I was with you in the overcomplication of C++ until you hit this:
*Kill either structs or classes. We don 't need both, with one being syntactic sugar to change the default visibility on the other
You need structs for POD compatibility. Moreover, they are good for implementing things that are not classes, but plain old data shuttles. This has been a gripe of mine when I was in the Java world (12 years in total.) Not everything is an object, at least a conceptual object (thing DTOs). But the language does not allow you to do reflect that at all. There are a lot of things I don't like when I work with C++, but structs are not among them.
IMO, C++ would have been much better if method/function arguments were const-ref by default (considering this is the direction new languages follow and with good reason.) But I can understand why it is not so. In many ways, C++ was ahead of its time in terms of what was available in compilers know-how.
And the people who complain about C++'s bloat generally like Python or Ruby, which are both just as bloated as C++, without the bonus of it's simplicity.
I disagree with you here as well. C++ is not an example of simplicity. Take all the rules a person needs to learn the first time to avoid redundant constructor calls.
Ruby and Python are simpler (not simple, but simpler than C++). For simplicity, C. Very little hidden semantics.
Thank you. "const" modifies the thing that preceded it. Iff nothing precedes it, it modifies the first thing that follows it. It's not terribly complicated.
And the funny thing is that most people who write const char* foo really want char const * const foo. You don't want either the pointer or the data pointed at to change. However, almost nobody knows that, so even those who do just use the weaker const char* so people understand the code.
Sometimes it depends on the situation (typically for performance reasons) when you do not want that. I might want a const char* (yeah, I prefer to put the const on the left side of the type when declaring a pointer to const).
And I might want it to point to something const... but that something is still not available, or it might change over time. Yep, the const doesn't necessarily denote const'ness for the duration of the execution (though it usually means that.) It simply means that the compiler agrees to treat that which it points as read-only, from the point of view of the observer, at that moment in time.
One good example are the CORBA::Any extractor operators as found in the CORBA-to-C++ mapping (mind you that this is not longer just C, but C++. However, the concept still applies.)
The CORBA::Any extractors contain the following operator signature:
It takes a reference to a pointer to const. It modifies the pointer to const so that it points to an internal, read-only buffer for performance purposes. Should the caller decided to make changes, he/she then creates a duplicate.
And although this is C++, the same can be done with a (const char*)*. Certainly that this can be abused with horrific results, but that is one beautiful thing, that the language allows you such a construct (should you have a valid reason.) At the end of the day, the onus must always reside on the programmer. His success or fuck up should be his and only his, not the compiler or language.
Beyond this specific niche scenario, I generally do not do const-pointer-to-const because the extra step does not add me any extra security that cannot be obtained by simple coding conventions. I simply settle with pointer-to-const.Not that I'm saying the extra benefit you claim is non-existent, but I simply do not think it is a great advantage either.
I would even say that, the practice is not common (can't recall ever seeing a POSIX function with a const-pointer-to-const, but I recall many with pointer-to-const). And since the practice is not common, if I were to see it in the wild, I would assume there is something specific in the design, or algorithm, that requires the pointer to remain const as well, else here be dragons. I would have to spend extra time (perhaps very little, perhaps a very fucking lot) to determine if the const'ness in the pointer is actually critical for the execution of the algorithm under review.
That is, for me, the code should say no more or no less than what it is functionally required to do.
YMMV of course since I cannot claim my POV is devoid of subjectivity.
And the funny thing is that most people who write const char* foo really want char const * const foo. You don't want either the pointer or the data pointed at to change. However, almost nobody knows that, so even those who do just use the weaker const char* so people understand the code.
Hmm. I wonder why there's so much animosity towards C? It's a mystery.
Because they don't RTFM? I mean, c'mon, the rules of reading type C declarations have existed for, like, what, 40 years already.
Mod parent up. It really sucks to take any technical notes on an iPad. Hell, it sucks for taking notes period - whether thats using an onscreen keyboard, a drawing app and a stylus, or whatever. A laptop is better, but is far from adequate.
The best lecturers I've had (admittedly this was last century, before tablets were commonplace but still totally impractical for notes) gave the class partial notes for the class. Nobody had to worry about writing the boiler plate stuff - instead they could concentrate on the topic and start to understand it. The lecturer would then ask someone in the lecture what the blanks should be - and we all filled in the important bits (so we got to write it down to help reinforce it, but also got a decent amount of time to THINK rather than writing as fast as we could, missing the important bits, and spending hours trying to catch up. I learnt a LOT in that style of lecture.
However, I do wish that we had permission to record the audio in lectures, and that tech such as livescribe pen existed back then! (on top of the boilerplate notes)
^^^ THIS. The best CS lecturers provide slide printouts of the lecture, with space for writing notes. With the best CS/Math/Eng professors I had, I rarely wrote anything on my notepad. It was all written in slides, which I would staple and put on folders for later reference.
Pencil. Paper. Calculator. The keyboard gets in the way of doing anything useful, especially if you're trying to do things involving symbols (like math).
This is why a tablet would be better in most STEM classes than a low cost PC. I tried using my laptop in a CS course for taking notes. But because it wasn't a simple coding class, but more of a mathematical/theoretical course, there was no way I could. Even now, it's hella hard to try typing up papers with any sort of mathematical representations(unless you type everything in LaTeX or try using a GUI equation editor).
