Einstein did not say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, he said that nothing going slower can pass the speed of light, in fact I think it's can't even trave at the speed of light. If your existance is already faster than the speed of light, life is fine and dandy.
Additionally, the asumption that what we think of as speed (Velocity = Distance / Time) is correct in all time and space is likely not correct. The idea of warping space to avoid the speed of light problem is reasonably accepted as possible, and if you did a VDT calculation you would find speeds beyond the speed of light.
Now please, some theoretical physicist correct my (likely) extensive errors.
Actually, this is not true. One of my courses included working in a SemiFab making a 'chip' on silicon. Topics of hardware architecture were also covered using Labs with real hardware. Any ENGINEERING degree is going to require a substantial amount of hardware work -- usually 3 or 4 courses over anything a CS program will require. Look for ABET accreditation, there are VERY few. UCLA was mentioned, Northern Arizona University has it, and a few more.
Admittedly, MOST programs just aren't as good.
Shameless plug: http://www.cse.nau.edu/Departments/CSE/
There have been programs using Software Engineering at the core of the program for years; RIT is WRONG about being the first. Being a Software Engineer (_not_ a programmer) I have found that most companies have little use for Software Engineering. Most of my time is spent writing code, not engineering it. What they are really looking for are programmers that can crank out working source at a high rate -- regardless of quality. This is EXACTLY the shortsighted mentality that delivers the usual mediocre code year after year. I digress...
If you're looking to get the degree, decide which you're most interested in, programming, engineering of software, or hardware, and from there you can target CS, CSE or CE respectively.
Just do your patients a favor and keep a critical care sheet printed that includes things like allergies, etc. Don't get me wrong; I am all for the modernization of facilities, and even the moving from a paper office, but there are a few places where technology is reliant on services that may not be there.
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but when looking around for DVD players I was warned that Sony explicitly refuses to play CD-Rs in their DVDs, nothing more complex than that. I was told it is because they own a Media company, and don't want people copying CDs the way people used to copy Records.
I bought one anyway because I got the 200-disk changer for $300 bucks, and I don't use CD-Rs.
Disclaimer: This may or may not be true, but I was told this by a few friends when I was looking around at DVD players.
Re:What is a Programmer?
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
That is a good question. A programmer is someone who programs something. In this case, we're talking about computers. Programming a computer is the easy part. Solving real problems is harder, and understanding that the whole system is more than business and problem solving is the hardest of all. The study of software engineering is much broader than any typical CIS or CS person understands, and it's a travesty that someone without the background or knowledge refers to them self as a software engineer instead of a programmer. I have yet to meet an undergrad or graduate of a CIS or CS program that can comprehend the whole lifecycle of a product and what it means to the programmers. I have, however, interviewed many who couldn't explain anything about source quality or why it is important.
Re:The question should be "CS, CIS or SE?"
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
Thus there are degrees that study such USEFUL topics as these available form a few universities. The university of California at Santa Cruz, and Northern Arizona University, to name a few that have such programs. I find it disquieting that everyone who gets a job writing code thinks that they're an engineer. They're not. Most don't understand engineering principals, much less methodology.
If a new student is going to follow a course of study, find a program that offers a CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) degree, not CS. Learn how to make GOOD software, not just write code.
BTW: The reasons for all those classes are not just for knowing how to solve the problems, it's also to make it HARD. If I couldn't have survived most of the courses necessary to get a BS in math, I couldn't have gotten a BS in CSE. It's funny, everyone who gets a job in 'the internet' thinks they're an engineer... CalTrain doesn't run enough for ALL of them to drive a train... =)
Well, it's about time I get a chance to make myself publicly unpopular. In today's market, ahem, (yesterdays market =), All you needed to get a job in the computer industry someplace was a heartbeat. It was better to fill the cubes with incompetent people who need handholding continuously, then to not have enough workers to get the job done. It was not always this way, and it will not remain this way either.
