Like any degree, if you go in to just get the paper at the end, you won't really learn anything, so finding duds in any field is never too hard.
The purpose behind engineering isn't necessarily to acquire knowledge nor understanding, it's more to apply ingenuity, or, pardon the infantile explanation, but it's more to be able to engineer a solution, which is ultimately a subtle difference than just solving a problem, it's not something that i think a lot of engineers are really aware of. This is something which is hard to assess, and also difficult to teach in a learning institution, it's much easier to mentor this sort of ideology in professional practice.
I'm not a software engineer, rather mechanical and mechatronics, but the way i'd been taught is not to gain all the knowledge or understanding in the world, that's a ridiculous requirement, engineering is more about being able to go back to first principles and develop a solution which is based on maths and science, and quite often, just empiricism, but not best guess or trial and error.
So we do learn about science and mathematics, and sure, it's not to the detailed level that mathematicians nor scientists do, but engineering isn't a science, engineering is a methodology of applying knowledge gained in science, which is incredibly distinct from what gets taught in science and mathematics, and i'm not saying that bing able to think in this manner is exclusive, but the understanding of what engineering actually is, is something that isn't comprehended well.
I think a good car analogy for software engineering versus development is, engineering a car is all about design and development, and not just the car, but also designing its manufacture and actually making the product, whereas, software development is the process work of parts assembly, or doing the work after manufacture such as mechanical maintenance and repairs. Software engineering in my opinion is designing the modules and overall architecture.
I think that's the general problem with game prices, here in Australia, for a while, RRP has been $120 for new console games, that has dropped somewhat now, because of consumer backlash, but our dollar is more or less in parity with the US dollar. Bottom line is, if they say dropped the price from $120 to $60, would sales increase to the point where they would make the same amount of profit, i seriously doubt it. It's demand based pricing, they charge what the market will bear, and as a result, charging the higher price means they'll shift less stock, but make more money, and you can always lower the price later.
Yea i agree, i think that the publishing arm of sony is sort of like the tail wagging the dog. They still can make brilliant hardware, but just from my observers point of view, it really ruined the hardware by demanding DRM and just making the devices unfriendly to users, i've time and time again just skipped sony, because i know that i'm going to get the shits with it not letting me do what i want to do.
I think the more pertinent question here is, do you know any lawyers who wouldn't argue the case if they thought they could win with it?
But to answer your question, in criminal cases, it's quite common in situations to present the same story, to create uncertainty or doubt, one example is here in australia, court proceedings are rarely ever filmed, there was one series called "on trial" which was permitted access, and in the first episode, you had a person on trial with criminal charges for threatening someone with a firearm in a toilet of a RSL club (big pokie machine haven community club), this defendants angle was that he actually was the victim and the witness the crown presented actually threatened him. So, who's telling the truth, they're both using the same story! So while no, i haven't heard about trademark cases like that, but i believe that similar events do happen in non-criminal courts, and the reason is simple, if one party says something untrue, the other party has to demonstrate it untrue, and that can be a major advantage in some cases.
All i'm saying is, because the legal system is a fight, it's not directly associated with determining the truth, it doesn't really matter what one party says, the other party has to then rebut that "evidence", if they can't then it's considered true. Couple this with a completely unscrupulous legal "profession" and the mouthpieces will just say whatever needs to be said to win. Apple isn't interested in justice here, it wants the other organisation to stop using iFone; Apple doesn't care in the slightest with what the other company suffers as a result, apple is only interested for its own result.
It's not arrogance, it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system, the lawyers will latch on to any small detail, or whatever in the hopes of making a successful case, no matter how compelling the oppositions evidence is.
I see all the Valve fans who are terrified at the thought that Windows could become a viable store for gaming and draw users away from Steam are here, defending Steam and Valves's future roadmap (and their leverage of their monopoly) from its detractors.
Well especially when the books he's written that are critical of religion are much better known, than those that deal with science alone. I think he's a philosophical flyweight, because he deals with issues of philosophy in such a brutish, pedestrian, unreasoned, manner that's it's palpable; he conflates science and philosophy to a ridiculous level and in my opinion, making a meal of both at the same time.
