Given who is starting up the school, I bet this is being driven by companies who want to pay their employees less because they only have a 2 year degree.
Yeah, schools can't churn out qualified software engineers in 4 (and in many cases 5) years already. What makes you think you can do a good job in 2 years?
Back in the day, PCs are all you had. So if you wanted to connect to AOL in 1993 you had to have your PC. Since then, a vast majority of consumer tasks have moved from the PC to the laptop and now to the tablet or other consumer electronic device. Sure, there is a need for desktop machines in some work environments but even those are being supplanted by laptops in most companies. Hell, a lot of the modern PCs aren't all that far removed from laptop class hardware but with a bigger box, more monitor plugs, and a built in power supply. And in the home, the clunky desktop machine is vanishing altogether. Even the laptops are giving way to tablets and TVs that do all of your media streaming by themselves. Gaming has moved from the desktop to the laptop or game console. And at some point, it will be in the domain of the tablet/console. The PC simply has no future. There just isn't any reason to invest any resources in trying to revive a dying segment of the market. You'll never recover your investment.
This is an interesting way for Microsoft to throw away bags of money for nothing. PC sales are declining for a reason. It's interesting to see how they've become exactly like IBM.
A couple years back I got to spend a day on the trails in Colorado with the head of the Wrangler product line. I learned a lot about the Jeep that day.
We talked about the appeal of the Jeep and he told me that it's one of the few vehicles that has no target demographic. With most cars, you're building for a target market. Compact cars sell to twentysomethings, minivans sell to soccer moms, crossover SUVs sell to soccer moms in denial about being soccer moms, luxury cars sell to older men with larger incomes, sporty cars sell to men who never got beyond adolescence, etc. But the Wrangler is unique. The buying demographic numbers are all over the map. It sells to all age groups, both sexes, all income stratifications, etc. You're just as likely to have a broke teenage girl scraping together enough money to buy a Wrangler as you will a retired millionaire hedge fund manager. And you find everyone in between.
Sure, if you review your cars like you review your home appliances, the Wrangler has nothing going for it. And most people rightfully have no interest in owning one because creature comforts are not the #1 priority, nor is fuel economy or any other standard measure that the dullards at Consumer Reports use to evaluate everything. From that one singular (and not universally held) point of view it's a terrible vehicle. One thing that so many people fail to grasp is that a significant percentage of the population doesn't care about those standard measures. To them, the automobile is more than just a means to get from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. It's more than an equation that has to be optimized. Their automobile is a thing to be enjoyed. And you can't measure that. There are intangible things about specific types of cars that appeal to some people. And the Jeep has that in spades, as do many other "impractical" cars.
Sure, it has a bunch of drawbacks. But it has a "fun factor" that is impossible to measure. For many, it's about the journey, not the destination. It's about getting out and experiencing life and the world around them. It's their way to stop and smell the roses. Dropping the top and enjoying a sunny day is invigorating and makes the hassle of a noisy soft top worth every second. The off road capabilities let you go places few people can follow and see things few people have a chance to experience first hand.
And I recognize that other people like to take their boring econobox quickly to the destination so they can get out and experience the world their way and smell the roses their way. They may like to go to museums or they may like to spend time in urban areas experiencing the culture. And they get to enjoy it better because their chosen transportation gets them to their destination with no troubles of any kind. No problem with that. Everyone has a different point of view and it's great that we all have options on how to get out and enjoy the world around us the way we want to. And that's the whole point. We're all different. We all enjoy different things. But we have to choose how we address people who don't believe what we believe, who don't like what we like, who enjoy things we don't enjoy.
I'm sorry that you're not capable of seeing things from other people's perspective, by choice or not. It's a big world out there. Not everyone has to enjoy life the way you do.
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers.
A formal logic class (whether heavy on symbols or not) would be a good idea for everyone.
Yes, formal logic class may be a more accurate description of what they need to take.