When I graduated ~5 years ago, companies wouldn't even interview CIS majors for jobs unless there were spaces left after all the CSE students who wanted interviews got them. When I asked the recruiters why, they responded with a pretty simple explanation. Basically they said that students who can survive a CSE program are more likely to do better in the workplace. (Mind you, these were big companies, such as Intel, Motorola, IBM, HP, not little start-ups that may have to show successful hiring to get funding, and which will likely die off in a year or two.)
Ultimately it boils down to how good YOU are. If you have a CIS degree, and are very good at what you do, then you will do well, same for any other degree. However, at some point we will go into recession again, and jobs will be harder to come by, especially in high-tech, and when that happens, rules about degrees and degree types will start being enforced again.
I spent a few years working on Support and then development on a small to large-scale software package. The company I worked for was on call 24x7 for any issues that came up which impacted customer data. The software, which I will not mention here, is a critical part of the IT operations at hospitals, banks, universities, pretty much everyone. When a customer called with an issue, the front line phone handlers made sure that the customer was valid, they pass the call off to a center trained in the programs use. If at that point it was determined that a defect had been encountered, or that the issue was the highest severity, the call was passed to my group. The typical time to reach this level for critical issues, was less than an hour -- 24x7. (Yes, I know _ALL_ about pager duty.) From that point someone was reading the code, reviewing a dump, and contacting the developers. A workaround was often developed to get the customer running again. Sometimes that was enough to disengage off-hours work, but sometimes the US team would work till midnight when the code was passed off to someone in Europe to keep going. Once finished, it would be appropriately tested and passed to the customer. Is anyone going to provide service like this for free? No way. Does this have anything to do with free software? No way. With ~4 million lines of code, and a few dozen supported platforms, there is no 'small' team that could fix any random problem. (One fix caused changes in dozens of files that then had to be tested on platforms from mainframes to desktop computers.)
As for accountability, blame can be an important part of the process. Not so that one can "neener neener" someone else, but rather to gather the kind of useful data that improve the way source is built. For example: On an open source project, say the Linux kernel, you have a few dozen core developers. If you knew that one was introducing 90% of the defects, wouldn't you want to change the review process or the developers to prevent this?
As far as the "phone jockey" asking for the 3rd time for some information, How about this:
"If you would just give me the answer to the question I have now asked 3 times I wouldn't have to ask it again." Most people have no idea what it sounds like at the other end.
Oh, one last thing, using your example, if a SCSI device is failing, what's to blame, the HBA, The device, another device on the same chain, the driver, the OS, the application, or the user? 99 times out of a hundred, it's the last one in the list, not the first...
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein did not say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, he said that nothing going slower can pass the speed of light, in fact I think it's can't even trave at the speed of light. If your existance is already faster than the speed of light, life is fine and dandy.
Additionally, the asumption that what we think of as speed (Velocity = Distance / Time) is correct in all time and space is likely not correct. The idea of warping space to avoid the speed of light problem is reasonably accepted as possible, and if you did a VDT calculation you would find speeds beyond the speed of light.
Now please, some theoretical physicist correct my (likely) extensive errors.
Actually, this is not true. One of my courses included working in a SemiFab making a 'chip' on silicon. Topics of hardware architecture were also covered using Labs with real hardware. Any ENGINEERING degree is going to require a substantial amount of hardware work -- usually 3 or 4 courses over anything a CS program will require. Look for ABET accreditation, there are VERY few. UCLA was mentioned, Northern Arizona University has it, and a few more.
Admittedly, MOST programs just aren't as good.
Shameless plug: http://www.cse.nau.edu/Departments/CSE/
There have been programs using Software Engineering at the core of the program for years; RIT is WRONG about being the first. Being a Software Engineer (_not_ a programmer) I have found that most companies have little use for Software Engineering. Most of my time is spent writing code, not engineering it. What they are really looking for are programmers that can crank out working source at a high rate -- regardless of quality. This is EXACTLY the shortsighted mentality that delivers the usual mediocre code year after year. I digress... If you're looking to get the degree, decide which you're most interested in, programming, engineering of software, or hardware, and from there you can target CS, CSE or CE respectively.