An obvious fallacy he engages is that he groups religion as one homogenous group, this is an absurdity, it purposely muddies the waters, and i think it's not so that he convinces people, it's more to entrench his existing supporters, probably to keep on buying his books.
Stalin didn't pursue an anti-jewish agenda until after the war; from what i've heard, and this makes most sense to me is, there were only two people to have ever fooled stalin, hitler was one (stalin refused to believe that the germans were going to invade the USSR during WW2, even all the spies were reporting that it was imminent, yet stalin refused to believe, having faith in hitler instead thinking that the nazi-communist alliance [see molotov - von ribbentrop pact] before the war was real), and the second was david ben-gurion, who made deals with, and subsequently misled stalin into believing that israel was going to become a communist satellite state.
One bit of evidence that supports this to me, because it isn't talked about much, is that the haganah before israel was established, but after ww2, were equipped with, ironically, german, nazi stamped, K98 rifles, they were sourced from czechoslovakia who i presume got them from the USSR, since it was the red army that would have collected them as they went through germany at the end of the war. Now considering how restricted arms were in communist countries, this would have never happened without stalins permission, all those satellite states just did what stalin ordered.
Being 'on the record' doesn't always make it true.
"on the record" has a subtly different meaning here in oz, there in fact is nothing which is "off the record", if you say something, you've said it, if you're stupid enough to say it to a reporter and mimic hollywood, then that reporter can still attribute that to you with impunity. So here, when something is on the record, it generally means that it's widely reported, like the PM said it at a press conference, it was broadcast to TV, the AFP released a media release contradicting the PM's words, and while i haven't seen it, I presume master card have also made a media release regarding their decision. There is no hearsay, it's all verifiable facts. Assange can prove conclusively, the remark, the fact that it was untrue, the resulting treatment from the remark by a third party, and the monetary damages that have resulted from it.
Whether mastercard were really doing it because of the PM's remark, is irrelevant; i suppose that's an issue with the adversarial court system we employ
Mastercard is simply rationalizing something they wanted to do long before the PM said anything. It was a false pretext on their part. In fact, if they came under any pressure for doing so, it most likely came from the US..
Well this very aspect may be determined by the courts in Australia. I think that it's irrelevant who truly was pulling the strings, the PM is on the record saying something about wikileaks/assange, and mastercard is on the record using those words to justify their action, the prima facie evidence is incredibly strong that the PM's comments were defamatory.
Also as an aside, i think it's worth noting that while you, i presume a patriotic american, feel that wikileaks is incredibly damaging to the USA, which i suppose, it has been; don't think that foreigners are so quick to feel your sentiments about the whole situation. I'm not saying that because Assange is an Australian, as I am, I'm saying it because a lot of people feel that the USA has their fingers in everything, and that the USA tampers with the sovereignty of other countries; for instance, i think it was no accident that when Hillary Clinton visited New Zealand some years ago, that NZ decided to announce large changes to internet piracy laws there to protect your content industries, and it's starting to appear obvious that the preposterity behind the due process given to Kim Dotcom has probably been orchestrated to the tune of the USA rather than presiding sovereign's laws. I don't have any direct evidence for this, but the answering question is cui bono?
You've completely missed the point, Julia Gillard said it was illegal, she was actually wrong, that's why no charges have been laid here (or anywhere). The Australian media have been somewhat critical of this major error.
You mean the studies which showed that the same parts of the brain that excites religious fanatics, is also excited by mactards didn't render the apple brand a religion, until just now!
Same issue over the pond in Australia, unlimited plans aren't cheap, most of it has been plans with a data cap. With that said, i struggle to use any of my caps (50gb broadband, 1.5g on phone). Clearly we haven't got stuff like netflix over here.
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
But if something did happen, can't you just elect a new president?
