Well, since on the Mac, everything that I drag to the trash gets erased including my grandma's recipes, why should it be any different with a disk? I used macs at school for years without ever realizing that I could just drag the disk to the trash.
This assumes that the Amiga GUI was superior. Well, I used it for years and guess what, it wasn't that great. The graphics of the Amiga were far ahead of their time, but the GUI left much to be desired.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 1
Funny that in the same post, you were both open-minded and closed-minded on the subject of religion. While you want Mr. Armey to accept all religions as valid religions, you don't want him to have his own religious beliefs on the subject of homosexuals. In the quote "that homosexuality is a sin, treatable in the same way as alcoholism or sex addiction. Lott was supported by Armey, who told reporters "The Bible is very clear on this," citing I Corinthians 6:9, ll, 18, and 20. In the King James version of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:9 says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" shall inherit the kingdom of God. ", I don't see any suggestion that Mr. Armey believes anything but that he beleives that homosexuals are involved in a behavior that *he* believes to be a sin. He isn't proposing that we discriminate in any way against them.
I think the best way to play that is to set up a meeting with the client who turned you down.
Good idea. While you're at it, you should get them to pay you consulting fees just for giggles. Oh, and you could, like, totally get them to spend their precious time with someone that they already turned down.
Meetings are expensive and you aren't going to able to to just "set one up". Especially with a client who has decided that he doesn't want your help.
If I lived in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't be allowed to even buy the DVD in the first place. The discussion is obviously about the U.S. law and not the UK law. Your point, is pointless.
Aren't you supposed to design an application before implemnting
it in any way including putting data in a DB? I've worked at two companies and
had a ton of projects in school and none involved implemnting the database
before the application was designed.
I'd like to know what world you are living in. In the real world, most databases
are legacy databases and FULL of data. I've had to design applications around
databases for years now. In my field (Programming for Engineers) the data is king
and people need to access it in multiple ways. True, if you are designing a
system from the ground up, then you will be able to design the DB and
make it nice and pretty. This is seldom the case in any case but web development.
This is simply hogwash. RDBMSs are by their nature
non-generic espoecially when one adds foreign keys and constaints to a system
which are necessary for any decent sized application. On the other hand the
entire point of object oriented programming is creating generic reusable
components. With the ability to use inheritance and polymorphism in an ODBMS I
see no reason why you believe an RDBMS is more generic.
'Generic' may be the wrong word here. A better one would be 'simpler'. A lot of applications
just don't need all the OO stuff. The reason that RDBMSs are so pervasive is
because most data can be represented well and in an easy to understand way with
just tables and keys.
Learning
OODBMS techniques is mainly learning how to use another API in your bject
Oriented programming language of choice (well C++, Java or Smalltalk) versus
learning SQL and relational database theory. If people could learn SQL which is
completely unrelated to any other aspect of their programming experience then
adding OODBMS techniques as a skillset would be trivial. Of course, if people
don't realize that alternatives to RDBMSs exist then they won't learn these
techniques. That is more important because management can't find people who have
these skills if developers don't go out and learn these techniques.
Developers aren't the only ones who have to query the database. In my shop,
we have 10-20 people querying the same database. Many of whom have spent a lot of time learning SQL. Most of the people who need to look at the data are
not able to pick up a new query language quickly enough. SQL is simple
enough to learn. RDBMSs are simple and easy to understand. With an OODBMS,
these people have to be trained on what the heck OO is. This is not an easy
concept for a non-progammer. On the other hand, tell someone that the database
is a collection of tables, and they can easily understand.
Now I just realized you didn't read the
article. People have measured gains in the range of ten to a thousandfold increase in performance, these are not incremental. Secondly the primary benefit
is that it means you have to write less code and don't have to worry
about multiple paradigms at once when implementing an application.
Sure. I'll believe it when I see it. This sounds like marketing hype to me.
Sounds like someone who didn't know how to program for an RDBMS wrote some
crappy code. Correctly written code for an RDBMS would not experience these
kinds of gains when converted to an OODBMS. The overhead for the conversion
process could be this large, but only if the original code is crap.
Also, the only access to the GIS was in their office, and they were the only ones allowed to use it. They had some gee-whiz demos, but nothing very useful. That was just my first exposure to GIS though, about 7 years ago.