You don't know what you are talking about. Tablets are horrible for STEM classes, or for most classes for that matter. Until tablets has the technology necessary to match the versatility and fluidity of good old pen and paper (which they don't, seriously they don't), this will never be true. Also, why were you trying to use a laptop for lecture taking (and CS lecture taking to boot)?
Even for a programming-oriented class, this is ridiculous. Pen and paper is the simplest solution. We are engineers and scientists. We would think we seek the simplest solutions that work. Apparently, we do not.
Mentioning the usage of an equation editor is laughable. They are good for developing documents, but to take notes on the fly in the middle of a lecture, get out of here with that claim. Be it LyX, Scientific Notepad of MS Equation editor, they all SUCK for note taking in the middle of a live lecture.
Typing equations in LaTeX during a lecture (if you are fluid enough), that is a viable alternative. But again, the student needs to be versatile in it, and the clicking of the keyboard is extremely disruptive to your peers. So it is not a solution for the general problem, either. It is certainly better than a tablet (at least with current and near future state of hand recognition tech.)
At the end of the day, go Russian: pen and paper. People suggesting that tablets are a good option for lecture taking (in particular STEM lecture taking), they are being snake oil salesmen, selling an overdesigned solution for a problem that does not exist.
This idea that we can't "afford" to make anything here anymore is ludicrous. For decades we managed to do so just fine, during our boom years of 1945-1980, when most everyone that was willing to work could find a decent paying job that afforded them a living wage.
The nation managed to do fine in those years because the US was the primary manufacturer of anything (that majority of the world was living in abject poverty. By the 70's Japan was a better manufacturer, and nations kept improving their standard of living. Now, the same people who before could not afford anything (or if they could, they would buy it from the only manufacturer, the US), now they can manufacture them themselves. Most importantly, they have a lot to choose from where to buy.
To get those golden years back, the solution is simple - stop nations from developing, and if possible, push global poverty levels back to were they were post WWII.
There are thing we can afford making, and there are others that we cannot (unless we change the nation's ethos with its hunger for the cheapest deals.) But, by and large, what you observe is simply the result of nations improving their standards of living (and with it, the means to manufacture things.)
Since I got my B.S. and M.S. both in computer science, I have no idea what those 'Wall Street jobs' are like, so I'm just wondering what you guys know about jobs in the business/financial world for geeks? Has anybody made the jump before?"
FWIW, my first job was at a financial/insurance institution, very business-like. Surprisingly, they gave me a chance to work as a systems analysts and programmer with only a AA degree. The institution didn't give college reimbursement except for business majors, but OTH, they were quite flexible with work schedules, and they threw several thousands of dollars on me in training. Other than my current employer, that financial/insurance company was the only one that ever pay for my training (and its employee's training) from its coffers.
YMMV, but working with a financial institution can be very rewarding... or not. Same with engineering firms. Some are great, and some are filled with "lifers" who should never be allowed near a computer.
Go with your eyes open to see the good and bad, and try to make the best of it. You truly know if an employer is good only when you are on top of the saddle.
it would be very hard for a person like me to leave silicon valley. as a hardcore hardware geek, this is one of the few places on the planet to be. not kidding; some people want to be by beaches (I can take those or leave them) - but I really enjoy being near places that have surplus hardware gear and parts. its what I'm about and its paradise, in a way, for geeks like me.
I'll be honest that the weather is also a huge draw. having grown up in the boston area, I know what east coast cold is like and its worth money just to *avoid* cold climates. I know, its a wimpish excuse but having lived in the bay area and experienced its climate, it would be a huge step down to leave it. its really something that makes life *that* much more pleasant. its expensive here but not without cause; the paradise tax really is worth it, just for the climate, alone.
at some point, though, I may be forced to leave. it will be very sad as it will be me giving up, essentially. I do not want to move and shouldn't have to. it also sounds like a bad way to start out, having to move to some place just because there were no offers in your desired or chosen place.
Go to Seattle, Texas or Virginia. In particular, look for engineering firms (specially Defense contractors). They'll have no problem hiring a person with your experience.
When I went to school (and this was back in early 2000) most of the international students I was friends with (and all form a different set of countries, both from Europe and Asia) all would get US based financial aid (especially loans) and of course all bragged about not having to worry about paying the loans back since they were not going to stay int he US>
Not sure if this attitude still exists or can be gotten away with today.
I call bullshit on this. When doing my MS in CS, most of my classmates were from India and China. None of them could receive financial aid or student loans. Some could get a US scholarship if they were doing a Ph.D. and were the creme-de-la-creme, but the majority had to pay out-state-fees out of pocket... and they could only come to study if they could prove the means for paying health insurance and stuff like that. For Indian and Chinese families, even those in the middle class, that's a fortune.
On top of that, they had to pay dorm fees. What they could get was student assistance as paid teaching assistance, and that was it, enough for groceries. It certainly made us American students all the more grateful for all the assistance we got from the government and the private sector.
Seriously, to what university you went to? Spill the beans.
Yes, given your definition of Russia along with your assertion that Russia isn't communist How can China be anything but also not communist?
It isn't. It is a capitalist nation governed by a one-party rule bent on total control in the name of stability, not much different from right-wing capitalist LATAM dictatorships of old. In fact, China stopped being a Communist country before the fall of the USSR.