Weasel words? Is that the best you've got? Really? The iPhone came out a year ago and given than the iPhone 3GS is upgradable to iOS 6.x, it stands a good chance that even the iPhone 4 will be upgradable to iOS 7 next year when it comes out and the iPhone 4S will be as well as a virtual certainty given the history of past upgrades. The iPhone 4S has an A5 chip. Given that the iPad 2 will receive the iOS 6 upgrade, it is likely that the Retina iPad will also receive the iOS 7.x upgrade next year. The only weaselling I see is from you. Go back to wikipedia editing with your "weasel words" troll.
I look forward to be being able to upgrade my iPhone 4S and iPad 3 to iOS 6 for "free" and later upgrading to iOS 7 next year again for "free".
Excellent choice of weasel words "being able to" as we all know your 4S hasn't got long to go, and as soon as the next ipad comes out, you will also flock to that. That's what gets me with apple fanatics; the tech is so great that they can't wait to replace it... Makes no sense to me, good technology in my opinion is hard to replace.
I've been reading november, which is a bit far away. It certainly looks like the nokia announcements were done purely for strategic purposes to preempt the iphone, and hopefully make some portion of the market hold off.
Yea people criticise MS for the WP7 phones not getting WP8, but here's me with my android phone, stuck on gingerbread, and the phone is still buggy as all hell. If it wasn't buggy, i wouldn't care, but unfortunately it's quite bad, meanwhile with WP7 phones, they still work properly which can't be said for my samsung galaxy s. Apple seems to have transmitted the perception that the phones get the whole update, but a lot of software features don't make it to the older phones, even though it's the newer iOS, whereas, i haven't seen any discussion on what wp8 has that wp7 doesn't have in terms of features, it seems to be largely stuff under the UI that has been changed to support different hardware; useless for an existing phone. The UI changes will apparently be updated to WP7.8 or so i've heard.
Slashdot Mirror
Like any degree, if you go in to just get the paper at the end, you won't really learn anything, so finding duds in any field is never too hard.
The purpose behind engineering isn't necessarily to acquire knowledge nor understanding, it's more to apply ingenuity, or, pardon the infantile explanation, but it's more to be able to engineer a solution, which is ultimately a subtle difference than just solving a problem, it's not something that i think a lot of engineers are really aware of. This is something which is hard to assess, and also difficult to teach in a learning institution, it's much easier to mentor this sort of ideology in professional practice.
I'm not a software engineer, rather mechanical and mechatronics, but the way i'd been taught is not to gain all the knowledge or understanding in the world, that's a ridiculous requirement, engineering is more about being able to go back to first principles and develop a solution which is based on maths and science, and quite often, just empiricism, but not best guess or trial and error.
So we do learn about science and mathematics, and sure, it's not to the detailed level that mathematicians nor scientists do, but engineering isn't a science, engineering is a methodology of applying knowledge gained in science, which is incredibly distinct from what gets taught in science and mathematics, and i'm not saying that bing able to think in this manner is exclusive, but the understanding of what engineering actually is, is something that isn't comprehended well.
I think a good car analogy for software engineering versus development is, engineering a car is all about design and development, and not just the car, but also designing its manufacture and actually making the product, whereas, software development is the process work of parts assembly, or doing the work after manufacture such as mechanical maintenance and repairs. Software engineering in my opinion is designing the modules and overall architecture.
I think that's the general problem with game prices, here in Australia, for a while, RRP has been $120 for new console games, that has dropped somewhat now, because of consumer backlash, but our dollar is more or less in parity with the US dollar. Bottom line is, if they say dropped the price from $120 to $60, would sales increase to the point where they would make the same amount of profit, i seriously doubt it. It's demand based pricing, they charge what the market will bear, and as a result, charging the higher price means they'll shift less stock, but make more money, and you can always lower the price later.
Yea i agree, i think that the publishing arm of sony is sort of like the tail wagging the dog. They still can make brilliant hardware, but just from my observers point of view, it really ruined the hardware by demanding DRM and just making the devices unfriendly to users, i've time and time again just skipped sony, because i know that i'm going to get the shits with it not letting me do what i want to do.
I think the more pertinent question here is, do you know any lawyers who wouldn't argue the case if they thought they could win with it?