I suspect, however, that for all people there exists a subset of people for whom a formal logic class would provide no benefit. And for that reason, it would not be a good idea for absolutely everyone to take it. Many, maybe even most, of the people could benefit to a certain extent. But probably not everyone.;)
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers. It helps you learn how do do your Boolean algebra when you're developing code but it also teaches you the difference between "everyone does not need to..." and "not everyone needs to...";)
My point was that you have to maintain a balance. If you do like what was done in California, and tear down neighborhood after neighborhood to have commercial development, you drive the people out into the remote suburbs because you drive housing costs through the roof and the people have to keep moving farther and farther away from their jobs just to be able to afford to live. Then again, if you go to far in the other direction, you can drive away too many jobs and that doesn't help your city either.
The problem is compounded in cities that are geographically bounded (like Seattle) since they can't just keep moving the city borders out further like they do in Dallas and Houston. And that's the real driver of increased housing costs. More people demanding space in a fixed quantity of land will drive prices up, period.
Yeah, there's always a fight between the NIMBY types and the corporations who can buy their way in. The poor get trapped between them because they have no one fighting on their behalf and they lose out every time.
The problem is that there is no winning move. There is basically no more land to expand to so the only way to deal with the influx of people and businesses is to stack people up on the land that's already there. And that changes the character of the city. Everyone loses but that doesn't stop the city big wigs from trying to get more businesses (and their corresponding employees) to move there.
The only way to keep the city the way it is, along with keeping housing costs in check, would be to keep businesses and people from moving into the area. Trouble is, you don't get reelected to city/county leadership if you're the type to turn away jobs.
Sure, gentrification is an option. But only to a point. Gentrifying every neighborhood leaves you with San Francisco level housing costs, which is what they're trying to avoid.
This is the problem with allocation of scarce resources. Demand goes up without a corresponding increase in supply and price goes up. Getting a bunch of tech companies to relocate to Seattle along with all of the workers and you're going to get higher prices because land is in finite supply. There's no way around it except to stack everyone on top of each other.
Don't tear down neighborhoods to build commercial zones. In fact, make a concerted effort to keep a sensible ratio of residential to commercial zoning and the housing prices don't shoot through the roof.
Pardon me for injecting actual science but Mars doesn't have an earth like dipole magnetic field. It can't support a Van Allen radiation belt like Earth. As a result, the solar wind is not deflected as well and the atmosphere is not sustainable. So adding a bunch of greenhouse gas would be pointless as it would just be blown away by the solar wind. So yeah, it's great to dream up ideas on how to make Mars a place we can live, it's also good to come up with ideas that might actually work.
I've found that the more people push their own academic and professional credentials, the less capable they are of actually getting real work done. I too don't give a flying rip what school you went to or what degree you got. Either you can do the work or you can't. And if you can't, you need to find some other job.
We could always do what was done leading up to our 50's manufacturing boom.
And that is... participate in a war that bombs every other developed country into oblivion so that we have absolutely no competition for manufactured goods and can charge whatever we want for them...
That's what I've seen. While EE's are smart and capable of learning, they don't get any of the foundational groundwork that you learn studying CS so they're missing a lot of what they need to write good code. So they end up making a hot mess of the code they work on until they get the on-the-job training they need to do a better job.
I've been a software engineer in the civilian and military aerospace world for over 2 decades. I've seen the kinds of software that engineers write in all its hideousness. The last thing this world needs is to let EEs continue to write software. The reason being is that your premise is entirely false. Engineering software is nowhere near "easy enough".
Sure, writing a simple app for a phone is "easy enough", but there's a lot of complicated stuff going on inside avionics systems these days and it's getting more complex every year. You need good software people to write good software in that environment. Let the EEs and CEs design the hardware and leave the software to the people who have the training and skill set more suited to designing the software.
This kind of nonsense keeps popping up every few years. It was about time some "visionary" tried selling this crap again.
I'm sure it's different this time and there's this new thing that will solve all the problems they had the last 15 times someone has tried to push this idea...
Slashdot Mirror
Given who is starting up the school, I bet this is being driven by companies who want to pay their employees less because they only have a 2 year degree.
Yeah, schools can't churn out qualified software engineers in 4 (and in many cases 5) years already. What makes you think you can do a good job in 2 years?
Stating the obvious shouldn't require a reason.