In the name of God, stop. Go learn what Communism is before ever again touching the subject. In this time and age where educational information is free up for grabs, with the Internet and public libraries, it is absolutely unjustifiable to be so ignorant about such basic things.
Communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a political system.
Not in parrochial American lingo, it is not. Here we proudly chew a blade of grass or wheat and with clenched teeth we call communist whatever doesn't fit our simpleton pick-up truck world view. Why do you use sound logic and bring up historically accurate hippy facts? Why do you hate America?
So let me get this straight, you thought any US administration was just going to sit by and let Iran gain nuclear capabilities.
Apparently that is his/her line of thinking, and for that, humanity weeps.
I don't understand what in Baal's name these ignoramuses expected when they voted for Obama, that he was going to kumbaya his way to the Ayatollah's hearts, that Bin Laden was going to repent and kill himself out of remorse, that all the jobs that went to China will come back (and with a pay increase to boot), and that all the shit that permeates international reality was going to magically turn into Pandora's bioluminescent flowers and hexapodal bunnies with cute emerald eyes, with Thinkerbell pixie dust poured from over a rainbow in peaceful anarchic harmony?
Uninformed, delutional ideological thinking (be it left or right leaning), that is the stuff nightmares are made of.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, but I can't really say he is doing a terrible job, or that he lied. I actually like him more than what the GOP (the party I'm registered for) has to offer, and he has done a decent job considering all current factors.
People who now feel betrayed for voting for him are as stupid as the people who think Obama is the root cause of all evil and that shit will turn to honey once they vote a Repub back into the presidency (specially if he believes Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" is a work of fiction.)
Stupidity of the most grotesque kind permeates both sides of the political spectrum. Such is the ethos of the at-will uneducated simpleton masses.
The astonishing thing is that anyone in the Obama administration was stupid enough to think that secrecy could be maintained on this indefinitely.
Who says they were thinking that? Trying to keep it under wraps as long as possible (a reasonable strategy from a tactical/strategic POV) does not imply the belief it can be done so indefinitely.
Your sentence makes a nice target against which to launch a tirade, but barring corroborating facts, it is one built on speculation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up for a bit of civil disobedience myself. But we really don't want to be encouraging corporations to disobey the law, now do we.
Dude, this is Slashdot. In here, we do want that, because, in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences, every parental legal squable or debatable issue must be equated with a civil rights issue, which is necessary for the self-appointed avant-gard-wannabe emotic quasi-intelligentsia to raise themselves into an emotional furor as they seek paper-thin social issues to be upset about.
Logic and common sense are just obstacles for the local e-rebel seeking a cause to fight for to the point of oh-lookatme self e-immolation. Don't think normal, as it will inevitable make you confused in this wicked place.
I'm positive I'll get a whoosh for this, but I have to ask anyway - that long run-on sentence and the hyperbole that it included was deliberately ironic right?
No fucking shit. We also have airplane bases, ship yards, army bases, missile silos. This is not news (much less sensational/controversial ones). This is stupid trivia that should be obvious for anyone with an IQ above the one of a pineapple.
In other news, we have army bases full of soldiers in US soil. The Afghan War is here! More at 7 in the Half-Wit Channel.
Sorry but Civil rights must trump both Intellectual Property Rights and other abuse of process.
If someone invents something, I don't care what it is, be it a cure for cancer, cure for baldness, or a software application that enables blind, deaf and mute people to communicate, the benefit of the many outweigh the benefit of the inventor. Yes they are entitled to profit from their invention, they are not however entitled to an injunction prohibiting or recalling anything violating the patent if they fail to produce the item being patented. They are only entitled to licencing fees of which can not be more than what any other licensee is paying.
This isn't the same as China buying a 747, reverse engineering it and then selling it as a C919 to the same customers who would buy the 747. If China copied the 747 and then it enabled China to mass produce domestic aircraft to reach unserved areas while still buying 747's then there is no loss.
My point is that removing the software from the App store is a "dick move" and should not happen unless the developer volunteers to withdraw it, refunding all buyers, and pointing out where to buy the replacement.
Doesn't this "dick move" gets mentioned in Apple's TOS as a right, which developers agree to it? What civil right has been violated by this specific event?
Don't get me wrong, I'm up for a bit of civil disobedience myself. But we really don't want to be encouraging corporations to disobey the law, now do we.
Dude, this is Slashdot. In here, we do want that, because, in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences, every parental legal squable or debatable issue must be equated with a civil rights issue, which is necessary for the self-appointed avant-gard-wannabe emotic quasi-intelligentsia to raise themselves into an emotional furor as they seek paper-thin social issues to be upset about.
Logic and common sense are just obstacles for the local e-rebel seeking a cause to fight for to the point of oh-lookatme self e-immolation. Don't think normal, as it will inevitable make you confused in this wicked place.
Abraham Lincoln destroyed what was left of the Jeffersonian model of the United States and left us with strict federalism. His complete disregard for the Constitution set the stage for the complete disregard that we see today. He was the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus, for instance.
Slavery was bad, but look at where we find ourselves today. We have more black men in shackles today than we did at the time of the Civil War. We gave up state sovereignty for...essentially nothing. And now any state that thinks it might be better off on its own doesn't have that option. That's not freedom.
Abraham Lincoln was the worst thing to happen to the US since Alexander Hamilton.