But to answer your question, in criminal cases, it's quite common in situations to present the same story, to create uncertainty or doubt, one example is here in australia, court proceedings are rarely ever filmed, there was one series called "on trial" which was permitted access, and in the first episode, you had a person on trial with criminal charges for threatening someone with a firearm in a toilet of a RSL club (big pokie machine haven community club), this defendants angle was that he actually was the victim and the witness the crown presented actually threatened him. So, who's telling the truth, they're both using the same story! So while no, i haven't heard about trademark cases like that, but i believe that similar events do happen in non-criminal courts, and the reason is simple, if one party says something untrue, the other party has to demonstrate it untrue, and that can be a major advantage in some cases.
All i'm saying is, because the legal system is a fight, it's not directly associated with determining the truth, it doesn't really matter what one party says, the other party has to then rebut that "evidence", if they can't then it's considered true. Couple this with a completely unscrupulous legal "profession" and the mouthpieces will just say whatever needs to be said to win. Apple isn't interested in justice here, it wants the other organisation to stop using iFone; Apple doesn't care in the slightest with what the other company suffers as a result, apple is only interested for its own result.
It's not arrogance, it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system, the lawyers will latch on to any small detail, or whatever in the hopes of making a successful case, no matter how compelling the oppositions evidence is.
Maybe HL3 will be used to force steam users on linux, just like HL2 was used to move people on to steam.
I see all the Valve fans who are terrified at the thought that Windows could become a viable store for gaming and draw users away from Steam are here, defending Steam and Valves's future roadmap (and their leverage of their monopoly) from its detractors.
Hmm, works just as well...
Well especially when the books he's written that are critical of religion are much better known, than those that deal with science alone. I think he's a philosophical flyweight, because he deals with issues of philosophy in such a brutish, pedestrian, unreasoned, manner that's it's palpable; he conflates science and philosophy to a ridiculous level and in my opinion, making a meal of both at the same time.
An obvious fallacy he engages is that he groups religion as one homogenous group, this is an absurdity, it purposely muddies the waters, and i think it's not so that he convinces people, it's more to entrench his existing supporters, probably to keep on buying his books.
Stalin didn't pursue an anti-jewish agenda until after the war; from what i've heard, and this makes most sense to me is, there were only two people to have ever fooled stalin, hitler was one (stalin refused to believe that the germans were going to invade the USSR during WW2, even all the spies were reporting that it was imminent, yet stalin refused to believe, having faith in hitler instead thinking that the nazi-communist alliance [see molotov - von ribbentrop pact] before the war was real), and the second was david ben-gurion, who made deals with, and subsequently misled stalin into believing that israel was going to become a communist satellite state.
One bit of evidence that supports this to me, because it isn't talked about much, is that the haganah before israel was established, but after ww2, were equipped with, ironically, german, nazi stamped, K98 rifles, they were sourced from czechoslovakia who i presume got them from the USSR, since it was the red army that would have collected them as they went through germany at the end of the war. Now considering how restricted arms were in communist countries, this would have never happened without stalins permission, all those satellite states just did what stalin ordered.
Being 'on the record' doesn't always make it true.
"on the record" has a subtly different meaning here in oz, there in fact is nothing which is "off the record", if you say something, you've said it, if you're stupid enough to say it to a reporter and mimic hollywood, then that reporter can still attribute that to you with impunity. So here, when something is on the record, it generally means that it's widely reported, like the PM said it at a press conference, it was broadcast to TV, the AFP released a media release contradicting the PM's words, and while i haven't seen it, I presume master card have also made a media release regarding their decision. There is no hearsay, it's all verifiable facts. Assange can prove conclusively, the remark, the fact that it was untrue, the resulting treatment from the remark by a third party, and the monetary damages that have resulted from it.
Whether mastercard were really doing it because of the PM's remark, is irrelevant; i suppose that's an issue with the adversarial court system we employ
Mastercard is simply rationalizing something they wanted to do long before the PM said anything. It was a false pretext on their part. In fact, if they came under any pressure for doing so, it most likely came from the US..