7 years ago? Yes, things have changed.
I think the situation has improved since then, especially since many GIS products can use a web browser as the client. There are many opportunities for open source/free software to commoditize the GIS backend & use web browsers as the frontend.
Sure! The problem is that there STILL isn't a really good GIS system for the internet. GIS is dynamic, not static. Half the solutions are based on server side scripting which requires a new download for every view change, addition of layer, etc. The client-based controls/plugins aren't that great either. Most of them just use the same mechanism that the server-side stuff uses. Painfully slow.
The only solution that I have seen that has some REAL promise is a guy at Montgomery Watson who has created flash-based GIS systems. Data is dynamically downloaded. Just don't expect to see it on store shelves anytime soon.:(
ASSholes. Come on. you can do it. I don't want to see crap or fetch. I wanna see Shit and Fuck.
Shit. Is that good enough? You have your jollies now? Try jerking off, it'll get you more jollies than hearing a mormon swear.
Yes, SLC is high in living and low in pay. I know. I lived there once. This is a place where they tell the population that if all the women stayed at home, the wages would go up!
Who is "they" and what the hell are you talking about?
What a fucking joke. Your religion is the biggest joke in the known religious universe. There is undeniable proof that it is shit, and yet those paid assholes in "Church Headquarters" would rather not let you know about it, or how much they make off of you poor little tithing payers (They make a shitload of money- I know, I was related to one of them.)
Now, of course, relation to a person gives you complete knowledge of their business practices. Since you say you were related to him/her it must mean that it was distant relation because otherwise you would have specified your inner connection to the corrupt LDS church more precisely.
Quit while you can, get out. Know that your jesus is never coming
Is this your undeniable proof?
, and that joe smith died in a gun battle
Oh this is news. What do you expect? For him to just stand around waiting to get killed? He was the one that got killed after all.
, and that your precious B Young ordered 100s of people killed.
Oh mountain meadows? Why don't *you* read the history. Young was so far away from the incident he couldn't have given such an order. There's no excuse for what those people did but don't put it on Young's shoulders.
Learn it. Read your History of the Church-- volume 6 if you have the balls.
Stop blaming your adolesent failures and inadequacies on the LDS church and blame the people who actually treated you poorly. The church as an organization is not to blame.
Your statement is vague and gives no evidence for your claims.
The truth is that it is illegal for a non-profit religious organization to use it's "wealth and power" to influence politics. The LDS church CANNOT use it's money to influence the liquor laws in the state. It is against the law.
Now you may say that there are ways around this issue. Members of this organization who have the same beliefs and views may use their influence and power to affect the law. Which is the way the system is designed to work! Citizens in this nation have every right to influence politics in any way they want. But it is the citizens, not the church which is doing the influencing.
Don't blame the LDS church when it has nothing to do with it.
The constitution/bill of rights was designed to protect the individual against the mob. That's why we have it. That's why the courts can declare laws that are accepted by the majority invalid. To protect people.
Therefore, since the liquor laws in Utah have not been declared unconstitutional and are in no danger of being challenged, it would be safe to state that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual.
Your analogy makes no sense. And to compare the some silly law passed in some small town somewhere to a state-wide law designed to protect the social fabric of the community is ludicrous.
This is a nice idea, but not practical. It reminds of the social system that is supposed to exist in Star Trek where people supposedly work to better themselves. Basically what is being said is that people do things that they enjoy and somehow this keeps food in everyone's belly's. The problem with this is that there will always be jobs that people won't want to do for free.
Growing your own food? Are you kidding? Perhaps you live someplace where this is possible. You forget that the average person needs a bit more than a flower box's worth of ground to grow enough food. There's that and the economies of scale make it possible to feed a whole bunch of people with just the work of one person.
The fact that technology has made it possible for us to forget about many of our basic needs because they are very easily satisfied, doesn't mean that technology will always be able to satisfy our needs. It doesn't even do that now.
Paying the legal fees doesn't automatically allow you to break the law. If you have no case and you lose, the court (at least in this case) would force you to discontinue use of the software. The end result being that you've paid the legal fees *and* you don't have any software to sell.