You know they could be bringing these people in because all the decent, diligent, intelligent and reliable local workers have jobs already and those without jobs are crap at what they do. Or am I mistaken and actually all Americans, even the thick and stupid ones, are better workers than highly-educated and motivated people from countries like India or from within the EU?
Just a thought.
You only have a point if you can quantify the items in bold above. The fact is that is that:
1. Not everybody that is currently unemployed is crappy at what they do.
2. Not everybody currently employed is good at what they do.
3. Not every H1 Visa worker is highly educated and motivated.
4. Not every H1 Visa worker is crappy at what he does.
All you are doing is building a counter-argument based on simpleton-level emotion. Markets, even free markets, do not operate in a vacuum. They operate (or should operate) in the context of national interests. Every developed country sans the US operates on this premise.
So when you have a H1 Visa worker coming here, he should only come here when it is amply demonstrated that indeed, he is above average.
This is not the case. We should not be replacing our crappy people with crappy people from other countries. We should replace them (or more appropriately, enhance our intelligentsia) with actual foreign talent. And that brings me to the next hole in your argument:
There is no guaranteed path to residency (and eventual citizenship) for H1 Visa workers. As it is, it is a system of exploitation of foreign workers (talented or crappy) at the expense of our workers (talented and crappy.)
The situation is so bad that even legal residents or naturalized citizens of Indian ancestry are now looked over in favor of H1 visa workers. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
So it is not just the mythical phat American as you put it that gets screwed by this. The talented foreign nationals that have now made the US their permanent home and country are also being systematically sidelined.
The H1 Visa system needs to be revampted, the quotas reduced into formulas dependend on the current national situation and unemployment/employment levels. It should not be static.
Furthermore, the requirements should be stringent so that only the real talented come aboard.
Moreover, there must be greater guarantees that H1 Visa workers do not become hostages to contracting agencies, cramping them into dorms, threatened with deportation if they don't meet the unpaid 60hr/week work quota (yes it happens in US soil, a lot.)
Most importantly, there should be easier paths for legal residency (and nationalisation) for H1 Visa workers who wish to stay permanently.
....
Or you can dismiss this and say that it is just us being the lazy farts that complain because them Goobacks, dey turk err jurbs.
H-1B is a scam by which white collar companies (not blue collar, because they aren't cool enough) can fire American workers and then replace them with foreign workers who are so happy to get to the States that they will work for $10,000 less per year. (There are laws against this kind of wage fuckery. They work the same as speed laws in Saudi Arabia: No one cares to obey or enforce them. The "shortage" of workers is a lie manufactured by Oracle, Microsoft, etc. in order to cut costs. Most of the comp sci classes I took were filled to the gills, and the program I got into in college was so impacted that I had to go in on another major and switch after the fact. It's like that in lots of places.
Fuck all this H-1B nonsense, and fuck all the liars and misinformed idiots who think we are just gagging for foreign labor.
We aren't gagging for foreign labor. Larry Ellison and Bill Gates are gagging for foreign labor because they can be paid less.
Right - it's the fault of all those brown people who dare to compete with your incompetent, lazy, fueled-by-an-overgrown-sense-of entitlement fat ass.
How did you come to that from HunsV's post (the post you are replying to)? Either you have been dying for a long time to have an opportunity to write that retort, or your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
There are ways around that. Obviously, a Jr. DBA isn't gonna be paid as much as a Sr. DBA. But who's to know if the guy classified as a Jr. DBA is doing work usually done by a Sr. DBA?
The paying client eventually will. Forgetting the artificial labels of Sr or Jr, and focusing on the actual meaning behind them, a Jr-level person, however smart, will not perform the same as a senior. There is a limit to how much smarts can compensate for lack of hands-on experience, and this is true in all trades and professions.
A poor chap at a Jr level of skills can be put (nominally or officially) into a Sr-level positions (with all Sr-level responsibilities while having a Jr-level pay rate.) At worse, this person will botch the job. At best, he/she will deliver but at a lower rate of productivity.
For a Jr-level person, it is always a good opportunity, and if she/he is smart, the experience will be more valuable than anything else. But in general, it is not a good thing for the employee and the employer. The unfortunate situation is that the cost of operations, the actual ROI of things in software is typically hidden or not amenable to easy analysis and book keeping.
If the actual cost of doing things this way were apparent, clients wouldn't be so willing to cut corners this way. So make no mistake, a client (or his bottom line) will know when a Jr-level person is shoved into Sr-level shoes (in general detrimental to both parties.)
Ideally, I'd like to get paid for this kind of work, but I've found little call for these skills outside of the financial and defense industries. My conscience won't allow me to accept money from either.
Does your conscience allows you to use GPS, the microwave oven, the Internet and wireless technology? Does your conscience allows you to live in a financially successful society (despite the recent set-backs) which permits you to be a well-paid middle class person with a high standard of living as a rewards of your professional and academic efforts?
There is a difference between a conscience based on educated information, and there is conscience based just on emotion alone. Or call it rationalization if you will, but if you really feel that strongly (and I think you are being rather subjective in an emo type of way), then your chances to a challenging, rewarding job with those skills outside of those fields are almost nil.