Back in the day, PCs are all you had. So if you wanted to connect to AOL in 1993 you had to have your PC. Since then, a vast majority of consumer tasks have moved from the PC to the laptop and now to the tablet or other consumer electronic device. Sure, there is a need for desktop machines in some work environments but even those are being supplanted by laptops in most companies. Hell, a lot of the modern PCs aren't all that far removed from laptop class hardware but with a bigger box, more monitor plugs, and a built in power supply. And in the home, the clunky desktop machine is vanishing altogether. Even the laptops are giving way to tablets and TVs that do all of your media streaming by themselves. Gaming has moved from the desktop to the laptop or game console. And at some point, it will be in the domain of the tablet/console. The PC simply has no future. There just isn't any reason to invest any resources in trying to revive a dying segment of the market. You'll never recover your investment.
This is an interesting way for Microsoft to throw away bags of money for nothing. PC sales are declining for a reason. It's interesting to see how they've become exactly like IBM.
A couple years back I got to spend a day on the trails in Colorado with the head of the Wrangler product line. I learned a lot about the Jeep that day.
We talked about the appeal of the Jeep and he told me that it's one of the few vehicles that has no target demographic. With most cars, you're building for a target market. Compact cars sell to twentysomethings, minivans sell to soccer moms, crossover SUVs sell to soccer moms in denial about being soccer moms, luxury cars sell to older men with larger incomes, sporty cars sell to men who never got beyond adolescence, etc. But the Wrangler is unique. The buying demographic numbers are all over the map. It sells to all age groups, both sexes, all income stratifications, etc. You're just as likely to have a broke teenage girl scraping together enough money to buy a Wrangler as you will a retired millionaire hedge fund manager. And you find everyone in between.
Sure, if you review your cars like you review your home appliances, the Wrangler has nothing going for it. And most people rightfully have no interest in owning one because creature comforts are not the #1 priority, nor is fuel economy or any other standard measure that the dullards at Consumer Reports use to evaluate everything. From that one singular (and not universally held) point of view it's a terrible vehicle. One thing that so many people fail to grasp is that a significant percentage of the population doesn't care about those standard measures. To them, the automobile is more than just a means to get from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. It's more than an equation that has to be optimized. Their automobile is a thing to be enjoyed. And you can't measure that. There are intangible things about specific types of cars that appeal to some people. And the Jeep has that in spades, as do many other "impractical" cars.
Sure, it has a bunch of drawbacks. But it has a "fun factor" that is impossible to measure. For many, it's about the journey, not the destination. It's about getting out and experiencing life and the world around them. It's their way to stop and smell the roses. Dropping the top and enjoying a sunny day is invigorating and makes the hassle of a noisy soft top worth every second. The off road capabilities let you go places few people can follow and see things few people have a chance to experience first hand.
And I recognize that other people like to take their boring econobox quickly to the destination so they can get out and experience the world their way and smell the roses their way. They may like to go to museums or they may like to spend time in urban areas experiencing the culture. And they get to enjoy it better because their chosen transportation gets them to their destination with no troubles of any kind. No problem with that. Everyone has a different point of view and it's great that we all have options on how to get out and enjoy the world around us the way we want to. And that's the whole point. We're all different. We all enjoy different things. But we have to choose how we address people who don't believe what we believe, who don't like what we like, who enjoy things we don't enjoy.
I'm sorry that you're not capable of seeing things from other people's perspective, by choice or not. It's a big world out there. Not everyone has to enjoy life the way you do.
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers.
A formal logic class (whether heavy on symbols or not) would be a good idea for everyone.
Yes, formal logic class may be a more accurate description of what they need to take.
I suspect, however, that for all people there exists a subset of people for whom a formal logic class would provide no benefit. And for that reason, it would not be a good idea for absolutely everyone to take it. Many, maybe even most, of the people could benefit to a certain extent. But probably not everyone. ;)
Everyone does not need to learn to code. Period.
A symbolic logic class would be a good idea for all programmers. It helps you learn how do do your Boolean algebra when you're developing code but it also teaches you the difference between "everyone does not need to..." and "not everyone needs to..." ;)
It's a Jeep. If there ain't no oil under 'em, there ain't no oil in 'em.