While money can get a long way in the legal department, sometimes no amount of money will win a lost cause.
The point is not that Yahoo shouldn't be allowed to do what it pleases on it's own site. The servers are theirs to do with as they please. The point is that it's too bad that Yahoo doesn't have enough social responsibility to "do the right thing". Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it wrong. And when that happens, people/organizations/companies have a responsibility to stand up for correct principles.
It would be nice if the update on this article was displayed along with the headline instead of buried at the bottom of the article. Sounds to me like this company wasn't being slimy, just incompetent and/or unaware. Here's how I see what happened:
1. DSF is contacted by Zealous Open Source Rep.
2. DSF manager does initial ass-covering by stating, "Of course we don't use other peoples code!" He says this because that's probably what he believes and has been told.
3. Zealous Open Source Rep. sees plot to overthrow the Open Source movement and provides DSF Manager with evidence of his company's wrongdoing.
4. DSF Manager actually goes to the basement and asks DSF developper if this is true.
5. DSF Developper hems and haws and finally admits that he was lazy and used GPLed code for something that was supposed to be developped internally.
6. DSF Manager fires DSF Developper.
7. DSF Manager admits to world that the code was copied and takes down the code.
8. DSF Manager gets ass chewed out by DSF CEO for nearly getting the company into a legal mess.
Folks, 99% of these kind of violations are not due to intentional slimyness, just incompetence and lack of knowledge. No right minded company would even run the risk of getting sued over this kind of thing. Even one in India.
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
No - just that which degree you have (CS vs. CIS vs. ECE) doesn't neccesarily
mean a lot to a prospective employer. The fact that you finished school in a
technical field related to computers is often enough to get you into an
interview.
Depends
on what questions you ask, really. The ideal questions, and the ones we try to
ask, are the ones that allow a person to demonstrate their knowlege of
programming, data structures, and their problem solving skills. Asking questions
like "What's a string?" tend to get you an entirely different class of answers
than "How would you have implemneted cfront?"
Agreed... that's what earns them the interview. At that
point, they need to demonstrate that they really have learned that certain
amount. I have interviewed people who may have been unsung geniuses, but when
asked the simplest questions, were unable to explain basic concepts like stacks
or linked lists. Either they were unable to function under the slightest amount
of pressure, or they were unable to communicate effectively, or they simply
didn't understand the concepts. Any one of those, in my mind, is a good enough
reason to give someone a thumbs down.
Well, employers that think that way are letting too much ride on the interview.
While you can learn a lot about interpersonal skills, etc. from an interview and even get a
good idea of their knowledge, the interview should only be a part of the hiring
process.
Everyone knows (including employers) that a CS degree is harder to get than a CIS
degree. This is for a reason. CS Majors learn more about programming and
more in-depth. How can you deny this? If I get 20 CS resumes and 20 CIS resumes for a top programming
position and I only have time to interview 10 people, then I'm going to throw
out the CIS resumes.
Sorry, there are things that one learns in school that a person is
just not going to discover on the job.
Like what? Please explain. I've yet to encounter anything that cannot
be taught or learned on the job, or picked up "on the side" while working.
The entire field of Computational Geometry was unknown to me before I took it
in school. I poked around in the dark for a long time reinventing the wheel until
I found out that someone was already doing what I doing, and a lot better job
of it too. I didn't even know to look it up before then. And yes, I did look
for resources before I started. But how was I supposed to know to look for
information on computational geometry before I knew what it was?
Yeah, a CIS degree may teach you how databases work, but you're
never going to just figure out how to write one on the job.
Pardon me - your arrogance is showing. The first people to write
databases did figure them out on the job. There are developers in all
corners of the globe who somehow manage to limp along and produce some pretty
damn good software without the benefit of a CS degree, because they're willing
to learn on the job, outside of school. A CS degree is a good foundation for
continuing to learn; but do not think for a moment that lack of a degree
neccesarily indicates lack of knowledge.
Not necessarily. Many of the concepts used to create modern databases and
especially the fast, efficient ones were devised in the research lab by people
math, science, and computer science degrees, not by people who had learned to
program by trial and error. The "useless" concepts that CS majors are taught
are the things that aren't just figured out through trial and error. It's
true that advances are made "on the job", but not all positive advances show
their advantage immediately and thus aren't pursued in such an enviroment.
