without being discouraged). The is a pretty rare combination for obvious reasons. If a personality inventory shows that a candidate has these traits, that's viewed as interesting and potentially a point in favor of the candidate (not something to be applied rigidly or blindly but as useful information).
One other point is that the better modern personality inventories are usually pretty carefully designed to detect cheating with questions that the "honest" and "expected" answers are different, so they are much harder to game than many people are saying here.
I actually taught a class with "Modern C++ Design" as a primary text. Perhaps surprisingly, it turned out to be a great success. While the actual techniques in the book are not always suitable for use in most professional C++ programming shops, the revolutionary thinking and skills in it will serve you well whatever programming you do, even if it is in a different language, which is a hallmark of classic texts.
Not even close. The heavy lifting for 3D games is done on the GPU, and I'm not aware of any games (except perhaps games that utilize multiple monitors, like flight simulators) that can make use of more than one GPU.
So a single game could potentially drive many monitors, but not do more visually on a single display.
Actually, you can configure the Cray CX-1 with "visualization nodes" that contain GPUs, not just CPUs.
it's hard to believe no one has recommended Gravitation yet. This comprehensive, well-written, and authoritative book on general relativity is tailor-made for the mathematically sophisticated. One of its strong points is it does everything twice using both coordinate-free and coordinate-based differential geometry to help solidify your understanding and so you can do both theory (coord-free) and calculations (coords).
Of all the possible attacks against the Bible, this is perhaps the most baffling to me. The verse in question states: Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. (New American Standard Bible). Some take this to imply that the Bible is stating 30 (the circumference) over 10 (the diameter) is a proscribed definition for pi. The simplest explanation is that the writer was rounding numbers. Another alternative is that the scribe was measuring from the inside edge for the diameter and around the outside edge for the circumference. Both explain the measurement without resorting to the patently ridiculous idea that the Bible defines pi as 3.
Actually, you're making my point, and I certainly wasn't attacking the bible (religion is an important part of my life). Personally, I agree that there are satisfactory interpretations of the bible that are consistent with evolution just like (as you point out) there are interpretations of the bible that are consistent with pi being greater than 3.
You haven't countered my statement that teaching Intelligent Design in public school science class is just as stupid and offensive as teaching pi = 3 in public school math class. Again, I never said that the facts that pi > 3 and that evolution is scientifically proven means you can't believe in the bible.
how do you know it's a lie? have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone? while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
I don't need to because many people already have. Here's a few to get you started.
Honestly, not wanting your kid's science class to teach intelligent design to your kids is no different (to anyone remotely familiar with scientific evidence, anyway) than not wanting your kid's math class to teach them the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23).
Slashdot Mirror
http://libra.msra.cn/conf_category_1.htm
http://www.cs-conference-ranking.org/conferencerankings/topicsiv.html
The common procedure is to first submit to the most prestigious conference in the appropriate specialization that you think might accept your paper. A good way to guesstimate this is by looking at past papers from the conference. Even if you aren't an ACM or IEEE member (and you should probably join if you can afford it), you can browse the abstracts at the ACM and IEEE portals, which should be good enough for your purposes. You'll also want to look at the related papers in preparing your own paper's list of references (nearly all papers compare explicitly to previous research and state what the innovation over the current research status is in the paper).
If they accept your paper, great. If not, they'll usually send you the reviewer's comments. Next, use these comments to make your paper better and submit it to the next best conference that you think might accept your paper. Repeat until accepted.
This procedure will definitely work because eventually you'll get to low prestige journals that should accept pretty much anything that's not simply incorrect. Don't feel bad if this happens. Many papers subsequently recognized as important had to be shopped into obscure journals, so even this worst-case scenario is not that bad.
Good luck!
The robots idea isn't far from the truth. The value of goods manufactured in the US has actually grown during the past decade (no "poor foreigners" involved) while manufacturing employment has gone way down. That is the result of increased productivity. While manufacturing may come back strong in the US, manufacturing employment won't. There are a lot of things that need to be done, but they many of them require strong educational background and 21st century skills.
Nice way to hide misrepresentation of the facts with an emotional appeal. The actual facts are that 4.5 million construction and manufacturing jobs have been lost this decade (~20% of the total). Jobs that don't require higher education are declining (this is spelled out in a lot more detail at the link). While I have no disrespect for the guy who washes dishes, there are a lot more people who are willing and able to wash dishes than dishwashing jobs. We're not doing anyone a favor by not educating our population for the jobs that we will require.
FiveThirtyEight looked at this question from a fairly rigorous statistical point of view. Their conclusion was that college graduates have far better career prospects than lower levels of educational achievement. In fact, US college graduates have remained at (the technical definition of) full employment throughout the current economic downturn, while other groups have suffered terribly. The obvious conclusion is that there are not too many college graduates.
I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company. I would trade most of the math I know (which I rarely use) for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc. This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference. I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.
It's far from cheap (let alone free) and it's not an assembler, but IDA Pro is indispensible for anyone who needs to develop, analyze, or debug code in assembler. It can't assemble code for you but it does everything else ( http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif) you've thought of and many you haven't.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1499856&cid=30673056
I got a Ph.D. minus epsilon in Math, but never took a statistics course prior to dropping out during the dotcom boom to start a software company. I would trade most of the math I know for a solid background in statistics, which comes up all over the place, from the performance of data structures and algorithms, to dataflow analysis, to mining databases, to projecting performance failure rates, etc. This is not just basic statistics (which I managed to pick up on the street), but a deep knowledge of statistics can make a big difference. I just co-authored a paper on a very simple data structure for which the key step in analyzing its performance is to apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution.
