The fact that engineering is harder to learn than CS (which is true) is not particularly relevant.
It may still be the case that CS requires more creativity, etc., as the grandparent post says. Take art, for example. It is obviously more creative, but the coursework is much easier (takes less time and headache) for an average art major than for an engineering major.
Come on, that's hardly fair. There are all kinds of people who worked in the dot-coms at some point (and no, I am not one such). I would understand your comment if you meant people who only worked in dot-coms, but even that's not fair for people who got their bachelor's 3-5 years ago. What were they supposed to do when dot-coms were more than half of programming job market?
Interview them, give them a chance to tell you what they actually did. Many of them actually worked for successful (*gasp*) dot-coms. Many were lowly entry-level employees who did what they were told and produced quality work within those constraints.
And as for CTOs of failed dot-coms, well those resumes you can probably safely through into trash. They deserve to be judged by the quality of their work.
Well, I don't know if this makes sense to you, but this reminds of the standard socialist theory that I've heard when I lived in the USSR. (I don't imply any negative connotations here, socialist theory is not necessarily bad, you know, it's the Soviet implementation that wasn't nice).
Anyway, the original socialist idea was that for a typical product the most money is being made by the middleman (resellers) and the investors/owners of the company making the product. So, if it were possible to get rid of them (and simply salary the management and marketing people), you could eliminate dividend payments (though not profits, they'd be reinvested in the company or paid as wages) and the difference between factory and retail price. Then the prices would go down and the workers' wages will go up. It's just more efficient.
Now, that didn't happen to work (though there were other unrelated problems with it, of course). Are you sure that eliminating MPAA is very different?
Ah, but it is not the same! This way you can actually talk to her about things that are important to you (CS is an important part of many slashdotters' life, is it not?). And, as a bonus, it is not at all boring when she talks about her work, because you understand this stuff.
> > I beleive that there is a God, because someone must have created the Universe! > So who has created God then?
Oh, come on. Surely you don't think this is a convincing argument? One obvious answer might be that God existed forever.
Anyway, replying to your main point: consider a country where majority of the people were raised not to believe in God (e.g. Soviet Union). There is now a large number of (educated, intelligent)people there who believe in God. So?
Here's one reason why some people with no religious upbringing believe in God: when you (brought up religiously) think of believers, you think of your stupid neighbors and not-so-bright local priest/pastor. When someone not brought up that way thinks of religious people, he may think of St.Augustine, Luther or Tolstoy. There's no negative connotation there.
Having said that, I personally think there's no good reason to be believe either way. So let those who believe believe, and those who don't don't.
I'd like to point out that mathematical ability (on a college level and above, at least) has little to do with numbers. My wife got a degree in Math (and she did pretty well), while she can only add and multiply with difficulty on a piece of paper (and can't do it in her head at all). Algebra and calculus though were quite easy for her.
Do you really want Google to make religious censorship decisions? If they exclude Scientology, maybe you'd want them to exclude Islam next?
Re:Brief Plot Description
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's a space opera of sorts. With military action (strategy) and political manipulation. It's a lot like some of the Nelson-era naval fiction. Anyway, if you don't know what it's likely to be about you should not read it, go read the first book - "On Basilisk Station" (available for free in the Baen free library) and see if you like it. Then read the rest of the series in order.
It's also surprising, since almost all of the major Canadian newspapers are owned by two people.
Well, this quite satisfies the requirements for democracy, you know. After all, there can be no more than two different points of view. In the US they are known as Republican and Democratic.
Well, they'll simply have some sort of access control, sort of like NetLibrary. There you can check out a book and that stops everyone else from reading it during that time.
Could we please interview someone who: a) is more mentally stable b) is not so much on the fringe c) wants to talk about something other than his personal problems and details of his bot when asked about general AI isues d) answers at least one question he was asked [oh, I am sorry, he may have answered one or two out of ten]
It would also be nice to interview someone who is a respected expert in the field, not an outcast, whom nobody takes seriously. Just to balance this interview, so to speak.
Of course people tried this. It doesn't work, at least not better than ALICE. Human language cannot be decribed by regular expressions, nor even by context free grammars (one level up the hierarchy of formal languages), though CFGs are close. So you get ungrammatical garbage or prepared responses like ALICE.
Apparently you haven't read the previous slashdot article on the topic. Here's the link. Eric Flint is exactly one of those people who are supposed to "lose money" from online piracy (i.e. he is an author). However, he found out that in fact he is gaining money (and publicity) by giving some of his books out for free. That's why you want to read his articles.
Since you mention 8 hours of school, I can only assume that you are in high school. The fact that your school does not do anything to engage you intellectually is of course a pity, but has nothing to do with education in general. This is especially true of college education. While the level of college education varies, you should be able to get into a reasonably good school, if you are so good that you know everything. And if college does not challenge you enough, there is also graduate school. There you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does not love learning, and of course that includes most professors.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, what about Russians! That's discrimination:)
People like you give all programmers a bad name. Or maybe you actually don't, since
nobody can hear you swear at inanimate objects.
You mean to the rank of "petty officer third class"?:)
Can anyone point me to some (p)reviews or at least lists of new features, etc?
The fact that engineering is harder to learn than CS (which is true) is not particularly relevant.