Slashdot Mirror
*Kill either structs or classes. We don 't need both, with one being syntactic sugar to change the default visibility on the other
You need structs for POD compatibility. Moreover, they are good for implementing things that are not classes, but plain old data shuttles. This has been a gripe of mine when I was in the Java world (12 years in total.) Not everything is an object, at least a conceptual object (thing DTOs). But the language does not allow you to do reflect that at all. There are a lot of things I don't like when I work with C++, but structs are not among them.
IMO, C++ would have been much better if method/function arguments were const-ref by default (considering this is the direction new languages follow and with good reason.) But I can understand why it is not so. In many ways, C++ was ahead of its time in terms of what was available in compilers know-how.
And the people who complain about C++'s bloat generally like Python or Ruby, which are both just as bloated as C++, without the bonus of it's simplicity.
I disagree with you here as well. C++ is not an example of simplicity. Take all the rules a person needs to learn the first time to avoid redundant constructor calls.
Ruby and Python are simpler (not simple, but simpler than C++). For simplicity, C. Very little hidden semantics.
Thank you. "const" modifies the thing that preceded it. Iff nothing precedes it, it modifies the first thing that follows it. It's not terribly complicated.
It is for the garbage-collector-pampered crowd :)
And the funny thing is that most people who write const char* foo really want char const * const foo. You don't want either the pointer or the data pointed at to change. However, almost nobody knows that, so even those who do just use the weaker const char* so people understand the code.
Sometimes it depends on the situation (typically for performance reasons) when you do not want that. I might want a const char* (yeah, I prefer to put the const on the left side of the type when declaring a pointer to const).
And I might want it to point to something const... but that something is still not available, or it might change over time. Yep, the const doesn't necessarily denote const'ness for the duration of the execution (though it usually means that.) It simply means that the compiler agrees to treat that which it points as read-only, from the point of view of the observer, at that moment in time.
One good example are the CORBA::Any extractor operators as found in the CORBA-to-C++ mapping (mind you that this is not longer just C, but C++. However, the concept still applies.)
The CORBA::Any extractors contain the following operator signature:
Boolean operator>>==(const CORBA::Any& any, const char*&)
It takes a reference to a pointer to const. It modifies the pointer to const so that it points to an internal, read-only buffer for performance purposes. Should the caller decided to make changes, he/she then creates a duplicate.
And although this is C++, the same can be done with a (const char*)*. Certainly that this can be abused with horrific results, but that is one beautiful thing, that the language allows you such a construct (should you have a valid reason.) At the end of the day, the onus must always reside on the programmer. His success or fuck up should be his and only his, not the compiler or language.
Beyond this specific niche scenario, I generally do not do const-pointer-to-const because the extra step does not add me any extra security that cannot be obtained by simple coding conventions. I simply settle with pointer-to-const.Not that I'm saying the extra benefit you claim is non-existent, but I simply do not think it is a great advantage either.
I would even say that, the practice is not common (can't recall ever seeing a POSIX function with a const-pointer-to-const, but I recall many with pointer-to-const). And since the practice is not common, if I were to see it in the wild, I would assume there is something specific in the design, or algorithm, that requires the pointer to remain const as well, else here be dragons. I would have to spend extra time (perhaps very little, perhaps a very fucking lot) to determine if the const'ness in the pointer is actually critical for the execution of the algorithm under review.
That is, for me, the code should say no more or no less than what it is functionally required to do.
YMMV of course since I cannot claim my POV is devoid of subjectivity.
And the funny thing is that most people who write const char* foo really want char const * const foo. You don't want either the pointer or the data pointed at to change. However, almost nobody knows that, so even those who do just use the weaker const char* so people understand the code.
Hmm. I wonder why there's so much animosity towards C? It's a mystery.
Because they don't RTFM? I mean, c'mon, the rules of reading type C declarations have existed for, like, what, 40 years already.
Mod parent up. It really sucks to take any technical notes on an iPad. Hell, it sucks for taking notes period - whether thats using an onscreen keyboard, a drawing app and a stylus, or whatever. A laptop is better, but is far from adequate.
The best lecturers I've had (admittedly this was last century, before tablets were commonplace but still totally impractical for notes) gave the class partial notes for the class. Nobody had to worry about writing the boiler plate stuff - instead they could concentrate on the topic and start to understand it. The lecturer would then ask someone in the lecture what the blanks should be - and we all filled in the important bits (so we got to write it down to help reinforce it, but also got a decent amount of time to THINK rather than writing as fast as we could, missing the important bits, and spending hours trying to catch up. I learnt a LOT in that style of lecture.
However, I do wish that we had permission to record the audio in lectures, and that tech such as livescribe pen existed back then! (on top of the boilerplate notes)
^^^ THIS. The best CS lecturers provide slide printouts of the lecture, with space for writing notes. With the best CS/Math/Eng professors I had, I rarely wrote anything on my notepad. It was all written in slides, which I would staple and put on folders for later reference.
Pencil. Paper. Calculator. The keyboard gets in the way of doing anything useful, especially if you're trying to do things involving symbols (like math).
This is why a tablet would be better in most STEM classes than a low cost PC. I tried using my laptop in a CS course for taking notes. But because it wasn't a simple coding class, but more of a mathematical/theoretical course, there was no way I could. Even now, it's hella hard to try typing up papers with any sort of mathematical representations(unless you type everything in LaTeX or try using a GUI equation editor).