There's a difference between learning "on the job" and learing "while working".
If a person basically learns the equivilant of a CS while working, then I would
say that paper or not, he/she has a CS degree. But most people who want to go
this far actually go and get the paper.
A CS degree is about advancing the field. A CIS degree is about learning what
has already been learned.
No one answers the sales line.
No one answers the international sales line.
The tech support line is Not In Service But, the fax line is answering...
Re:Programmer != CS major
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
So basically your point is that a degree is pointless? You say that you can't tell whether or not a person is qualified by their education, only by some technical questions asked in the interview. I have seldom found that these questions really allow the interviewee to show more than a slice of his knowledge. They have to be so specific that you can never actually find out if they understand everything that they will need to know. While I agree that it is possible to get through a degree without learning much, I don't think that this is the norm. Usually, a degree is a sign that person has learned a certain amount.
On the point of differences between CS and CIS degrees, your points seem to dwell on the assumption that on-the-job training can make up for a lack of training in school. Sorry, there are things that one learns in school that a person is just not going to discover on the job. And these are the very things that take up most of the curriculum in a CS program. Yeah, a CIS degree may teach you how databases work, but you're never going to just figure out how to write one on the job.
Napster making money from other people's servers
on
Nazis on Napster
·
· Score: 1
I actually read the article and although the company mentioned is german, I don't see anywhere that it's even going to be a german show or anything having to do with germany!
NPR's Talk of the Nation recently did a show on this. It seems that everyone is saying that high-tech companies are pro and all the programmers are anti this bill. That seems to tbe what I am finding around town as it were.
What are people's thoughts? What are the benefits of this bill? Do high-tech suits just want this bill to pass because they are unwilling to hire americans at a competetive rate? Or is there a real shortage of people to hire in the country?
It's important to note that most search engines are just like every other internet buisness, they thrive on the number of hits they get, since most of them depend heavily on advertising dollars. How does a search engine get hits? By improving the results that queries produce. Almost all search engines are so bad anyway that when I find a better one, I'm almost instantly converted. (Hence I use google all the time)
The sorting mechanism used by the search engines is their way of creating a great search engine! It's relatively easy (given enough resources) to catalog web pages. The big problem is figuring out which one of those web pages somebody is looking for.
Asking a search engine to release it's sorting mechanism is like asking Big Bob to release his secret barbeque sauce recipe in the name of improving barbeque sauce around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since on the Mac, everything that I drag to the trash gets erased including my grandma's recipes, why should it be any different with a disk? I used macs at school for years without ever realizing that I could just drag the disk to the trash.
This assumes that the Amiga GUI was superior. Well, I used it for years and guess what, it wasn't that great. The graphics of the Amiga were far ahead of their time, but the GUI left much to be desired.
Funny that in the same post, you were both open-minded and closed-minded on the subject of religion. While you want Mr. Armey to accept all religions as valid religions, you don't want him to have his own religious beliefs on the subject of homosexuals. In the quote "that homosexuality is a sin, treatable in the same way as alcoholism or sex addiction. Lott was supported by Armey, who told reporters "The Bible is very clear on this," citing I Corinthians 6:9, ll, 18, and 20. In the King James version of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:9 says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" shall inherit the kingdom of God. ", I don't see any suggestion that Mr. Armey believes anything but that he beleives that homosexuals are involved in a behavior that *he* believes to be a sin. He isn't proposing that we discriminate in any way against them.
Tu ne parles pas francais non plus evidement.
May I ask a question? What is the point of saying something in a foreign language, when the english translation means exactly the same thing?
Good idea. While you're at it, you should get them to pay you consulting fees just for giggles. Oh, and you could, like, totally get them to spend their precious time with someone that they already turned down.
Meetings are expensive and you aren't going to able to to just "set one up". Especially with a client who has decided that he doesn't want your help.
If I lived in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't be allowed to even buy the DVD in the first place. The discussion is obviously about the U.S. law and not the UK law. Your point, is pointless.
Aren't you supposed to design an application before implemnting
it in any way including putting data in a DB? I've worked at two companies and
had a ton of projects in school and none involved implemnting the database
before the application was designed.