Well this very aspect may be determined by the courts in Australia. I think that it's irrelevant who truly was pulling the strings, the PM is on the record saying something about wikileaks/assange, and mastercard is on the record using those words to justify their action, the prima facie evidence is incredibly strong that the PM's comments were defamatory.
Also as an aside, i think it's worth noting that while you, i presume a patriotic american, feel that wikileaks is incredibly damaging to the USA, which i suppose, it has been; don't think that foreigners are so quick to feel your sentiments about the whole situation. I'm not saying that because Assange is an Australian, as I am, I'm saying it because a lot of people feel that the USA has their fingers in everything, and that the USA tampers with the sovereignty of other countries; for instance, i think it was no accident that when Hillary Clinton visited New Zealand some years ago, that NZ decided to announce large changes to internet piracy laws there to protect your content industries, and it's starting to appear obvious that the preposterity behind the due process given to Kim Dotcom has probably been orchestrated to the tune of the USA rather than presiding sovereign's laws. I don't have any direct evidence for this, but the answering question is cui bono?
Why do you think she went into politics...
You've completely missed the point, Julia Gillard said it was illegal, she was actually wrong, that's why no charges have been laid here (or anywhere). The Australian media have been somewhat critical of this major error.
What would you prefer though?
You mean the studies which showed that the same parts of the brain that excites religious fanatics, is also excited by mactards didn't render the apple brand a religion, until just now!
Same issue over the pond in Australia, unlimited plans aren't cheap, most of it has been plans with a data cap. With that said, i struggle to use any of my caps (50gb broadband, 1.5g on phone). Clearly we haven't got stuff like netflix over here.
More like no knowledge, no experience; just seen some vids on youtube and hollywood films.
but who isn't criticising apple for the maps fail...
That cost probably stems more from the cult of personality and unwarranted deification of the president.
People make this complaint about every president - the president really has no choice in the matter, he can't book a ticket on a commercial flight and slip away to NYC for a private weekend with his wife. All of his trips, regardless of reason come with immense security that most individuals cannot afford to pay, so every trip is on the taxpayer's dime. This is the tradeoff we make between protecting our top leaders and saving money. Is there any candidate that will promise to never go on vacation? Would you want such a candidate in office?
But if something did happen, can't you just elect a new president?
Weasel words? Is that the best you've got? Really? The iPhone came out a year ago and given than the iPhone 3GS is upgradable to iOS 6.x, it stands a good chance that even the iPhone 4 will be upgradable to iOS 7 next year when it comes out and the iPhone 4S will be as well as a virtual certainty given the history of past upgrades. The iPhone 4S has an A5 chip. Given that the iPad 2 will receive the iOS 6 upgrade, it is likely that the Retina iPad will also receive the iOS 7.x upgrade next year. The only weaselling I see is from you. Go back to wikipedia editing with your "weasel words" troll.
Swing and a miss...
I look forward to be being able to upgrade my iPhone 4S and iPad 3 to iOS 6 for "free" and later upgrading to iOS 7 next year again for "free".
Excellent choice of weasel words "being able to" as we all know your 4S hasn't got long to go, and as soon as the next ipad comes out, you will also flock to that. That's what gets me with apple fanatics; the tech is so great that they can't wait to replace it... Makes no sense to me, good technology in my opinion is hard to replace.
I've been reading november, which is a bit far away. It certainly looks like the nokia announcements were done purely for strategic purposes to preempt the iphone, and hopefully make some portion of the market hold off.
Yea people criticise MS for the WP7 phones not getting WP8, but here's me with my android phone, stuck on gingerbread, and the phone is still buggy as all hell. If it wasn't buggy, i wouldn't care, but unfortunately it's quite bad, meanwhile with WP7 phones, they still work properly which can't be said for my samsung galaxy s. Apple seems to have transmitted the perception that the phones get the whole update, but a lot of software features don't make it to the older phones, even though it's the newer iOS, whereas, i haven't seen any discussion on what wp8 has that wp7 doesn't have in terms of features, it seems to be largely stuff under the UI that has been changed to support different hardware; useless for an existing phone. The UI changes will apparently be updated to WP7.8 or so i've heard.
You've just described my current android phone (sgs i9000)