You don't know what you are talking about. Tablets are horrible for STEM classes, or for most classes for that matter. Until tablets has the technology necessary to match the versatility and fluidity of good old pen and paper (which they don't, seriously they don't), this will never be true. Also, why were you trying to use a laptop for lecture taking (and CS lecture taking to boot)?
Even for a programming-oriented class, this is ridiculous. Pen and paper is the simplest solution. We are engineers and scientists. We would think we seek the simplest solutions that work. Apparently, we do not.
Mentioning the usage of an equation editor is laughable. They are good for developing documents, but to take notes on the fly in the middle of a lecture, get out of here with that claim. Be it LyX, Scientific Notepad of MS Equation editor, they all SUCK for note taking in the middle of a live lecture.
Typing equations in LaTeX during a lecture (if you are fluid enough), that is a viable alternative. But again, the student needs to be versatile in it, and the clicking of the keyboard is extremely disruptive to your peers. So it is not a solution for the general problem, either. It is certainly better than a tablet (at least with current and near future state of hand recognition tech.)
At the end of the day, go Russian: pen and paper. People suggesting that tablets are a good option for lecture taking (in particular STEM lecture taking), they are being snake oil salesmen, selling an overdesigned solution for a problem that does not exist.
This idea that we can't "afford" to make anything here anymore is ludicrous. For decades we managed to do so just fine, during our boom years of 1945-1980, when most everyone that was willing to work could find a decent paying job that afforded them a living wage.
The nation managed to do fine in those years because the US was the primary manufacturer of anything (that majority of the world was living in abject poverty. By the 70's Japan was a better manufacturer, and nations kept improving their standard of living. Now, the same people who before could not afford anything (or if they could, they would buy it from the only manufacturer, the US), now they can manufacture them themselves. Most importantly, they have a lot to choose from where to buy.
To get those golden years back, the solution is simple - stop nations from developing, and if possible, push global poverty levels back to were they were post WWII.
There are thing we can afford making, and there are others that we cannot (unless we change the nation's ethos with its hunger for the cheapest deals.) But, by and large, what you observe is simply the result of nations improving their standards of living (and with it, the means to manufacture things.)
Since I got my B.S. and M.S. both in computer science, I have no idea what those 'Wall Street jobs' are like, so I'm just wondering what you guys know about jobs in the business/financial world for geeks? Has anybody made the jump before?"
FWIW, my first job was at a financial/insurance institution, very business-like. Surprisingly, they gave me a chance to work as a systems analysts and programmer with only a AA degree. The institution didn't give college reimbursement except for business majors, but OTH, they were quite flexible with work schedules, and they threw several thousands of dollars on me in training. Other than my current employer, that financial/insurance company was the only one that ever pay for my training (and its employee's training) from its coffers.
YMMV, but working with a financial institution can be very rewarding... or not. Same with engineering firms. Some are great, and some are filled with "lifers" who should never be allowed near a computer.
Go with your eyes open to see the good and bad, and try to make the best of it. You truly know if an employer is good only when you are on top of the saddle.
it would be very hard for a person like me to leave silicon valley. as a hardcore hardware geek, this is one of the few places on the planet to be. not kidding; some people want to be by beaches (I can take those or leave them) - but I really enjoy being near places that have surplus hardware gear and parts. its what I'm about and its paradise, in a way, for geeks like me.
I'll be honest that the weather is also a huge draw. having grown up in the boston area, I know what east coast cold is like and its worth money just to *avoid* cold climates. I know, its a wimpish excuse but having lived in the bay area and experienced its climate, it would be a huge step down to leave it. its really something that makes life *that* much more pleasant. its expensive here but not without cause; the paradise tax really is worth it, just for the climate, alone.
at some point, though, I may be forced to leave. it will be very sad as it will be me giving up, essentially. I do not want to move and shouldn't have to. it also sounds like a bad way to start out, having to move to some place just because there were no offers in your desired or chosen place.
Go to Seattle, Texas or Virginia. In particular, look for engineering firms (specially Defense contractors). They'll have no problem hiring a person with your experience.
And it's even better then that (worse?)
When I went to school (and this was back in early 2000) most of the international students I was friends with (and all form a different set of countries, both from Europe and Asia) all would get US based financial aid (especially loans) and of course all bragged about not having to worry about paying the loans back since they were not going to stay int he US>
Not sure if this attitude still exists or can be gotten away with today.
I call bullshit on this. When doing my MS in CS, most of my classmates were from India and China. None of them could receive financial aid or student loans. Some could get a US scholarship if they were doing a Ph.D. and were the creme-de-la-creme, but the majority had to pay out-state-fees out of pocket... and they could only come to study if they could prove the means for paying health insurance and stuff like that. For Indian and Chinese families, even those in the middle class, that's a fortune.
On top of that, they had to pay dorm fees. What they could get was student assistance as paid teaching assistance, and that was it, enough for groceries. It certainly made us American students all the more grateful for all the assistance we got from the government and the private sector.
Seriously, to what university you went to? Spill the beans.
Any question to elaborate further?
Yes, given your definition of Russia along with your assertion that Russia isn't communist How can China be anything but also not communist?
It isn't. It is a capitalist nation governed by a one-party rule bent on total control in the name of stability, not much different from right-wing capitalist LATAM dictatorships of old. In fact, China stopped being a Communist country before the fall of the USSR.
In the name of God, stop. Go learn what Communism is before ever again touching the subject. In this time and age where educational information is free up for grabs, with the Internet and public libraries, it is absolutely unjustifiable to be so ignorant about such basic things.
Communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a political system.
Not in parrochial American lingo, it is not. Here we proudly chew a blade of grass or wheat and with clenched teeth we call communist whatever doesn't fit our simpleton pick-up truck world view. Why do you use sound logic and bring up historically accurate hippy facts? Why do you hate America?
So let me get this straight, you thought any US administration was just going to sit by and let Iran gain nuclear capabilities.
Apparently that is his/her line of thinking, and for that, humanity weeps.
I don't understand what in Baal's name these ignoramuses expected when they voted for Obama, that he was going to kumbaya his way to the Ayatollah's hearts, that Bin Laden was going to repent and kill himself out of remorse, that all the jobs that went to China will come back (and with a pay increase to boot), and that all the shit that permeates international reality was going to magically turn into Pandora's bioluminescent flowers and hexapodal bunnies with cute emerald eyes, with Thinkerbell pixie dust poured from over a rainbow in peaceful anarchic harmony?
Uninformed, delutional ideological thinking (be it left or right leaning), that is the stuff nightmares are made of.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, but I can't really say he is doing a terrible job, or that he lied. I actually like him more than what the GOP (the party I'm registered for) has to offer, and he has done a decent job considering all current factors.
People who now feel betrayed for voting for him are as stupid as the people who think Obama is the root cause of all evil and that shit will turn to honey once they vote a Repub back into the presidency (specially if he believes Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" is a work of fiction.)
Stupidity of the most grotesque kind permeates both sides of the political spectrum. Such is the ethos of the at-will uneducated simpleton masses.
The astonishing thing is that anyone in the Obama administration was stupid enough to think that secrecy could be maintained on this indefinitely.
Who says they were thinking that? Trying to keep it under wraps as long as possible (a reasonable strategy from a tactical/strategic POV) does not imply the belief it can be done so indefinitely.
Your sentence makes a nice target against which to launch a tirade, but barring corroborating facts, it is one built on speculation.
in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences
If you think people are impressed when you use big words, think again.
Protip: a hyperbola is a mathematical curve
Oh well, call the gramm3r police on me for mixing a word in a language that is not my first.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up for a bit of civil disobedience myself. But we really don't want to be encouraging corporations to disobey the law, now do we.
Dude, this is Slashdot. In here, we do want that, because, in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences, every parental legal squable or debatable issue must be equated with a civil rights issue, which is necessary for the self-appointed avant-gard-wannabe emotic quasi-intelligentsia to raise themselves into an emotional furor as they seek paper-thin social issues to be upset about.
Logic and common sense are just obstacles for the local e-rebel seeking a cause to fight for to the point of oh-lookatme self e-immolation. Don't think normal, as it will inevitable make you confused in this wicked place.
I'm positive I'll get a whoosh for this, but I have to ask anyway - that long run-on sentence and the hyperbole that it included was deliberately ironic right?
What do you think? :)
64 Drone Bases Located On American Soil
No fucking shit. We also have airplane bases, ship yards, army bases, missile silos. This is not news (much less sensational/controversial ones). This is stupid trivia that should be obvious for anyone with an IQ above the one of a pineapple.
In other news, we have army bases full of soldiers in US soil. The Afghan War is here! More at 7 in the Half-Wit Channel.
Sorry but Civil rights must trump both Intellectual Property Rights and other abuse of process.
If someone invents something, I don't care what it is, be it a cure for cancer, cure for baldness, or a software application that enables blind, deaf and mute people to communicate, the benefit of the many outweigh the benefit of the inventor. Yes they are entitled to profit from their invention, they are not however entitled to an injunction prohibiting or recalling anything violating the patent if they fail to produce the item being patented. They are only entitled to licencing fees of which can not be more than what any other licensee is paying.
This isn't the same as China buying a 747, reverse engineering it and then selling it as a C919 to the same customers who would buy the 747. If China copied the 747 and then it enabled China to mass produce domestic aircraft to reach unserved areas while still buying 747's then there is no loss.
My point is that removing the software from the App store is a "dick move" and should not happen unless the developer volunteers to withdraw it, refunding all buyers, and pointing out where to buy the replacement.
Doesn't this "dick move" gets mentioned in Apple's TOS as a right, which developers agree to it? What civil right has been violated by this specific event?
Don't get me wrong, I'm up for a bit of civil disobedience myself. But we really don't want to be encouraging corporations to disobey the law, now do we.
Dude, this is Slashdot. In here, we do want that, because, in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences, every parental legal squable or debatable issue must be equated with a civil rights issue, which is necessary for the self-appointed avant-gard-wannabe emotic quasi-intelligentsia to raise themselves into an emotional furor as they seek paper-thin social issues to be upset about.
Logic and common sense are just obstacles for the local e-rebel seeking a cause to fight for to the point of oh-lookatme self e-immolation. Don't think normal, as it will inevitable make you confused in this wicked place.
Abraham Lincoln destroyed what was left of the Jeffersonian model of the United States and left us with strict federalism. His complete disregard for the Constitution set the stage for the complete disregard that we see today. He was the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus, for instance.
Slavery was bad, but look at where we find ourselves today. We have more black men in shackles today than we did at the time of the Civil War. We gave up state sovereignty for...essentially nothing. And now any state that thinks it might be better off on its own doesn't have that option. That's not freedom.