It may still be the case that CS requires more creativity, etc., as the grandparent post says. Take art, for example. It is obviously more creative, but the coursework is much easier (takes less time and headache) for an average art major than for an engineering major.
Could someone give me a recommendation or preferrably a reading order for Niven's books?
I've read Discworld and Discworld engineers, but that's it.
Thanks.
Come on, that's hardly fair. There are all kinds of people who worked in the dot-coms at some point (and no, I am not one such). I would understand your comment if you meant people who only worked in dot-coms, but even that's not fair for people who got their bachelor's 3-5 years ago. What were they supposed to do when dot-coms were more than half of programming job market?
Interview them, give them a chance to tell you what they actually did. Many of them actually worked for successful (*gasp*) dot-coms. Many were lowly entry-level employees who did what they were told and produced quality work within those constraints.
And as for CTOs of failed dot-coms, well those resumes you can probably safely through into trash. They deserve to be judged by the quality of their work.
You are not married, are you?
Or at least put it to a vote
Well, I don't know if this makes sense to you, but this reminds of the standard socialist theory that I've heard when I lived in the USSR. (I don't imply any negative connotations here, socialist theory is not necessarily bad, you know, it's the Soviet implementation that wasn't nice).
Anyway, the original socialist idea was that for a typical product the most money is being made by the middleman (resellers) and the investors/owners of the company making the product. So, if it were possible to get rid of them (and simply salary the management and marketing people), you could eliminate dividend payments (though not profits, they'd be reinvested in the company or paid as wages) and the difference between factory and retail price. Then the prices would go down and the workers' wages will go up. It's just more efficient.
Now, that didn't happen to work (though there were other unrelated problems with it, of course). Are you sure that eliminating MPAA is very different?
What this really means is that this law will be as ignored as the law about no bicycles on the sidewalk.
Ah, but it is not the same! This way you can actually talk to her about things that are important to you (CS is an important part of many slashdotters' life, is it not?). And, as a bonus, it is not at all boring when she talks about her work, because you understand this stuff.
I am married to a CS/Math major, so envy me:)
> > I beleive that there is a God, because someone must have created the Universe!
> So who has created God then?
Oh, come on. Surely you don't think this is a convincing argument? One obvious answer might be that God existed forever.
Anyway, replying to your main point: consider a country where majority of the people were raised
not to believe in God (e.g. Soviet Union). There is now a large number of (educated, intelligent)people there who believe in God. So?
Here's one reason why some people with no religious upbringing believe in God: when you (brought up religiously) think of believers, you think of your stupid neighbors and not-so-bright local priest/pastor. When someone not brought up that way thinks of religious people, he may think of St.Augustine, Luther or Tolstoy. There's no negative connotation there.
Having said that, I personally think there's no good reason to be believe either way. So let those who believe believe, and those who don't don't.
I'd like to point out that mathematical ability (on a college level and above, at least) has little to do with numbers. My wife got a degree in Math (and she did pretty well), while she can only add and multiply with difficulty on a piece of paper (and can't do it in her head at all).
Algebra and calculus though were quite easy for her.
Do you really want Google to make religious censorship decisions? If they exclude Scientology, maybe you'd want them to exclude Islam next?
It's a space opera of sorts. With military action (strategy) and political manipulation. It's a lot like some of the Nelson-era naval fiction. Anyway, if you don't know what it's likely to be about you should not read it, go read the first book - "On Basilisk Station" (available for free in the Baen free library) and see if you like it. Then read the rest of the series in order.
Well, this quite satisfies the requirements for democracy, you know. After all, there can be no more than two different points of view. In the US they are known as Republican and Democratic.
Notice, these guys were actually spamming people trying to sell books about how to spam. So, they really deserve to be hunted down first.
Well, they'll simply have some sort of access control, sort of like NetLibrary.
There you can check out a book and that stops everyone else from reading it during that time.
Could we please interview someone who:
a) is more mentally stable
b) is not so much on the fringe
c) wants to talk about something other than his personal problems and details of his bot when asked about general AI isues
d) answers at least one question he was asked
[oh, I am sorry, he may have answered one or two out of ten]
It would also be nice to interview someone who is a respected expert in the field, not an outcast, whom nobody takes seriously. Just to balance this interview, so to speak.
Of course people tried this. It doesn't work, at least not better than ALICE. Human language cannot be decribed by regular expressions, nor even by context free grammars (one level up the hierarchy of formal languages), though CFGs are close. So you get ungrammatical garbage or prepared responses like ALICE.
Apparently you haven't read the previous slashdot article on the topic. Here's the link. Eric Flint is exactly one of those people who are supposed to "lose money" from online piracy (i.e. he is an author). However, he found out that in fact he is gaining money (and publicity) by giving some of his books out for free. That's why you want to read his articles.
If the potential thieves read the newspapers and stop stealing cars (they don't know which one is the trap) that would do just fine.
Since you mention 8 hours of school, I can only assume that you are in high school. The fact that your school does not do anything to engage you intellectually is of course a pity, but has nothing to do with education in general. This is especially true of college education. While the level of college education varies, you should be able to get into a reasonably good school, if you are so good that you know everything. And if college does not challenge you enough, there is also graduate school. There you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does not love learning, and of course that includes most professors.
Is there any list of online retailers who sell computers without OS?