TFA said (as essentially its main point):
Actually, this is one of the most basic principles of how civil engineers build bridges. It's called "margin of safety." You don't build to the worst you can prove will happen. You build to the worst that you can't prove will not happen.
One thing I do agree with the TFA is that the public doesn't understand how science works (obviously neither does the author) and that is creating a huge public relations crisis. Science needs some articulate advocates who are actual real scientists (or at least deeply understand what science is), not the politicians (Gore) and editorialists (Henninger) who seem to be framing the discussion now.
Remember the saying that science proceeds by successive approximation to the truth.
A musician friend of mine told me to check out Les Paul, saying he did everything that Hendrix et al did before then. At first, I had trouble finding his CDs at the local music store until I discovered they were in the "Easy Listening" section. In spite of that (arguably accurate) classification, I have to agree with my friend. What an innovator!
Ageism in tech is very real, and even if you're not seeing it yet, you will in another 10 years. By that time it will be too late. Get on the management track while you can.
The problem doesn't arrive because you are 40. It arises based on how far and recently you have advanced by 40. If you have been a mid-level programmer for the last 10 years and are no longer advancing in your profession, yeah, you can have problems because your seniority doesn't match your "seniority." Many people will want to hire someone who doesn't appear to have plateaued and therefore is perceived as having more potential (although many companies will respect that basing decisions on being under 40 is illegal, so they won't look at age per se).
On the other hand, if you have been the lead architect for commercially successful products, demonstrably know what it takes to produce successful maintainable products, have continued to advance in your career, etc., your experience and seniority are likely to be a plus.
IOW, the risk of being in a profession for 20 years is that you'll have a long track record. The benefit of being in a profession for 20 years is that you'll have a long track record.
there are no guarantee that destructors on static object will be called.
Actually, Section 3.6.3p1 of the C++ standard guarantees it. (Wonder why people who can't validate technical language claims feel qualified to mod posts that make them).
An Introduction to Number Theory is a fantastic book that assumes no familiarity with number theory. I used it to teach a high school number theory course with great results. Starting from essentially no prerequisites, it reaches important topics like the Chinese Remainder Theorem, and quadratic fields, as well as fun topics like Magic Squares and Continued Fractions. Perhaps the best part is the opening chapter on why you need proofs. He shows this by giving a half dozen examples of results that are "obviously" true (many of which were believed true for hundreds of years) that turn out to be false.
From the memo
Our net headcount in these functions will decline by 2,000 to 3,000 over the next 18 months.
While this is still considerable, it's much less than in the headline due to planned new hires. I hate it when the news mentions the number of people let go but never mentions how many are brought on. Headlines like these would lead you to conclude that America has lost many times more jobs over the years than it actually has.
I know very strong and effective managers who think personality tests can be useful.
For example, many of the best salespeople are very outgoing and social but at the same time don't care much what other people think of them (so they can take 30 rejections in a row without being discouraged). The is a pretty rare combination for obvious reasons. If a personality inventory shows that a candidate has these traits, that's viewed as interesting and potentially a point in favor of the candidate (not something to be applied rigidly or blindly but as useful information).
One other point is that the better modern personality inventories are usually pretty carefully designed to detect cheating with questions that the "honest" and "expected" answers are different, so they are much harder to game than many people are saying here.
Of course, putting out a crappy looking resume worked in this case, but it's a bad bet. I'd recommend going with a decent looking one.
Don't listen to the naysayers, it's only January...
I actually taught a class with "Modern C++ Design" as a primary text. Perhaps surprisingly, it turned out to be a great success. While the actual techniques in the book are not always suitable for use in most professional C++ programming shops, the revolutionary thinking and skills in it will serve you well whatever programming you do, even if it is in a different language, which is a hallmark of classic texts.
Actually, you can configure the Cray CX-1 with "visualization nodes" that contain GPUs, not just CPUs.
it's hard to believe no one has recommended Gravitation yet. This comprehensive, well-written, and authoritative book on general relativity is tailor-made for the mathematically sophisticated. One of its strong points is it does everything twice using both coordinate-free and coordinate-based differential geometry to help solidify your understanding and so you can do both theory (coord-free) and calculations (coords).
the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23)
Of all the possible attacks against the Bible, this is perhaps the most baffling to me. The verse in question states:
Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. (New American Standard Bible). Some take this to imply that the Bible is stating 30 (the circumference) over 10 (the diameter) is a proscribed definition for pi. The simplest explanation is that the writer was rounding numbers. Another alternative is that the scribe was measuring from the inside edge for the diameter and around the outside edge for the circumference. Both explain the measurement without resorting to the patently ridiculous idea that the Bible defines pi as 3.
Actually, you're making my point, and I certainly wasn't attacking the bible (religion is an important part of my life). Personally, I agree that there are satisfactory interpretations of the bible that are consistent with evolution just like (as you point out) there are interpretations of the bible that are consistent with pi being greater than 3.
You haven't countered my statement that teaching Intelligent Design in public school science class is just as stupid and offensive as teaching pi = 3 in public school math class. Again, I never said that the facts that pi > 3 and that evolution is scientifically proven means you can't believe in the bible.
how do you know it's a lie? have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone? while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
I don't need to because many people already have. Here's a few to get you started.
Honestly, not wanting your kid's science class to teach intelligent design to your kids is no different (to anyone remotely familiar with scientific evidence, anyway) than not wanting your kid's math class to teach them the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23).
Cool! Where can I get one?