Abraham Lincoln was the worst thing to happen to the US since Alexander Hamilton.
Just wow.
Let me guess... ON here on a visa, amiright?
Err, no. US citizen. Nice try at stereotyping as a replacement for logical arguments.
You know they could be bringing these people in because all the decent, diligent, intelligent and reliable local workers have jobs already and those without jobs are crap at what they do. Or am I mistaken and actually all Americans, even the thick and stupid ones, are better workers than highly-educated and motivated people from countries like India or from within the EU?
Just a thought.
You only have a point if you can quantify the items in bold above. The fact is that is that:
1. Not everybody that is currently unemployed is crappy at what they do.
2. Not everybody currently employed is good at what they do.
3. Not every H1 Visa worker is highly educated and motivated.
4. Not every H1 Visa worker is crappy at what he does.
All you are doing is building a counter-argument based on simpleton-level emotion. Markets, even free markets, do not operate in a vacuum. They operate (or should operate) in the context of national interests. Every developed country sans the US operates on this premise.
So when you have a H1 Visa worker coming here, he should only come here when it is amply demonstrated that indeed, he is above average.
This is not the case. We should not be replacing our crappy people with crappy people from other countries. We should replace them (or more appropriately, enhance our intelligentsia) with actual foreign talent. And that brings me to the next hole in your argument:
There is no guaranteed path to residency (and eventual citizenship) for H1 Visa workers. As it is, it is a system of exploitation of foreign workers (talented or crappy) at the expense of our workers (talented and crappy.)
The situation is so bad that even legal residents or naturalized citizens of Indian ancestry are now looked over in favor of H1 visa workers. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
So it is not just the mythical phat American as you put it that gets screwed by this. The talented foreign nationals that have now made the US their permanent home and country are also being systematically sidelined.
The H1 Visa system needs to be revampted, the quotas reduced into formulas dependend on the current national situation and unemployment/employment levels. It should not be static.
Furthermore, the requirements should be stringent so that only the real talented come aboard. Moreover, there must be greater guarantees that H1 Visa workers do not become hostages to contracting agencies, cramping them into dorms, threatened with deportation if they don't meet the unpaid 60hr/week work quota (yes it happens in US soil, a lot.)
Most importantly, there should be easier paths for legal residency (and nationalisation) for H1 Visa workers who wish to stay permanently.
Your pick.
H-1B is a scam by which white collar companies (not blue collar, because they aren't cool enough) can fire American workers and then replace them with foreign workers who are so happy to get to the States that they will work for $10,000 less per year. (There are laws against this kind of wage fuckery. They work the same as speed laws in Saudi Arabia: No one cares to obey or enforce them. The "shortage" of workers is a lie manufactured by Oracle, Microsoft, etc. in order to cut costs. Most of the comp sci classes I took were filled to the gills, and the program I got into in college was so impacted that I had to go in on another major and switch after the fact. It's like that in lots of places.
Fuck all this H-1B nonsense, and fuck all the liars and misinformed idiots who think we are just gagging for foreign labor.
We aren't gagging for foreign labor. Larry Ellison and Bill Gates are gagging for foreign labor because they can be paid less.
Right - it's the fault of all those brown people who dare to compete with your incompetent, lazy, fueled-by-an-overgrown-sense-of entitlement fat ass.
How did you come to that from HunsV's post (the post you are replying to)? Either you have been dying for a long time to have an opportunity to write that retort, or your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
There are ways around that. Obviously, a Jr. DBA isn't gonna be paid as much as a Sr. DBA. But who's to know if the guy classified as a Jr. DBA is doing work usually done by a Sr. DBA?
The paying client eventually will. Forgetting the artificial labels of Sr or Jr, and focusing on the actual meaning behind them, a Jr-level person, however smart, will not perform the same as a senior. There is a limit to how much smarts can compensate for lack of hands-on experience, and this is true in all trades and professions.
A poor chap at a Jr level of skills can be put (nominally or officially) into a Sr-level positions (with all Sr-level responsibilities while having a Jr-level pay rate.) At worse, this person will botch the job. At best, he/she will deliver but at a lower rate of productivity.
For a Jr-level person, it is always a good opportunity, and if she/he is smart, the experience will be more valuable than anything else. But in general, it is not a good thing for the employee and the employer. The unfortunate situation is that the cost of operations, the actual ROI of things in software is typically hidden or not amenable to easy analysis and book keeping.
If the actual cost of doing things this way were apparent, clients wouldn't be so willing to cut corners this way. So make no mistake, a client (or his bottom line) will know when a Jr-level person is shoved into Sr-level shoes (in general detrimental to both parties.)
Ideally, I'd like to get paid for this kind of work, but I've found little call for these skills outside of the financial and defense industries. My conscience won't allow me to accept money from either.
Does your conscience allows you to use GPS, the microwave oven, the Internet and wireless technology? Does your conscience allows you to live in a financially successful society (despite the recent set-backs) which permits you to be a well-paid middle class person with a high standard of living as a rewards of your professional and academic efforts?
There is a difference between a conscience based on educated information, and there is conscience based just on emotion alone. Or call it rationalization if you will, but if you really feel that strongly (and I think you are being rather subjective in an emo type of way), then your chances to a challenging, rewarding job with those skills outside of those fields are almost nil.