I'd like to know what world you are living in. In the real world, most databases
are legacy databases and FULL of data. I've had to design applications around
databases for years now. In my field (Programming for Engineers) the data is king
and people need to access it in multiple ways. True, if you are designing a
system from the ground up, then you will be able to design the DB and
make it nice and pretty. This is seldom the case in any case but web development.
This is simply hogwash. RDBMSs are by their nature
non-generic espoecially when one adds foreign keys and constaints to a system
which are necessary for any decent sized application. On the other hand the
entire point of object oriented programming is creating generic reusable
components. With the ability to use inheritance and polymorphism in an ODBMS I
see no reason why you believe an RDBMS is more generic.
'Generic' may be the wrong word here. A better one would be 'simpler'. A lot of applications
just don't need all the OO stuff. The reason that RDBMSs are so pervasive is
because most data can be represented well and in an easy to understand way with
just tables and keys.
Learning
OODBMS techniques is mainly learning how to use another API in your bject
Oriented programming language of choice (well C++, Java or Smalltalk) versus
learning SQL and relational database theory. If people could learn SQL which is
completely unrelated to any other aspect of their programming experience then
adding OODBMS techniques as a skillset would be trivial. Of course, if people
don't realize that alternatives to RDBMSs exist then they won't learn these
techniques. That is more important because management can't find people who have
these skills if developers don't go out and learn these techniques.
Developers aren't the only ones who have to query the database. In my shop,
we have 10-20 people querying the same database. Many of whom have spent a lot
of time learning SQL. Most of the people who need to look at the data are
not able to pick up a new query language quickly enough. SQL is simple
enough to learn. RDBMSs are simple and easy to understand. With an OODBMS,
these people have to be trained on what the heck OO is. This is not an easy
concept for a non-progammer. On the other hand, tell someone that the database
is a collection of tables, and they can easily understand.
Now I just realized you didn't read the
article. People have measured gains in the range of ten to a thousandfold
increase in performance, these are not incremental. Secondly the primary benefit
is that it means you have to write less code and don't have to worry
about multiple paradigms at once when implementing an application.
Sure. I'll believe it when I see it. This sounds like marketing hype to me.
Sounds like someone who didn't know how to program for an RDBMS wrote some
crappy code. Correctly written code for an RDBMS would not experience these
kinds of gains when converted to an OODBMS. The overhead for the conversion
process could be this large, but only if the original code is crap.
7 years ago? Yes, things have changed.
I think the situation has improved since then, especially since many GIS products can use a web browser as the client. There are many opportunities for open source/free software to commoditize the GIS backend & use web browsers as the frontend.
Sure! The problem is that there STILL isn't a really good GIS system for the internet. GIS is dynamic, not static. Half the solutions are based on server side scripting which requires a new download for every view change, addition of layer, etc. The client-based controls/plugins aren't that great either. Most of them just use the same mechanism that the server-side stuff uses. Painfully slow.
The only solution that I have seen that has some REAL promise is a guy at Montgomery Watson who has created flash-based GIS systems. Data is dynamically downloaded. Just don't expect to see it on store shelves anytime soon. :(
ASSholes. Come on. you can do it. I don't want to see crap or fetch. I wanna see Shit and Fuck.
Shit. Is that good enough? You have your jollies now? Try jerking off, it'll get you more jollies than hearing a mormon swear.
Yes, SLC is high in living and low in pay. I know. I lived there once. This is a place where they tell the population that if all the women stayed at home, the wages would go up!
Who is "they" and what the hell are you talking about?
What a fucking joke. Your religion is the biggest joke in the known religious universe. There is undeniable proof that it is shit, and yet those paid assholes in "Church Headquarters" would rather not let you know about it, or how much they make off of you poor little tithing payers (They make a shitload of money- I know, I was related to one of them.)
Now, of course, relation to a person gives you complete knowledge of their business practices. Since you say you were related to him/her it must mean that it was distant relation because otherwise you would have specified your inner connection to the corrupt LDS church more precisely.
Quit while you can, get out. Know that your jesus is never coming
Is this your undeniable proof?