My point was that you have to maintain a balance. If you do like what was done in California, and tear down neighborhood after neighborhood to have commercial development, you drive the people out into the remote suburbs because you drive housing costs through the roof and the people have to keep moving farther and farther away from their jobs just to be able to afford to live. Then again, if you go to far in the other direction, you can drive away too many jobs and that doesn't help your city either.
The problem is compounded in cities that are geographically bounded (like Seattle) since they can't just keep moving the city borders out further like they do in Dallas and Houston. And that's the real driver of increased housing costs. More people demanding space in a fixed quantity of land will drive prices up, period.
Yeah, there's always a fight between the NIMBY types and the corporations who can buy their way in. The poor get trapped between them because they have no one fighting on their behalf and they lose out every time.
The problem is that there is no winning move. There is basically no more land to expand to so the only way to deal with the influx of people and businesses is to stack people up on the land that's already there. And that changes the character of the city. Everyone loses but that doesn't stop the city big wigs from trying to get more businesses (and their corresponding employees) to move there.
The only way to keep the city the way it is, along with keeping housing costs in check, would be to keep businesses and people from moving into the area. Trouble is, you don't get reelected to city/county leadership if you're the type to turn away jobs.
Sure, gentrification is an option. But only to a point. Gentrifying every neighborhood leaves you with San Francisco level housing costs, which is what they're trying to avoid.
This is the problem with allocation of scarce resources. Demand goes up without a corresponding increase in supply and price goes up. Getting a bunch of tech companies to relocate to Seattle along with all of the workers and you're going to get higher prices because land is in finite supply. There's no way around it except to stack everyone on top of each other.
Don't tear down neighborhoods to build commercial zones. In fact, make a concerted effort to keep a sensible ratio of residential to commercial zoning and the housing prices don't shoot through the roof.
37 years here. Never used GitHub either.
I use Git, for sure, but there's no way my employer would let their code be stored outside of the company servers, for good reason.
Yeah, I hate it when that 95% of them ruin it for everyone else.
Pardon me for injecting actual science but Mars doesn't have an earth like dipole magnetic field. It can't support a Van Allen radiation belt like Earth. As a result, the solar wind is not deflected as well and the atmosphere is not sustainable. So adding a bunch of greenhouse gas would be pointless as it would just be blown away by the solar wind. So yeah, it's great to dream up ideas on how to make Mars a place we can live, it's also good to come up with ideas that might actually work.
I've found that the more people push their own academic and professional credentials, the less capable they are of actually getting real work done. I too don't give a flying rip what school you went to or what degree you got. Either you can do the work or you can't. And if you can't, you need to find some other job.
We could always do what was done leading up to our 50's manufacturing boom.
And that is... participate in a war that bombs every other developed country into oblivion so that we have absolutely no competition for manufactured goods and can charge whatever we want for them...
At least they're being a little more up front about click bait now...
That's what I've seen. While EE's are smart and capable of learning, they don't get any of the foundational groundwork that you learn studying CS so they're missing a lot of what they need to write good code. So they end up making a hot mess of the code they work on until they get the on-the-job training they need to do a better job.
I've been a software engineer in the civilian and military aerospace world for over 2 decades. I've seen the kinds of software that engineers write in all its hideousness. The last thing this world needs is to let EEs continue to write software. The reason being is that your premise is entirely false. Engineering software is nowhere near "easy enough".
Sure, writing a simple app for a phone is "easy enough", but there's a lot of complicated stuff going on inside avionics systems these days and it's getting more complex every year. You need good software people to write good software in that environment. Let the EEs and CEs design the hardware and leave the software to the people who have the training and skill set more suited to designing the software.
This kind of nonsense keeps popping up every few years. It was about time some "visionary" tried selling this crap again.
I'm sure it's different this time and there's this new thing that will solve all the problems they had the last 15 times someone has tried to push this idea...
I was being facetious. I probably should have put some kind of indication of that in my post. :)
You say that as if you think trees are a renewable resource...
So you can predict how long a push_back() call on a vector will take every time you call it?
No. I'm saying that the people pushing IoT are pushing connecting all of your appliances to the internet, not things like traffic management.