Just do your patients a favor and keep a critical care sheet printed that includes things like allergies, etc. Don't get me wrong; I am all for the modernization of facilities, and even the moving from a paper office, but there are a few places where technology is reliant on services that may not be there.
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but when looking around for DVD players I was warned that Sony explicitly refuses to play CD-Rs in their DVDs, nothing more complex than that. I was told it is because they own a Media company, and don't want people copying CDs the way people used to copy Records.
I bought one anyway because I got the 200-disk changer for $300 bucks, and I don't use CD-Rs.
Disclaimer: This may or may not be true, but I was told this by a few friends when I was looking around at DVD players.
That is a good question. A programmer is someone who programs something. In this case, we're talking about computers. Programming a computer is the easy part. Solving real problems is harder, and understanding that the whole system is more than business and problem solving is the hardest of all. The study of software engineering is much broader than any typical CIS or CS person understands, and it's a travesty that someone without the background or knowledge refers to them self as a software engineer instead of a programmer. I have yet to meet an undergrad or graduate of a CIS or CS program that can comprehend the whole lifecycle of a product and what it means to the programmers. I have, however, interviewed many who couldn't explain anything about source quality or why it is important.
Thus there are degrees that study such USEFUL topics as these available form a few universities. The university of California at Santa Cruz, and Northern Arizona University, to name a few that have such programs. I find it disquieting that everyone who gets a job writing code thinks that they're an engineer. They're not. Most don't understand engineering principals, much less methodology.
If a new student is going to follow a course of study, find a program that offers a CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) degree, not CS. Learn how to make GOOD software, not just write code.
BTW: The reasons for all those classes are not just for knowing how to solve the problems, it's also to make it HARD. If I couldn't have survived most of the courses necessary to get a BS in math, I couldn't have gotten a BS in CSE. It's funny, everyone who gets a job in 'the internet' thinks they're an engineer... CalTrain doesn't run enough for ALL of them to drive a train... =)
Well, it's about time I get a chance to make myself publicly unpopular. In today's market, ahem, (yesterdays market =), All you needed to get a job in the computer industry someplace was a heartbeat. It was better to fill the cubes with incompetent people who need handholding continuously, then to not have enough workers to get the job done. It was not always this way, and it will not remain this way either.
When I graduated ~5 years ago, companies wouldn't even interview CIS majors for jobs unless there were spaces left after all the CSE students who wanted interviews got them. When I asked the recruiters why, they responded with a pretty simple explanation. Basically they said that students who can survive a CSE program are more likely to do better in the workplace. (Mind you, these were big companies, such as Intel, Motorola, IBM, HP, not little start-ups that may have to show successful hiring to get funding, and which will likely die off in a year or two.)
Ultimately it boils down to how good YOU are. If you have a CIS degree, and are very good at what you do, then you will do well, same for any other degree. However, at some point we will go into recession again, and jobs will be harder to come by, especially in high-tech, and when that happens, rules about degrees and degree types will start being enforced again.
As for accountability, blame can be an important part of the process. Not so that one can "neener neener" someone else, but rather to gather the kind of useful data that improve the way source is built. For example: On an open source project, say the Linux kernel, you have a few dozen core developers. If you knew that one was introducing 90% of the defects, wouldn't you want to change the review process or the developers to prevent this?
As far as the "phone jockey" asking for the 3rd time for some information, How about this: "If you would just give me the answer to the question I have now asked 3 times I wouldn't have to ask it again." Most people have no idea what it sounds like at the other end.
Oh, one last thing, using your example, if a SCSI device is failing, what's to blame, the HBA, The device, another device on the same chain, the driver, the OS, the application, or the user? 99 times out of a hundred, it's the last one in the list, not the first...