, and that joe smith died in a gun battle
Oh this is news. What do you expect? For him to just stand around waiting to get killed? He was the one that got killed after all.
, and that your precious B Young ordered 100s of people killed.
Oh mountain meadows? Why don't *you* read the history. Young was so far away from the incident he couldn't have given such an order. There's no excuse for what those people did but don't put it on Young's shoulders.
Learn it. Read your History of the Church-- volume 6 if you have the balls.
Stop blaming your adolesent failures and inadequacies on the LDS church and blame the people who actually treated you poorly. The church as an organization is not to blame.
Your statement is vague and gives no evidence for your claims.
The truth is that it is illegal for a non-profit religious organization to use it's "wealth and power" to influence politics. The LDS church CANNOT use it's money to influence the liquor laws in the state. It is against the law.
Now you may say that there are ways around this issue. Members of this organization who have the same beliefs and views may use their influence and power to affect the law. Which is the way the system is designed to work! Citizens in this nation have every right to influence politics in any way they want. But it is the citizens, not the church which is doing the influencing.
Don't blame the LDS church when it has nothing to do with it.
The constitution/bill of rights was designed to protect the individual against the mob. That's why we have it. That's why the courts can declare laws that are accepted by the majority invalid. To protect people.
Therefore, since the liquor laws in Utah have not been declared unconstitutional and are in no danger of being challenged, it would be safe to state that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual.
Your analogy makes no sense. And to compare the some silly law passed in some small town somewhere to a state-wide law designed to protect the social fabric of the community is ludicrous.
This is a nice idea, but not practical. It reminds of the social system that is supposed to exist in Star Trek where people supposedly work to better themselves. Basically what is being said is that people do things that they enjoy and somehow this keeps food in everyone's belly's. The problem with this is that there will always be jobs that people won't want to do for free.
Growing your own food? Are you kidding? Perhaps you live someplace where this is possible. You forget that the average person needs a bit more than a flower box's worth of ground to grow enough food. There's that and the economies of scale make it possible to feed a whole bunch of people with just the work of one person.
The fact that technology has made it possible for us to forget about many of our basic needs because they are very easily satisfied, doesn't mean that technology will always be able to satisfy our needs. It doesn't even do that now.
Paying the legal fees doesn't automatically allow you to break the law. If you have no case and you lose, the court (at least in this case) would force you to discontinue use of the software. The end result being that you've paid the legal fees *and* you don't have any software to sell.
While money can get a long way in the legal department, sometimes no amount of money will win a lost cause.
The point is not that Yahoo shouldn't be allowed to do what it pleases on it's own site. The servers are theirs to do with as they please. The point is that it's too bad that Yahoo doesn't have enough social responsibility to "do the right thing". Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it wrong. And when that happens, people/organizations/companies have a responsibility to stand up for correct principles.
People have to commoditize themselves to eat. We need money to buy food.
It would be nice if the update on this article was displayed along with the headline instead of buried at the bottom of the article. Sounds to me like this company wasn't being slimy, just incompetent and/or unaware. Here's how I see what happened:
1. DSF is contacted by Zealous Open Source Rep.
2. DSF manager does initial ass-covering by stating, "Of course we don't use other peoples code!" He says this because that's probably what he believes and has been told.
3. Zealous Open Source Rep. sees plot to overthrow the Open Source movement and provides DSF Manager with evidence of his company's wrongdoing.
4. DSF Manager actually goes to the basement and asks DSF developper if this is true.
5. DSF Developper hems and haws and finally admits that he was lazy and used GPLed code for something that was supposed to be developped internally.
6. DSF Manager fires DSF Developper.
7. DSF Manager admits to world that the code was copied and takes down the code.
8. DSF Manager gets ass chewed out by DSF CEO for nearly getting the company into a legal mess.
Folks, 99% of these kind of violations are not due to intentional slimyness, just incompetence and lack of knowledge. No right minded company would even run the risk of getting sued over this kind of thing. Even one in India.
Depends on what questions you ask, really. The ideal questions, and the ones we try to ask, are the ones that allow a person to demonstrate their knowlege of programming, data structures, and their problem solving skills. Asking questions like "What's a string?" tend to get you an entirely different class of answers than "How would you have implemneted cfront?"
Agreed... that's what earns them the interview. At that point, they need to demonstrate that they really have learned that certain amount. I have interviewed people who may have been unsung geniuses, but when asked the simplest questions, were unable to explain basic concepts like stacks or linked lists. Either they were unable to function under the slightest amount of pressure, or they were unable to communicate effectively, or they simply didn't understand the concepts. Any one of those, in my mind, is a good enough reason to give someone a thumbs down.
Well, employers that think that way are letting too much ride on the interview. While you can learn a lot about interpersonal skills, etc. from an interview and even get a good idea of their knowledge, the interview should only be a part of the hiring process.
Everyone knows (including employers) that a CS degree is harder to get than a CIS degree. This is for a reason. CS Majors learn more about programming and more in-depth. How can you deny this? If I get 20 CS resumes and 20 CIS resumes for a top programming position and I only have time to interview 10 people, then I'm going to throw out the CIS resumes.
Sorry, there are things that one learns in school that a person is just not going to discover on the job.
Like what? Please explain. I've yet to encounter anything that cannot be taught or learned on the job, or picked up "on the side" while working.
The entire field of Computational Geometry was unknown to me before I took it in school. I poked around in the dark for a long time reinventing the wheel until I found out that someone was already doing what I doing, and a lot better job of it too. I didn't even know to look it up before then. And yes, I did look for resources before I started. But how was I supposed to know to look for information on computational geometry before I knew what it was?
Yeah, a CIS degree may teach you how databases work, but you're never going to just figure out how to write one on the job.
Pardon me - your arrogance is showing. The first people to write databases did figure them out on the job. There are developers in all corners of the globe who somehow manage to limp along and produce some pretty damn good software without the benefit of a CS degree, because they're willing to learn on the job, outside of school. A CS degree is a good foundation for continuing to learn; but do not think for a moment that lack of a degree neccesarily indicates lack of knowledge.
Not necessarily. Many of the concepts used to create modern databases and especially the fast, efficient ones were devised in the research lab by people math, science, and computer science degrees, not by people who had learned to program by trial and error. The "useless" concepts that CS majors are taught are the things that aren't just figured out through trial and error. It's true that advances are made "on the job", but not all positive advances show their advantage immediately and thus aren't pursued in such an enviroment.
There's a difference between learning "on the job" and learing "while working". If a person basically learns the equivilant of a CS while working, then I would say that paper or not, he/she has a CS degree. But most people who want to go this far actually go and get the paper.
A CS degree is about advancing the field. A CIS degree is about learning what has already been learned.
No one answers the sales line.
No one answers the international sales line.
The tech support line is Not In Service
But, the fax line is answering...
On the point of differences between CS and CIS degrees, your points seem to dwell on the assumption that on-the-job training can make up for a lack of training in school. Sorry, there are things that one learns in school that a person is just not going to discover on the job. And these are the very things that take up most of the curriculum in a CS program. Yeah, a CIS degree may teach you how databases work, but you're never going to just figure out how to write one on the job.
title says it all
I actually read the article and although the company mentioned is german, I don't see anywhere that it's even going to be a german show or anything having to do with germany!
it's just you. The visor phone looks cool.
NPR's Talk of the Nation recently did a show on this. It seems that everyone is saying that high-tech companies are pro and all the programmers are anti this bill. That seems to tbe what I am finding around town as it were.
What are people's thoughts? What are the benefits of this bill? Do high-tech suits just want this bill to pass because they are unwilling to hire americans at a competetive rate? Or is there a real shortage of people to hire in the country?
MrMcGibby - Uh
It's important to note that most search engines are just like every other internet buisness, they thrive on the number of hits they get, since most of them depend heavily on advertising dollars. How does a search engine get hits? By improving the results that queries produce. Almost all search engines are so bad anyway that when I find a better one, I'm almost instantly converted. (Hence I use google all the time)
The sorting mechanism used by the search engines is their way of creating a great search engine! It's relatively easy (given enough resources) to catalog web pages. The big problem is figuring out which one of those web pages somebody is looking for.
Asking a search engine to release it's sorting mechanism is like asking Big Bob to release his secret barbeque sauce recipe in the name of improving barbeque sauce around the world.